Takes Time to Make Time

As I suggested in my last writing, I identified 7 components that form a lever for value add that go beyond cost to benefit. These components came about as I was challenged by CEOs to identify my value-add for products and services for K12 education.

I started with six and later added the seventh - "thought leadership" as it became clearer and clearer that my thinking, mindset, and mental models needed to be informed, challenged, stretched, and is some cases, replaced.

The framework came about from a word picture. Though at the time, the word picture was not about value-add, the more I thought about the need to explain value-add the more applicable the word picture became (Thanks to Dr. Larry Lezotte and Mike Rutherford - you will certainly recognize the application).

The Greek mathematician Archimedes is attributed with saying, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."

Both the lever and fulcrum are essential to making the lift - the length of the lever as well as the placement of the fulcrum.

Raising student achievement and the variables that have the greatest influence in doing so are equal to moving the world. The challenges are many. The great news is that these challenges albeit daunting are not insurmountable.

The fulcrum is value. The relationship of the fulcrum is what differentiates the value-add. Placed strategically, the fulcrum allows the lever to effectively move or "lift" the intended object.

The components of the lever are time, theory, team, training, technology, tools, and thought leadership. My reasoning for shifting from seven different levers as previously published to one is to reinforce that each of the seven albeit powerful has even greater influence as one.

For example, time.

Time as a value-add must not only create and deliver greater time effect and efficiency, it must have proven efficacy in utilizing time differently. There must be more than recognition but appreciation that time constraints are the bane of our existence in education - right, wrong, or indifferent, they are.

To suggest and therefore promote a solution, product, practice or service as a "value-add" with time efficiencies is fraught with conflict - initially. You don't "save" time in education. You feverishly guard or protect time. You avoid or minimize distractions or disruptions of time to repurpose or reallocate time.

There is so much competition for time. As an aside, take a look at Jamie Volimer's work "The Ever Increasing Burden on America's Public Schools" for quick snap shot of all that has been added with respect to what is expected to be taught and learned in our schools.

It is absolutely critical therefore to present time as a value-add within the context of providing a great deal of assistance in identifying what can easily be abandoned or stopped in addition to alignment or harmonizing of processes, practices, or programs.

In a like manner, it is essential to articulate the capacity, confidence and competence capacity building plan - not product training - that is commensurate with adult learning theory.

Further, a deep understanding of the J-Curve theory is required for managing expectations for both implementation and initial results. Often applied and known as the "implementation dip", the J-curve is powerful graphic depiction of implementation correlated with capacity, competence, and confidence. There is always a state of uncertainty, anxiety, and conflict in learning expressing itself more often or not with a dip in performance and results before achieving expected and desired results.

Building capacity to leverage time differently requires courage and commitment. There are no quick fixes or short cuts with teaching and learning. We can accelerate the application of skills and knowledge. We can now more than ever accelerate interventions.

Suffice; it takes time to become more efficient and effective with time. The value-add with time requires a comprehensive plan that incorporates more than just the immediate product offering. Therefore, be careful and intentional when suggesting that “time” is a value-add for your product, service, practice, or program.

Moving Value Add to real Value

We are becoming more and more aware of “value add” as both a marketing and sales component in the K12 education space.  Teetering on so many other powerful constructs, concepts, and practices, “value add” will soon become pithy or trite resulting in little or no “value” to school and school system leaders let alone classroom practitioners.  

Here’s why.

First - Defining “value add” is situational and requires context.  First step is defining what you mean by “value add”.  A new adage - "one person’s value add is another’s expected feature, function or deliverable”.  

Second - Once defined, “value add” must be measurable.  Value so often is in the eyes of the beholder.  Therefore, it is imperative that you understand how value is to be measured as well as the metrics used to determine value.  

If you haven’t thought this through you may find yourself in a conversation that is uncomfortable and undermines any trust capital you’ve built.  Value intelligence underpins the context for defining “value add”.  More on value intelligence later.

Value add goes both ways.

For over 12 years I served as a consulting superintendent working closely with over 100 different companies serving K12 education motivated through providing insights, input, and candid and at times brutally transparent feedback about the “value” of product and services intended to improve the quality of public education.

To be fair, companies would ask me “what would be a value add” that differentiated our product or service from competitors - a great question to ask Superintendents and one that caused me to step back and ponder.  

