Exit Plan

A year ago, then Superintendent of School District 57 Brian Pepper fanned out a letter of resignation -- he was stepping down "for reasons of health and opportunity." A year later, we have learned through the BC Ministry of Finance's financial disclosure statements that Mr. Pepper received a sizeable severance and vacation buyout in addition to other compensations including his annual salary, benefits, and so on. The $222,952 severance brought his total compensation in 2015 to $436,082. With the vacation buyout and the $67,411 paid to an acting superintendent (Sharon Cairns) during a medical leave-of-absence prior to his Mr. Pepper's departure, that brings to a total of $319,315 over and above regular compensation paid by the school district for the superintendent resignation in 2015. I have no idea about the inevitable lawyers's fees associated with this kind of business, but that, too, would be billed to the district. $319,000 is is a significant amount for a school district. For example, it is almost three times the amount available to teachers annually in their Pro-d Fund which supports about 85 applicants for conference expenses, subsidizes local professional development activities throughout the year, and pays for an annual educational conference with 1000 attendees.

Normally a resignation of this nature doesn't come with a severance package; it suggest a termination, buyout, or a parting of the ways. The specific circumstances of Mr. Pepper's departure have not been open to the public, so is now the stuff for speculation, which does not really get anywhere useful. Based on my own long and complicated history of advocating for various reforms within our district, I have my own assessment of his tenure, but in this context the best and worst I'll say about him can be summed up with the word "guile" -- a not unfamiliar quality for someone in his position. However, the departure, along with others from among senior administration in the last year, should best be used as a cause for reflection. I wrote a post about some of that back in summer -- the need to take advantage of this change in leadership: http://thielmann.blogspot.ca/2016/06/leadership-change.html. Essentially, it is a good time for our new district administration to examine and respond to twelve ready sources that will help them decide what to do next, including a newly adopted (but largely unexplored) Strategic Plan.

The news about Mr. Pepper's severance led some teacher friends and I into a conversation about what to do when members of an organization need to go, are asked to go, or leave unexpectedly. In particular, when individuals hold key positions, it is not enough to wait for them to go before figuring out the process for replacement -- this leads to rash decisions and often the replacement is chosen with criteria completely focused on the strengths and deficits of the last person in that position. We've heard the same concerns from other school districts, boards of organizations, companies, intentional communities, clubs and associations etc., so we had many people with whom to make assessments and wonder about what went right and wrong before it was clear someone had to go.

What is needed is an exit strategy. How long is too long for a leader to hold power? What are the signs that an organization needs to make a personnel change? Who is responsible for starting a conversation with an individual when things fall apart. It is not as simple as looking to the next people in the hierarchy -- they are often reluctant to act on the data, so to speak, but it becomes less arbitrary when their is an exit plan. Do the existing performance reviews actually have the credibility to identify deep problems and the teeth to do something about it? Does the review process actually make sense in terms of the job criteria? Can it ferret out the difference between practices that need attention vs items that can't be accepted? What kinds of "first steps" are necessary before moving to termination? Is it better to buy out or wait it out? At what point in at the ongoing "power struggles" within an organization do people with the ability to intervene do so? What should be done early on so that legal battles can be avoided? How do you explain dramatic personnel decisions to others in the organization? Is there a dignified way to transition employees or leaders out of an organization?

We wrapped up our discussion by bringing it back to the school system. Sadly, we all know many teachers that made a lousy career choice decision to become teachers. Some need help, and often are willing to take it, but others should simply go and find something else to do. Our system of performance reviews is not up to the task of making this happen, and our collegiate solidarity makes it difficult for teachers to hold each other accountable. Those ill-suited to the profession tend to linger for years or even decades past their best-before date. As one of our group suggested, perhaps we should have a buy-out fund ready to go to provide a way out. It might not be particularly dignified but it would solve some problems. The other, perhaps more serious solution we had is to view important positions as a tour of duty with a set expiration, and that, once served, there should not be a stigma around returning to a "lower position." In the case of many principals and leaders within the school system, it would be great to get them back in the classroom. That kind of change would be hard to ignite... but not impossible. If Mr. Pepper would have started his tenure as superintendent with the knowledge that he had five years to make a difference, and then would have a variety of jobs to choose from afterwards within the district, we would probably have an extra $319,000 to spend in schools. Lots of ways to put it together, but hopefully our district leadership, especially the school board, are cognizant of the need to build an exit plan for all levels of the organization.

