It's curious, then, why such little attention has been directed toward applying what we know works to the ultimate purpose-driven, knowledge enterprise: the public school.
While many reformers still ask, "how do we better hold teachers and schools accountable for their performance?" very few ask the one question that really matters: "how do we make our school, or school district, a great place for great teachers to work, collaborate and grow? How do we create an organization-wide culture that will drive sustained, long-term performance by tapping into the skills, knowledge and passions of its people?"
The Need for a Radical Shift
In five years, Chicago Tech Academy (ChiTech) has achieved much to be proud of: 95% of our founding class graduated on time, and 95% were admitted to college. During their time at ChiTech 100% of that class completed a capstone project in computer science, 70% had been matched with a mentor from the tech industry and 30% had completed one or more internships. Working with the top technology firms in Chicago, ChiTech had created a model tech curriculum that is helping to define what a 21st century tech education looks like.
We had even attracted national attention from publications like Forbes Magazine for our ambitious vision to leverage technology, education and social capital-building opportunities to help inner-city kids become agents of change.
Despite these successes our Board, school leadership, staff and Chicago Public Schools remained concerned about just how much ChiTech had achieved in terms of the outcomes that really matter: college completion, career success and happiness.
Key leading indicators, like "on track to graduate" (the percentage of 9th graders who pass all core courses) and college match (is a student attending a college that is just challenging enough for them?) warned of significant challenges for our students in the years to come, post-graduation.
In our first five years, we had radically re-imagined what corporate engagement looks like in a public school setting, and had helped to define technology education for the 21st century. Perhaps it was now time to radically rethink how we teach.
A Paradigm Shift at Chicago Tech Academy
I'll never forget that moment when a teacher-leader on our School Director Hiring Committee said, "I want that woman to be my boss."
In that moment, we all knew we had found the right person to lead our school.
For me, that was also the moment I knew a paradigm shift was underway in our culture--a quiet revolution that will have a profound impact on how our school prepares young people for the future and, hopefully, on how we think about school reform.
In May of 2014 we took a number of bold steps toward radically re-thinking ChiTech.
First, our Board decided to partner with San Diego-based charter-network High Tech High (HTH) to provide coaching, mentoring, professional development and curriculum oversight. One of our nation's leading STEM schools, HTH has developed a high-performing school model, grounded in project-based learning and the radical empowerment of teachers and students.
Second, we asked our teachers and staff to take the lead role in making the most important decisions that would affect the future of our school: hiring a new School Director (their boss), hiring new teachers, developing a new schedule and course catalogue and creating our school's design principles, or core values.
Self-Managed Work Teams in a Public School
To make these big decisions, our staff split up into four self-selected, and self-managed, work teams. I participated in the School Director Hiring Committee.
Once the committees were formed, the groups went through the process of choosing a facilitator, developing goals and a work plan. Then they recruited other staff members to join their team if they felt they needed a greater perspective or range of skills.
Some readers may be thinking, "hold on, involving staff in a hiring committee is hardly revolutionary, even for a public school." While search committees are common in public schools and elsewhere, the difference at ChiTech was the degree of autonomy and authority enjoyed by our four committees. How much autonomy? The one rule I asked the teachers to live by was to see me if they wanted to alter the school's mission, or needed to spend additional money outside of their department budgets.
The experience of the School Director Hiring Committee is emblematic. This Committee enjoyed, essentially, the same authority and autonomy that I would typically enjoy as Executive Director. My participation was limited to the role of facilitator and an as-needed resource (for example, I provided guidance when questions about Board expectations came up; at the request of the group, I conducted initial phone screens.).
After significant soul searching, based on our teachers' experience and goals for the future of their school, the Committee created the candidate profile. It was exciting seeing how the Committee answered the question, "what do we need in a boss?" Not surprisingly they, better than anyone, knew exactly the kind of leadership and management qualities our school needed. The qualities that emerged were the courage to make decisions and lead, the ability to listen to teacher voice, to provide support and coaching to all staff and to hold everyone to high performance standards.
The teachers then decided on the steps in the hiring process itself, from initial resume screen, to candidate interviews, to performance-based tasks. The teachers decided to involve students, too, on an interview panel. Perhaps the most important step in the process they developed was a mock professional development workshop. Each candidate was asked to prepare a 30 minute workshop, on a topic of their choice. Nearly all teachers participated in this step.
After receiving input from the teaching staff, the Hiring Committee met to discuss their impressions of the candidates, and the feedback they received from their colleagues. Though the Committee identified a clear frontrunner, the teachers advanced three finalists to the Academic Excellence Committee (AEC) of the Board for a final interview, knowing that Board members would expect to see more than one finalist.
A Leap of Faith
This process required a leap of faith of teachers and Board members.
Teachers needed to trust that Board members would not "veto" their top choice, and Board members needed to trust that teachers had not screened out more qualified candidates in favor of candidates they felt more comfortable with.
The stakes were high. The outcome of the process would either reinforce a shared sense of ownership and investment in the success of the mission, or result in a violation of a fragile trust--only in its infancy--between teachers and the Board.
The Board interviewed three candidates and were in unanimous agreement: their top candidate was the teachers' top candidate. Far from exercising a "veto" over the teachers' choice, Board members identified additional positive qualities in the number-one pick. Before doing reference checks and making a final offer to the top candidate, the AEC met with one of the teacher-leaders to discuss the frontrunner, further solidifying the consensus.
A Foundation for Shared Governance?
Organizations encourage employee-participation for one of two reasons: to create better "buy-in" for management decisions, or to make better decisions. At ChiTech we've come down firmly on the side of the latter. Employee-participation is important, fundamentally, because it results in better outcomes--whether in hiring new leadership or developing effective curricula.
But as I reflect on ChiTech's experience in participatory decision making, I see the potential for deeper changes. I see the potential for a long-term, structural shift toward a model of shared governance in our school.
When the teachers were asked to choose their new boss, they didn't ask for someone who would be less involved in their classrooms, or who would hold them accountable to lower standards. They approached the question from the perspective of those qualities that would best advance the long-term mission of the school. They looked for the same kind of leader that Board members were seeking.
When the teachers were asked to choose their new boss, they didn't ask for someone who would be less involved in their classrooms, or who would hold them accountable to lower standards. They approached the question from the perspective of those qualities that would best advance the long-term mission of the school. They looked for the same kind of leader that Board members were seeking.
In short, our teachers began to think, not just as employees, but as stewards of the success of their school's long-term mission. When an organization enjoys this type of an "ownership culture," performance isn't driven by accountability (i.e. the threat of penalties or termination for poor performance) but by a shared investment in the outcomes.
That is a revolutionary concept in public schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment