Deb Gurke posted this as a reply to the "It's a Wonderful Life" post... but it deserves its own thread of discussion...Harry
___________________________________________
I have been thinking a bit about innovation and would like to share this column from the NYT.Time to Reboot America http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html?emc=eta1
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
We don't just need a bailout in this country, we need a national makeover. That is why the next few months are among the most important in U.S. history. I have been particularly concerned about the need for innovation as public schools and the school boards that are responsible for their operation, tend to be rather conservative in their attitudes toward innovation. This is not without some good reason. If school boards stray too far from the desires of the community (and the community tends to be even more risk-averse than the school board) board members are likely to lose their seats at election time. This usually leads to superintendent turnover. When there is turnover in the leadership, change is more likely to be symbolic (as new board members and superintendents bring in new programs), than systemic, which is more likely to lead to long-term change that has as lasting impact on student achievement. Given these circumstances, how can school boards and superintendents encourage innovation without losing their seats? This is one of the big questions I have been thinking about as I try to figure out how to help school board members navigate the whitewater of 21st century school reform.
December 27, 2008 6:32 AM
I think you raise an excellent issue, Deb, not only for school boards and superintendents, but for any public officials (especially locally elected ones)... they are so concerned with protecting their power, that they tend to actually minimize their potential power to take leadership. When people act primarily out of fear (it goes back to IAWL), there is a natural conservatism that stymies innovation.
ReplyDeleteSo, how do we overcome this inherant challenge? I believe it all begins with fostering the development of environments in which risk-taking and creative thinking are normalized, where individuals are affirmed and given space to incubate new ideas and pilot them without fear of losing their jobs. I'm not advocating wholesale change without accountability, but merely identifying a portion of any given budget that is more experimental in nature and where there is transparency with the public regarding how funds are being spent and why you believe, as a leader, this is a worthwhile effort.
I also think this goes hand in hand with an educated and engaged citizenry, one that is strongly encouraged to learn what is going on by giving them meaningful roles in participation. For example, if we want to try a new approach to the middle school curriculum, we ought to post materials that inform the public, create listening sessions and websites for dialogue, and then publi a clear timeline that states where and when pilot efforts will be tried so all are informed. Along the way, we continue to engage public representatives, teachers, administrators, and school board members in discussion about how the innovation is working. At the end of the day, we public what we have learned and implement reforms with a broader understanding (perhaps even some areas of consensus) that reflects collaborative process.
Will people trust leaders who behave in this manner? Not at first. The old paradigm is one of secrecy, self-protection, and political favors. But if leaders sustain this type of approach, it seems to me that they will be rewarded with increased encouragement to be innovative. I'm reminded of a superintendent, a number of years ago, who transformed the way his district was managed so it became a site-based, collaboratively managed district. They went from being a district in which arbitration routinely decided contracts to one where they could do consensus bargaining in under a month. But at one point along the way, he made some important, unilateral decisions that betrayed the trust of the process that had been developed over time... people felt betrayed and called him on it. But, to his credit, he admitted that he had screwed up and violated that sacred trust that had been developed and which he genuinely valued. He sought his constituents' forgiveness and, because he had done so many other innovative things, it appeared to me that he regained a bit of it. Still, the old ways are so entrenched that there were some who remained wary of him until he left the district a few years later.
This is not easy stuff...