Leadership Change

Over the last two weeks I’ve been meeting with a teaching colleague to plan out a one-week intensive SFU summer course for local teachers. The aim of our course is to explore themes in the development of leadership and mentorship capacity among educators. We start with a central question about identity — the self that teaches, the self that leads. A sublime approach to leadership requires that we both embrace and deconstruct who we are as teachers, learners, leaders, or mentors and also that we move beyond our own experiences in order to open our mindsets to new challenges, theories, strategies, and communities of practice. We see leadership much like a backpack — it is filled both with tools of our own design (and the result of our experience) but also the tools we acquire for a specific trek across a specific landscape. We will also emphasize that leadership is differentiated. It is tempting to see (and respond to) a hierarchy in action when we look at an organization like a school district, with certain people selected and even paid to be “leaders.” When we scratch the surface, however, we see multifaceted roles for diverse approaches to leadership, and that some of the most effective forms of leadership have nothing to do with title. Instead, these forms often relate to values and practices involving moral purpose and intention, authenticity and voice, learning-oriented design, interdependence and relationships, and "followership." Nonetheless our recognized leaders, the ones to whom leadership is attached as a job description, bear our special scrutiny and can provide insight as to how power works, and how we can arrive, individually and collectively, at values and practices that are vital to our contexts as educators.

During the same time as my colleague and I are planning this leadership course, we are witnessing that largest change in School District 57 management in at least 15 years, if not ever; an occasion for reflection on educator identity and deconstructing leadership structures if there ever was one. This is the culmination, or perhaps just the latest development, in a dramatic year at the board office. We’ve had a superintendent depart after being on leave, an acting superintendent come and go and come back again, a new superintendent hired from out of province, and similar comings, goings, leaves, resignations, and new hires from other senior staff (i.e. assistant superintendents). Each of these moves is accompanied with a narrative, with dramatic speculation deserved or not, and theories about "why" involving everything from gentrification to palace revolt. Alongside these moves is a significant administrative shuffle between schools, one of largest of its kind in decades. This entire management transition come with some controversy, casualties, and political intrigue (as expected in any organization) but also with the promise of change and renewal. I, for one, am excited about the prospects.

The senior jobs in a school district come with heavy responsibilities. The local (SD57) superintendent and his/her team makes operational and educational decisions with a $130 million annual budget — larger than the City of Prince George, affecting a staff of over 2000 including about 850 teachers, and about 14,000 students in 40 schools. The superintendent also sets the tone for the organization (or is one of many doing so) in terms of foci, labour relations, student achievement, inclusion of all learners, professional ethics, and stakeholder dialogue (notably with parents and the media).

When the current HR dust settles, it looks like we’ll have almost a complete change “at the top” and next year would definitely be the year to expect new directions in the organization. This is new ground — not unlike a clearcut or razed landscape — but also one with new horizons and unpreventable new growth. The stakes are high; in addition to the new management team, the “double down” next year is that we are expected to pilot or implement all of the new curriculum, and make progress towards the “transformation of our education system.” Landscape is apt metaphor — to the clearcut, fresh burn, or blown down patch of forest comes a lush burst of fireweed and other pioneer species -- the stable and mature ecosystem is a long way off and not a guarantee. In the same way, there are many simple yet important short-term measures that can be taken to start anew. Not taken, this landscape will quickly be filled by whatever comes naturally, for better or worse, and the job at arriving at a stable ecosystem (e.g. an inclusive and productive district culture) becomes more difficult. The "seral stage" or period of regeneration will be an unavoidably awkward process with mistakes made and lessons learned. The long-term measures, however, can not be reactionary and will require more consideration and intent.

