Principals’ Workshop on Leading for Change

On May 12th, I did a workshop with 16 Bay area secondary principals about leading change.

Seems like a contradiction in terms at first since these principals from affluent suburbs and inner cities are often caught in the middle between bosses who tell them to implement district policies in their schools and teachers who want to be buffered from intrusive parents and unpredictable youth. Keeping the ship afloat and passengers happy seems to be the major task, not leading change. But it isn’t a contradiction because these principals—ranging in age from mid-30s to mid-50s and running small high schools, large comprehensive high schools, and middle schools–were mid-career, savvy about organizational politics, and wanted to improve their schools.

So if you are caught in the middle where you look upward to your bosses for direction, sideways to your teachers who do the daily work with students, and outward to parents who believe they know more than you do about schooling–how exactly do you make changes, much less lead others? They knew well the instructional, managerial, and political roles that they had to perform (see post of March 3, 2010). What they wanted to discuss was not these roles but how do you lead change amid contradictory demands from bosses who expect policies to be put into classroom practice when you are utterly dependent upon teachers to get the daily work done.

So here is what I said without the pauses, uhhhhs, and hmmmms:

Leading change begins in your head. Knowing which questions you have to ask about the change you want to make in the school and sharing your answers to those questions with staff, parents, and students is the single most important leadership act you can perform.

Exactly what are those questions?

1. What theory of action is driving the change you want to make?

Every change has an implicit theory guiding it. Behind 1:1 computers, for example, is the theory that using laptops will produce more, faster, and better learning in students and transform teaching. Laying out the theory explicitly to those who are expected to make the changes is a minimum obligation of a leader who aspires to be trustworthy, honest and transparent with those he or she serves.

2. What are the problems you seek to solve? What are your goals? What assumptions are built into the change? What strategies do you intend to use in solving those problems?

Every change is a solution to a particular problem. For example, the problem of low test scores in reading, math, and science on the state test converts easily into the goal of raising the percentages of students being proficient in reading, math, and science.

Every change has implicit assumptions built into it that need to be made explicit. Consider the popular change of creating professional learning communities (PLCs) among teachers. One assumption is that PLCs where teachers observe one another, receive coaching, read and discuss books, will get teachers to alter routine teaching practices.

And then there are the strategies to put the change into practice. Take, for example, the common strategies used in creating small urban high schools of shifting to block schedules to gain instructional time and establishing advisories of 15-plus students for discussion of non-academic issues. Assumptions underlying those two structures are that more instructional time will lead to more learning and advisories will make school more personal, more motivating hereby leading to engaged students who will want to learn and achieve. These assumptions are seldom examined publicly.

3. What capacities (knowledge and skills) are needed to carry out the change? Who has them? Where to get them? No elaboration needed for this question since if it goes unasked then the chances of implementing the change go down drastically.

4. What school and classroom changes have to occur for the policy to be completely implemented?

If changes aimed at improving student performance are NOT spelled out explicitly for classrooms (e.g., changes in how teachers teach, the content of lessons, student behavior), then kiss your change goodbye. Without changes in classroom practices, not much worthwhile will happen.

5. How will you know that changes worked in the short-, mid-, and long-term?

This question asks you have to figure out in specific terms the results consistent with the change that can be reasonably expected over the next months and years.

I ended the workshop with a Q & A where the principals challenged these five questions, asked for evidence to support the claims that I made, and asked me whether hard-working principals caught in the middle could, indeed, ask and answer those questions. I answered their questions the best that I could but to the last question, I said quickly and emphatically “yes.”

And that is what I did with 16 principals on May 12th.

3 Comments

Filed under leadership

3 responses to “Principals’ Workshop on Leading for Change

  1. tim-10-ber

    In your opinion — what makes a strong principal? I am interested in what type of background and experience is needed, in your opinion. Also, does a principal have to be an educator or is that a “nice to have”? Thanks!

    • larrycuban

      Hi,

      There are all kinds of “strong” principals, depending on which of the roles they perform: instructional, managerial, and political. Strengths come in all sizes and colors, so to speak, again, depending on which of these roles are performed well and matched to the particular school they are in.

      If instructional leadership is the primary feature that you want in a principal then being a teacher helps considerably. However, if you want (or the situation demands) someone to concentrate on managerial tasks or political tasks, then a non-educator could fit in satisfactorily. Depends on the school site at a particular point in time. In short, my answer is about the nature of the principalship and the immediate context in which the person works.

      My guess is that this is not the answer you were looking for.

  2. Don’t you think managers have to confront the motivation of their own style and the motivations of their own managers in order to become effective?

    For instance, prioritizing the survival of management frequently conflicts with serving the customer appropriately.

    Wednesday evening, Diane Ravich spoke at Lynn University to a full house. There were no Palm Beach District headquarters officials evident.

    I think emotional buy-in to the official reform movement kept them out. The question above remains.

    I don’t know if you will agree with me that the lessons of From Beiruit to Jerusalem and the Lexus and the Olive Tree apply here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s