At first I struggled. I found myself attempting to describe “good weather” only to realize, everyone has their own interpretation of “good” weather.  I need more substance and a way to communicate value add.  Finally, I came across a framework I have modified into a "value add model”.  Here it is -

My “value add” model has seven (7) levers: Time, Technology, Team, Theory, Training, Tool, and Thought Leadership.  Simply, 

Time - the value add must use time efficiently and effectively

Technology - the value add must use technology efficiently and effectively

Team - the value add must incorporate teaming internally and externally with the solution provider - ongoing not “sell and done”

Theory - the value add must be based on grounded as well as evidenced base theory and proven results

Training - the value add must be 90% creating capacity, competence, and confidence in my staff and 10% on how to use the product or service.

Tool - the value add must be a “how” not a “what” with respect to a vehicle, path to expected results

Thought Leadership - the value add must provoke, guide, facilitate, and assist with helping our team and myself in “thinking” different about the work, to know different, and to do different

Each of the aforementioned is worthy of a deeper dive.  Stay tuned - it’s coming.

Suffice it to say, I challenged companies to define and articulate how their “value add” demonstrated each of the seven “T”s.

More often or not, once unpacked, the perceived value add from the company’s perspective was not measurable.  The absence of a means to measure is akin to the “emperor wearing no clothes”.

My challenge, therefore, to both companies as well as school and school system leaders is to define “value add”; and define the metrics and how “value add” will be measured.

Others Before Self - the key to Civility

As we all have become accustomed to at the genesis of a new year – resolutions abound – great intentions, best hopes for better, different and improved.

I want to challenge each of us to go in a different direction. Rather than personal resolutions what if we collectively resolved to make an enduring difference, impact on others – for others?

Making a difference does not have to be “extra” ordinary. In fact, it is in the little things that make the biggest impact. It’s picking up a piece of trash, returning a shopping cart left in the middle of a parking space, opening the door for someone with their hands full, letting someone with a few items go in front of you at the grocery store, or a thank you, your welcome, please – you remember – simple manners, politeness, gratitude, consideration of others, and etc.

In many respects, we have lost or misplaced so many of the attributes of a civil society. So much so, that at least one if not two generations has never experienced in whole the greatness or the power of civility.

Civility is a choice – a conscious decision.

These decisions over time become habitual and very natural. This is as it should be!

Civility begins with each of us. It is not contingent upon others, conditions, or circumstances.

Not so long ago civility was reinforced throughout our communities by common values, beliefs, and practices centered on fundamental truths such as dignity and respect for self and others. It was the expected not the exception.

So, why not?

Teetering on the obvious – home and in ones’ personal life is where civility begins. The second step is in the workplace or our public life!

At the heart of civility is a value proposition that each person has inherent worth, significance and as such is worthy of our respect and dignity.

In the workplace civility is about parking egos, titles, and positions at the door to seek the highest good for others. It’s about being unselfish. It’s about treating others according to the “golden rule”. It’s about not thinking or acting as if you are better than anyone else. As John Lennon penned, “Imagine” what the workplace would look like, sound like, or feel like with a mindset of selflessness - others before self.

Civility in the work place is sincerely and genuinely asking, “How can I assist you?” “What can I do for you?”

Civility in the work place is devoid of sarcasm, insults, and vulgarity. It requires choosing words that edify, encourage, and build up rather than tear down.

It is a workplace that is transparent in intentions and affirms through critical and crucial conversations – it is an environment that is not about the “one” but the “many”.

Suffice; Civility in the workplace is our responsibility - each one of us.

As 2015 unfolds, dare to be different in your workplace.

Lead and serve by your actions more than your words.

Resolve to be civil and model it for others -

"It Continues!"

The now not so uncommon adage that “anything can and will be made political” rings loud and clear – again in public education.  The controversy over Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is a prime example.  It continues to amaze me how such a very simple concept accompanied by an incredible amount of thoughtful organizational, theoretical, and practical construction of content, skill, knowledge, and application culminating in a minimum, common standard for learners across the nation would be categorized as “Satan in carnate”.

We only need to look at the inconsistency of state accountability models and assessments to see why “common standards” are absolutely necessary if the goal is to raise the quality, import, and utility of education for all students irrespective of their geographical location.  A big “if” to be sure!

Common Core was not and is not a manifestation of the current administration in Washington.  It has little to do with the US Department of Education as well. 

My angst over the debate is the level of ignorance associated with demonizing the “core”.  Whether or not a state adopts or succumbs to political pressure to abandon their previous commitment to adopt or not is and should be a state decision.  Yet, make it an informed discussion and debate not a “conspiracy” or federal government overreach – we lived the unprecedented federal intrusion in 2002 with the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka No Child Left Behind).