Perhaps I’m speaking in circles, so to bring this home I suggest that the new management of our district look to these dozen places for insight on what to do next — in addition to their own experience they can fill their backpacks with the following:

1. Strategic Plan. Prepared by an external consultant, and the result of extensive stakeholder feedback, this report contains some fresh ideas and vocabulary about the possibilities for change in our district. The strategic planning itself was held up by years of politics, but the outcome may have worth the wait — but only if it is taken up by senior management. The first couple of pages are boilerplate, similar to what has appeared in District Achievement Contracts of the past. Page 4-7 contain the new stuff, an interesting balance of values and actions. If senior management is looking for a departure from the past, they could start by simply focusing on the six community needs: adaptability, community connectedness, uniqueness, relevance, communication skills, and fairness. All district initiatives (e.g. website, media releases, board room procedures, new programs, policy development, budget talks, etc.) will benefit by being filtered through the lens of these six needs. For some reason the Strategic Plan can’t be found on the SD57 website but it is archived here: http://sd57dpac.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/sd57-strategic-plan-april-26-2016.pdf.
2. Report on Rural Education. We have many rural and remote schools in our district, some just outside Prince George and six others in Mackenzie, McBride, and Valemount. Mainly in 2014 and 2015, some of the rural school staff, as well as their communities and other stakeholders, were consulted about the needs of their schools. A report with great background information and 14 recommendations was created, some of which are practical, others idealistic, and others controversial. One of the latter involves a scheme to increase video conferencing “options” for rural schools —while this is indeed a accepted form of “distributed learning” it has also been decried by the teachers and communities affected as an erosion to teaching and learning conditions in rural schools. There was an attempt this year to force these “options” on schools, but cooler heads and longer memories prevailed — the last attempt at increasing capacity for video conferencing was expensive, seldom used, and unsuccessful. Still, the report contains other viable and practical actions (p. 33-34) — the door is open to experimentation and further collaboration; the stakeholders have stated their commitment to stay involved. For some reason the Report on Rural Education can’t be found on the SD57 website but it is archived here: http://sd57dpac.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016.01.18-Report-Ad-Hoc-Committee-on-Rural-Education-FINAL.pdf
3. Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement. This has been a long time in development and is still in draft form. Once signed, this agreement will guide program development for Aboriginal learners and help address gaps of equity and achievement. At issue appears to be the amount and kind of consultation with local First Nations communities. Surveying other completed AEEAs from around the province, no two are alike although they all share common themes. Most of them have broad support and signatures from local First Nations community leaders. The coming year is the year to get this right and finalize the agreement. Finding an actual copy of the draft AEEA proves difficult. I will post a link if I can find one.
4. Archived District Plans. Each year the school district, through it’s superintendent and approved by the board, releases a variety of reports and growth plans. Among them are literacy plans, rural school plans, Aboriginal education plans, achievement reports, and facility plans. Each one tells a story, and each one conceals as much as they reveal. Nonetheless, the represent issues and foci that were important at the time, and taken together form a useful data Now that the Ministry of Education has changed its reporting requirements (e.g. see http://www.sd57.bc.ca/Documents/Ministry%20of%20Education%20-%20Enhancing%20Student%20Learning.pdf), many of these documents will no longer be written. The various collections of past reports are sometimes hard to find on the district website, or have been removed, but some of them are archived at https://www.sd57.bc.ca/Programs/Reports/Pages/default.aspx.  Probably one of the most interesting (to me at least) was the 2010 DSC Report (District Sustainability). This omnibus report suggested all kinds of cuts and school closures, some of which were eventually approved. The process leading up to the DSC and the process of deciding what to do with it were laden with problems, too many to get into in this space. Suffice to say that there are powerful lessons to be learned from how that all went down.
5. District Achievement Contracts.  Chief among the old documents is the "DAC." The former superintendent referred to these as “compliance documents, written for a general audience but intended for the Ministry of Education; not meant to withstand statistical analysis, but indicative of trends and efforts to improve performance.” Why do these have value for new managers of our school district? They contain powerful, if arguable, statements by former senior admin about our district, including their priorities and a summary of the important work that goes on in the district. It is their attempt to pay attention to what is going on. The most recent of the DACs available on the SD website can be found at https://www.sd57.bc.ca/Programs/Reports/Documents/2013-14%20Reports/2014.07.15%20District%20Achievement%20Contract%202014.pdf.
6. Long Range Facility Plan. The 2015 long-term facility plan is perhaps the most relevant and consequential of past reports. This lays out some possibilities for school reconfiguration in the future, but no actual commitment to close schools and so on. The other data in the report is useful: school capacities, enrolment figures and such -- information that in the past was hard to find without a freedom-of-information request or demand from the elected board. Given the acrimonious nature of the 2010 sustainability process, and the legacy of school closures in SD57 (24 out of 64 school closed since 2001), this document will certainly be put to the test if the topic of school closures or reconfiguration comes up again. In particular, the fate of the secondary French Immersion program will be fun one to watch -- does it stay at the crowded Duchess Park or does it move to the roomy PGSS? The LRFP is archived at https://www.sd57.bc.ca/Programs/Reports/Documents/2014-15%20Reports/2015.05.26%20Long%20Range%20Facility%20Plan.pdf.
