Repetition Does Not Guarantee Perfection

I want to elaborate on the premise of last week’s post, When My Heart Dropped. In it, I expressed disappointment, sadness really, that we may have missed precious opportunities to re-think the why, what and how of public education as we resume in-person instruction following the disruption caused by the pandemic. Specifically, I expressed distress that our rush to “return to normal” could represent the continuation of adult dominated perspectives, at the expense of children and the education they need and rightfully deserve.

I was even so bold as to suggest that our adult-centric system “may be the fundamental flaw in the way we have, and continue to, operate American schools.”

Think about the typical manner that education decisions are made and how they manifest with those who hold the reins of leadership. Generally, a position is articulated from some high ranking entity. This could be the U.S. Department of Education, congress, or a presidential agenda. It might happen closer to home through state education departments, legislatures or assemblies. But, somewhere in the elevated pecking order, a decision, often politically charged, is made on how to address a particular problem or concern. These regulations, these mandates, go through a process of clarification and the establishment of implementation rules that eventually arrive at the local level; typically school districts. District leaders then have the task of fitting these expectations and the applications of the new rules into the realities of their jurisdiction. These juggling matches frequently call into question the allocation of resources, including staffing considerations, which trigger conversations between the district and the associations (unions) who represent the work force, as considerations of work load, compensation and accountability are hammered out. Once, and only when, the adults have finished their planning, deliberations and the satisfaction of their needs, or desires, or wishes, or demands does the initiative begin to touch kids: leaving Billy, Sally, Juan and Kenisha to adjust and quietly comply.

A perfect example of this can be found with the federal education legislation affectionately called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This George W. Bush era legislation was a top-down mandate designed to address a perception that students in the United States continued to lag behind the academic progress of their international peers. It placed pressure squarely on states to assure that students were making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP), as evidenced by how they scored on annual standardized assessments. The states, in turn, put pressure on local districts to perform by publicly labelling schools, based on the student test performance, as being exemplary, satisfactory or needing improvement; with actual punitive consequences if a school stayed in the bottom tier too long. The underlying motivation of all of this, of course, was money. To avoid public shaming, curriculum was re-written and teachers were expected to make certain that their students were prepared to make a good showing on the annual exams: leaving Billy, Sally, Juan and Kenisha to bubble in ovals on answer sheets that may, or may not, accurately reveal what they have learned and can do.

This top-down, the adults know best, approach has been in practice for decades, if not longer. And, we continue to apply it with the introduction of each new initiative as evidence suggests that the previous initiatives did not have their desired result.

Repetition does not guarantee perfection.

I can’t be the only person who sees the absurdity in this approach. In a system that is designed to serve children, one tasked with assuring that each of them will have the skills and habits of mind needed to secure for themselves successful futures, the kids are the last consideration - if they are to be considered at all.

What I have described, as the manner that educational initiatives/mandates are implemented, does not require leadership. It really isn’t about leadership at all. It’s about “doership.” Odd word I know. (I think I made it up.) A mandate is delivered and implementation as required. There’s no thoughtful insight or reflection on the needs of the constituents required. There’s no need to be creative. Innovation, or even thinking beyond traditional borders, isn’t necessary. Just implement, do it - “doership.”

Doership is a far cry from leadership. Kids need, and deserve, advocates who are real leaders, not just doers. Based on my experience, I suggest that true leadership within a school system involves:

• Paying attention to all of the data, both positive and negative,

• A commitment to the needs of every child, in every neighborhood and zip code,

• Embodying the conviction to do what is called for, regardless of conventional distractions or political pressure,

• Assuring that integrity serves as the underlying rationale for every decision,

• Maintain bold and visionary perspectives,

• Hold firmly to unwavering hope, against any and all odds.

We need to balance our practices with bottom-up consideration. And, we need to reprioritize our leadership by flipping the paradigm.

Repetition does not guarantee perfection.

In the new paradigm, the needs of children are considered first; as the driver of all action, rather than as an after thought or relegating them to be the victims of political zeal. Based on real data and quality, thoughtful relationships, the needs of Billy, Sally, Juan and Kenisha with be the primary filter against which every decision is weighed.

While important, the concerns and implications of our actions on the adults in the equation must become secondary. This is not unique to the teaching profession. What takes priority in the medical profession, the needs of the patient or the desires of the physician? What is the greatest concern in a court of law? It’s the due process rights of the defendant. Who is your accountant doing tax returns for, them or you? With children’s interests taking the front line, all other considerations must assume a secondary position. This should never be a surprise to anyone. This leadership stance must be transparently articulated and understood by all stakeholders. The beautiful thing is that this shift in leadership priorities does not disadvantage anyone. If anything, it realigns the commitment of educators which is frequently expressed as “making a difference in the lives of children.”

With vision and clarity on the part of leaders, and granted autonomy from systems to allow schools to do what best serves their unique communities, a new magic can occur. Leadership, real leadership, can prevail to truly and authentically serve Billy, Sally, Juan and Kenisha and provide them, each of them, an education they deserve.