Sadly, public education is once again a political Ping-Pong ball.  I just don’t get it!  Why we as a nation allow political leaders, pundits and wonks to use children, their future – our future to leverage self-serving agendas that have little to do with moving forward and almost everything to do with going backwards is very discouraging and disappointing.  Yet, we have let this happen.

It did take the ESEA reauthorization in 2002 to make legal what should have always been the ethical and morally good, right, and true aim or purpose for public education.  History will show that NCLB shed a glaring light on the inequities of access, opportunity and achievement of sub populations of students in our nation’s schools.  Further, NCLB literally forced schools and school systems to address the “normalized acceptance” of chronically underperforming and underachieving students. 

Common Core in my estimation is about the evidence of student learning – the application of skills and knowledge – the evidence of learning not being condensed to a multiple choice test.  Rather, application, analysis, synthesis, and creation of new knowledge – the authentic use of skills and knowledge to solve problems and create solutions that are meaningful not perfunctory.

Core is also about unprecedented collaboration of, for, and by educators.  The design of Core was and remains heavily dependent upon educators engaging in ongoing dialogue, conversation, planning, reflection, monitoring, and examination of effective practice and yes, actual cause and effect of teaching and learning.  However, this is a daunting challenge given the illegitimate definition and practice of narrowly defined accountability measures – aka test scores.

I am sorry – test scores are not the “golden ring”.  Rather, learning is and this is as it should be!

Two steps absolutely necessary for implementation fidelity that to date prevent Common Core or new standards to make inroads to “different”.  They are:

1) Granting Permission and

2) Creating New Policy

Permission to change, innovate, and create has not been authentically given to our educators.  I attribute the lack of permission to the absence of policy change at all levels of governance.  Until policy reflects all manner of permission to do different including suspending or changing instructional time constraints (daily as well as calendar year configurations), age based groupings and grade configurations, seat time and Carnegie Unit formulas, as well as required subject or content matter on all sorts of special interest topics added to public schools over the past 100+ years, and the redefinition of accountability to name several, there is really little hope that the intent and best hopes of Common Core will be realized irrespective of good intentions.

Thus, controversy will continue! 

Further polarization and discourse will be ideology driven. 

The victims?

Our students, our learners, and our future!   

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: We All Win!

Thoughts, Comments, and Observations: We All Win!: With the testing season just around the corner, the “race” to equip students with the skills as well as knowledge to b...

We All Win!

With the testing season just around the corner, the “race” to equip students with the skills as well as knowledge to be successful on end of grade or end of course tests will go into overdrive.  The last minute "cram" or "review" for those students on grade level will hopefully "do no harm".  For students whom need a full year of instruction will, in all likelihood, not fair so well!

Teetering on the obvious, students entering a grade level behind their peers or who may have barely passed their previous years end of grade assessments are at the greatest risk.  Students significantly behind are already significantly disadvantaged and unless we have the courage to radically shift our approach to address failed learning as well as the failure to learn, those students will not advance towards standard.  Please note; this is not about closing the performance distance with their peers.  Rather, this is all about each learner meeting or exceeding standards.

The goal, our goal is to have each student, each learner "summit".  Irrespective of how long it takes, the route they take, or order in which they arrive, the goal must be mastery of the standards.

While speaking at SXSWedu two weeks ago, I make the comment that one of our greatest attributes, as a nation is also one of our greatest liabilities - competition.  Competition is part of the American DNA.  We are competitive.  We want to win.  We want to be first.  As the great sports prophet Ricky Bobby stated, "If you ain't first, you're last!"

Competition has served our nation well.  Yet, it has also been a disservice with respect to education.  We know that competition results in "winners" and "losers".  However, this mindset works against the very goal we desire to achieve in education.  Simply put, we can't afford losers as a result of our education system.  We must have winners - all winners.

Lest you think this is idealistic socialistic babble, please consider that a fundamental tenet of education is to raise individually and collectively the quality of life, the quality of community, and the quality of our nation.  We all benefit from an educated society - hence the commitment to providing a free and public education for all.  

Education has been used to "sort and select" individuals or groups of people with respect to "station in life".  I get this.  I've benefited from education.  My children have benefited as well.  However, I do not believe that I have benefited at the expense of others.  My point, our point!  An educate society benefits each of us not at the expense of any of us.

We continue to confuse the issue and therefore are woefully ineffective in addressing the root causes of failure.  We continue to make way too many erroneous assumptions about the causes of failed learning and the failure to learn.  Consequently, we have and will continue to treat the symptoms and wonder why students are not progressing towards meeting or exceeding standards.

I am convinced that until we make this shift in our thinking we will not make the critical, necessary, and essential shifts in our behavior as well as practice for each learner to benefit from the promises of an education.