7. Recommendations from the Ad Hoc committee on Technology and Learning. This group met in 2014 and 2015 to discuss long standing technology issues in our school district. Their findings and recommendations have yet to be publicly released, or if they have, can't be found (seeing a pattern here?). In an era of mobile technology, web-based computing, and continuous digital innovation and disruption, the school district is still locked in a technology model from the last century: single platform, restrictive hardware policies, and ongoing issues with wireless networks and access by staff to basic functions such as printing from BYOD devices — a model that is encouraged but not supported. There are some serious and specific unresolved technology issues in our district, going all the way back to centralizing of district technology services almost 20 years ago. Thankfully, the world of educational technology has evolved enough that many of these issues really aren’t that relevant anymore. What remains, though,  are ongoing needs and basic questions about access, function, equity, and assessment (reflection/action on what is working and what is not). The newly formed Technology and Learning District Committee has its work cut out for them.
8. The School Board Trustees. This group is responsible for much of the management change this year -- that is one of their official roles -- and are the gatekeepers to the various reports and decisions that have set direction in our district past, present, and future. They have not made all of the decisions or written all the reports, but they have made their mark on them. In the past this mark was most often a rubber stamp, but we’ve seen this role evolve to become more activist, progressive, and engaged. Similarly, the board does not manage the school district (that is for senior administration) but they do have a give-and-take role that can and should involve intervention, co-governance, and advocacy within and beyond the management of school and district programs. A key connection between the board and the rest of the district is in the budget process. The “Extended Committee” approach has succeeded in gaining a more inclusive perspective on the needs of the district (or needs of the students), but is not as successful in translating these intentions into changes in direction. A step is missing — the board needs to have a consistent means of taking stakeholder input from the budget process or other yearly feedback opportunities and creating priorities that are actually reflected in the budget.
9. Employee Stakeholders.  PGDTA (teachers) PGPVPA (admin), CUPE (maintenance), CUPE (support staff) and others. All of these groups were consulted on the criteria for hiring the new superintendent, and this feedback could again be used to see the kinds of values and issues that are important to each stakeholder group. When one or more of these groups speaks up in an official capacity (e.g. at a public board meeting or by letter), management needs to pay attention. If they are at the point of raising an issue publicly, this action has not been taken lightly — there is thought, experience, debate, research, and numerous voices behind their concerns. There are a variety of examples from the last few years to illustrate this point — instances where the board and senior management have been cautioned about the impacts of a particular decision — the initiation of the Northern Learning Centre comes to mind. When management has listened, these kinds of decisions have been modified and the outcome improved. When management has not listened, these decisions have usually resulted in unnecessary failure and “we told you so” moments. 
10. Community Stakeholders.  DPAC (parents), University of Northern BC, Northern Health, City of PG, Regional Districts. These groups, too, were consulted about what the needs of our district and they should be involved in what happens next. For example, the past chair of the DPAC (Sarah Holland) has amassed a very useful collection of research into our school district over the years, some from the SD itself and some from outside agencies. It is telling that in the past, community groups wanting to know more about their schools could face stonewalling by the SD and had to complete freedom-of-information requests to learn what they needed. The flow of information has improved since then, but there is room to improve.
11. Individual staff. Our district contains scores of teacher and administrators that are “students of the organizational history;” that have insight into problems and solutions. Find them, invite them, ask them questions, listen to them, discern what can be learned from them. Getting them to be involved in district-wide solutions will be tricky. Some are already involved — they are practicing leadership in its many forms and in their own way. Others have gone into hiding and need to be coaxed out by an inclusive, welcoming climate as free as possible from politics and penalties for speaking up. One great source of insight from individual staff is the collection of Learning Team and Innovation grants conducted by teacher groups over the last few years. While the grant results are difficult to find publicly, the District Principal of Learning Innovations and the District Learning Commons VP are very familiar with the range and depth of these inquiry projects.
12. The literature. I love it when educational leaders justify a new policy or practice by saying “the literature says…” or "what we see in the literature..." While these phrases are often used as a cover, it does speak to the need for educators to look to theory to help solve problems. New curriculum aside, there is lot of really good stuff being written and practiced about educational reform in BC and beyond right now. We need look no further than the many respected and accomplished educators in our own district and province to help guide us into the literature. Dedicated folks from post-secondary are also ready to help. Experience translates as often to baggage as it does to insight, to the the tools needed to make change. Our leaders need to lighten their backbacks of as much baggage as possible and make room for new equipment. Experience needs to inform our identity as educators, but not predetermine every outcome. Notably, the experience of others is one of the most valuable sources of theory. See #1-9 above!

I encourage our new district management to explore these dozen “places” as they form a vision for next year, or at least accommodate themselves to the various visions at play in a complex organization. To add to the district-wide “year of change” I’ll be sharing what we put together for this SFU leadership course in terms of literature and learnings. Here’s one little gem — an example of what happens when leadership is distributed. Thanks to my colleague Trina Chivilo for sharing this with me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYKH2uSax8U.

How then to shrug and walk away

Strange as this may seem, since the return to work in BC schools after a long labour dispute, school boards across the province have been asked by the public education employer's association (a government-controlled body called BCPSEA) to give extra vacation time to principals and vice-principals for the perceived extra work-load during the teacher job action and strike. This information was revealed at our local public board meeting on Nov 25th and has been a topic of discussion in BCPSEA circles, among administrators, and among #bced tweeters for some time. I'm not sure how many boards in BC took up this cause, but in my school district it appears to have been a closed-door decision at some point between BCPSEA's request and the Nov 25th board meeting. I guess the board forgot an important and necessary step of releasing the outcome of their talks (the decision to award vacation time), thus putting administrators in an awkward position of being informed of their extra holidays but in theory not being allowed to know about it. Imagine the awkward moment when a principal puts in a leave application for a day off for which he or she is not supposed to be aware.

At any rate, after the public board meeting we now know about it and can begin to consider why it is that managers should receive extra vacation time when employees engage in job action. The irony in this situation is that with empty schools -- almost no staff and no students for 5 weeks -- administrators can hardly be said to be overworked. No doubt concerned parents made their usual phone calls, and everyone left in the building had to scramble when the government ordered report cards to be salvaged from disrupted school year, but I'm at a loss to figure out how this scenario translates into the need for extra vacation time. The conversations I had with principals and vice-principals during the job action (the ones that stopped at the picket line to talk) confirmed this -- they wished us well and acknowledged that it was a bit dull on the inside without staff and students. There were similar comments about Phase 1 -- the modified work-to-rule that preceded the full strike. While management had to pick up extra supervision duties (except for recess, which they cancelled), they also had no staff or committee meetings, no emails with teachers, less paperwork, no involvements with learning teams and other special meetings. There was perhaps some new stress, but no more that what we all felt, especially those having to defer mortgage payments. Maybe it's about danger pay -- there was the prospect of zombies showing up to summer school after all. Adding to the BCPSEA bizarro, we now see that stemming from the same time period when BCPSEA was taking 10% of teachers wages by locking them out of mainly voluntary duties, administrators are being gifted vacation time for... um, for what I'm not quite sure. Who comes up with these things, and which of our trustees voted in favour of this?

Recently I came across a "Michael Fullan" graphic (shown below) from the Nov 14th BCSSA/BCASBO (educational leadership) conference that encouraged districts to pursue "lateral capacity building, a culture of trust and collaboration, and building connections with teachers as activators." At the end of the strike in September we also heard from the BC government that they wanted to patch up the relationship between teachers and the employer after the mudslinging during the job action and the turbulent history going back 12 years. In light of this, I'm trying to think of an angle from which it does appear that BCPSEA's request to compensate management (while each teacher gave up $1000s in wages) seems cynical and ill-timed.

Why do I care? Why should others care? First, there is the fairness of a decision to reward management for a labour dispute -- profiting from another employee group's loss. This is not fair to management -- I know for a fact that many do not want to be put in this position again (administrators were gifted with an extra 5 days vacation during the previous job action in 2011), and it is not fair to teachers. I also care because the decision does not seem like a positive step towards improving our education system and mending relationships, which should be a priority for both school boards and BCPSEA. This sets us back.

As a background note, I have been a public education advocate in earnest for about 4 years, an observer and intercessor on local issues for about 7 years, and an active agent for educational change and mutual accountability for my entire teaching career. My spouse was a local school trustee for the last 3 years and we share many of the same beliefs about how our education system can be improved. That has led to some awkward moments over the last few years because she knows stuff that I can't (and don't want to) know about, so a careful dance has been necessary, and yet we have also discussed the things she can talk about because we are both interested in organizational health and the evolution of education.

She is finished with being a trustee now, and we don't have to walk that line anymore. I can see her stress levels easing off by the day, and I'm even feeling a need in myself to back away from the advocacy role and devote more of my attention to creative pursuits, my family, and my students. Maybe by the time the next labour dispute, teacher strike, or local hot issue flares up we'll both be able to join the ranks of people who are able to shrug, block it off, and carry on our way. Not likely, but definitely worth a shot.

As I have sometime noted at the end of blog posts over the last decade, if anyone has comments, corrections, or concerns with what I've written, please leave a comment below or contact me. Having recently had my hand slapped for apparently saying too much about this topic at the wrong time and place, I thought it was important to craft a "slow" piece on this topic. My thoughts can be summed up in one statement: if the BC Government, BCPSEA, and local boards actually want to rebuild trust and "develop lateral capacity" they need to see these beliefs visited upon all of their decisions that affect the organizations in which we work (together).

open letter PD

Open Letter to SD57 Trustees and Senior Learning Team:

Recently I learned that Senior Admin has recommended a cut in funding for the Pro-D Fund Administrator (PDFA) position in SD57. Trustees need to be aware that this cut will come at significant cost to teacher growth and work with students. For starters, without coordination the Teacher Pro-D Fund will require a new dispersal model that does not pool funding or allow the extensive organization and leadership currently taking place -- an unravelling of years of PGDTA Pro-D policy and a cooperative relationship between teachers and the school district.

This relationship has been positive in the past because each group that contributes to the "suite" of Pro-D in SD57 does their part well. District In-service and professional learning initiatives are focused on implementation of district goals and provincial curriculum -- that's what C&I is for and it does it well. Teacher-led Pro-D is something different -- it is the professional learning that each teacher chooses for themselves to affect learning in their classrooms -- every district in the province recognizes this, and also respects the difference between in-service (implementation of requirements, a board responsibility) and professional development (teachers have autonomy over their Pro-D, their Pro-D Fund, and their Pro-D Days; this is in contract). This also works well in our district, perhaps better than most in the province, because the Board has funded a coordinator position for the last 18 years and this insures accountable and purposeful use of the Pro-D Fund and provides leadership and organization for teacher-led Pro-D. Teacher-directed Pro-D will not go away (this is in contract), but it can certainly become ineffective and less accountable without coordination. Our set-up is the envy of the province not because of the budget (as you'll see below, teacher-led Pro-D is poorly funded in SD57 regardless of whether there is a PDFA position attached to it), but because it works.

Here are some of the main items that will be lost if the PDFA position is not funded:

1. Application process for Conference Travel (approximately 100 teachers travel each year for Pro-D they can't get in the North) 
2. Rural School Travel Subsidies (Mackenzie, McBride, and Valemount would not otherwise be able to access Pro-D events in PG and beyond) 
3. Involvement in Mentorship Programs (including two new programs co-funded and co-created for next year) 
4. Year-long Pro-D Facilitation (e.g. Robson Valley Mini-Conference last Fall, a Northern BC New Teachers conference next Fall) 
5. Communication on Pro-D and Collaboration on Shared Projects (teachers, administrators, C&I, DLC, AbEd, SetBC, CUPE EAs, etc.) 
6. Spring Fling Educational Conference (the organization and aftermath of this multi-district event is a 6-month process that flows from one desk) 

I can expand on these if you wish, but I will assume for now that you have a sense of what each of these involve. You can also learn more about how Teacher Pro-D is structured in our district at http://pgdta.ca/pro-d.

The district spends over $1 million in Pro-D and Travel each year, but only a small portion of this is directed (by contract) towards the Teacher Pro-D Fund.

The current district investment in Teacher Pro-D is around $150,000 -- $107,000 in the Fund and about $43,000 to buy out three blocks of time for a teacher leadership position. This PDFA position is responsible for the careful administration of a fund but beyond that has the "justification of time" to be fully engaged in the professional growth of teachers and their work with students, as evidenced in the weblink provided above. Like other part-time, half-time, and full-time non-enrolling positions in the district, the PDFA supports student learning and building capacity among educators, and in fact reaches and affects more teachers and their practices over the course of the year than most district-released positions. Through shared projects and the Spring Fling, the work of the PDFA also affects other employee groups. This work used to be 0.75 FTE and is now 0.5 FTE but there really has been no reduction of roles or work with teachers.

$150,000 is a small amount for a district our size and a shoe-string budget for the amount of professional development we support. It is a lower investment per teacher than virtually every district outside of the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island -- they typically pay less because travel costs for conference are very low. For comparison SD27 (Cariboo-Chilcotin), with less than half as many teachers as SD57, has a Teacher Pro-D Fund valued at $172,000 (budget, TTOC time, and 0.4 FTE position for a coordinator). Incidentally, this is the only other district in the province with a similar level of PD Coordinator release paid for with district funds -- they use their district-supplied Funds to release 2 days per week for their Teacher PD person. Some districts have smaller release arrangements (but do not attempt the roles that we see in our district such as conference travel approval and conference organization) and some large districts have attached a "Pro-D portfolio" to union-released table officers. SD57 is somewhat unique, and as a result we have a better Pro-D set-up than most other districts in the province -- it is a recognized drawing card for new teachers despite the low overall investment from the district.

Cutting a third of this investment in teacher professional development will have lasting harm on the positive relationship and momentum for professional learning that has developed in our school district. Our district may have its challenges, but one thing we do well is professional development. This cut would also send a chilling message to teachers from senior admin and the board about the value they placed on teacher-led professional development.

I have very much enjoyed the experience of working with teachers this year on their designs for professional growth and improving student success. I have also enjoyed working with others in the school district on shared projects, including plans for next year that are now in limbo: organization of a Northern BC New Teachers' Conference, funding and support for a Math Conference, and involvement in two new programs for mid-career teacher mentorship ("Learning Alongside" to address areas of challenge, and "Fresh Air Days" to allow teachers to observe and collaborate with teachers working on similar problems).

Within the "suite" of Pro-D in SD57 we have diverse and complex district, school, cross-school, and group/individual teacher-directed goals for professional development. Each is different -- by contract they have to be different -- e.g. the difference between BC Edplan implementation (in-service on paid time, board responsibility) and teacher Pro-D (autonomous, can take place on PD Days and teachers' own time). The first three are very well funded in our district, and have in fact grown substantially in each of the last four years (e.g. C&I is now up to 23 members at various levels of release). The last area, teacher-directed pro-d, has done very well on a limited budget for many years, and could soon be cut by a third with the loss of the PDFA position. A very minor shift in the way Pro-D is funded among these four areas is all it would take to keep the PDFA position. I encourage the trustees to include a recommendation to make this shift as part of their budget amendment directives that result from ECOW (Budget Consulation).

Feel free to get in touch or respond with questions. This should not be a decision that is made without discussing "what next" with the affected partner group. In the very least I urge you to fund the position for another year in order to allow time for discussion on "what next." If the position does disappear, there are layers of policy to unwind and many actions to consider. Disengaging from district involvements or shared projects, and transitioning to any new form of Pro-D Fund dispersion, record management, and travel application, etc. will take time. This needs to be done respectfully and carefully as will the explanation to teachers, conference presenters & vendors, and other contacts from our educational community and elsewhere who have become accustomed to the excellent Pro-D relationships and opportunities over the years.

Best regards,
Glen Thielmann

BCED Leadership Conference a Year Later

Last year, I wrote about my experiences as a participant and presenter at the BC Superintendent's Association BCED Leadership Conference. I had hoped that other SD57 participants would offer their own perspective, but I am still left wondering how our district staff and trustees felt about the relative progress of our school district in light of the stunning exemplars from around the province. I would suggest that we have three major challenges that stuck out in comparison with other school districts:

1. Need to pursue more creative and meaningful experiments in collaboration, both formal and informal. The idea of a regulated collaboration system with prescribed topics sits on the ridiculous end of the spectrum -- there were a few districts doing this -- do any of our school still do this? We need "co-creative" habits modeled at all levels, and active support for any group that embarks on a promising path moving from "sharing of practice" to "joint practice development." For example, the practice shared by David Hargreaves of one school staff visiting another school’s staff at work (and vice versa) led to diverse collaborations. Not suggesting we try this, but asking the question about what culture and design would need to be in place for this sort of thing to happen in our district? The need exists from the classroom to the boardroom. Simply acknowledging that we interact with partner groups is not enough; we should move into an interdependent relationship where we actually meet each other's ambitious goals. What actions would result if we asked powerful questions about the strengths of and challenges to our collaboration across the organization?
2. Need for more thoughtful planning on technology. Our narrow focus on managing systems, maintaining network integrity, controlling platforms, reducing costs, and banning devices to comply with backroom purchasing decisions are holding us back. We need free-wheeling, inclusive, formal discussions on integrating technology into learning (to compliment the informal professional learning on the topic that already happens), and a support plan that begins with pedagogy. One the elephants in our room is the inexplicable and hushed decision to ban ipad purchase requests (and other devices and technologies) from principals and teachers for student use. Another elephant is the collapse of district-wide educator teamwork on tech philosophy and implementation -- the platform or devices is not the issue, it is the avoidance of a pedagogical discussion that leverages technology. The once-vibrant culture for collaboration on technology in our district died a few years ago and we are now left with an appalling lack of interaction between teachers and district leaders on technology. The examples across the province showed how good tech blends into the background of solid teaching and learning, but nonetheless requires district-wide dialogue, planning, training, support and shared decision-making. Every district that told me they had a BYOD (bring your own device) philosophy also had a complimentary purchasing strategy based on the expressed needs of educators. Our "prime directive" with tech needs to shift from network security & standardization to teaching & learning, creating & collaborating. These are not incompatible but the priority is important. To be blunt, the longer our school district sits on these issues, the more we losing technology capacity, educator excitement, and student interest.
3. Need for improved communication and celebration of success. We certainly saw amazing provincial evidence from blended learning programs, attachment strategies, environmental and community connections, innovation with technology, collaborative practice, and students showing leadership. What’s happening in SD57? For educator examples, we have had some success with the mentorship program and learning team grants, but they are for the most part well-kept secrets. For student examples, each school I'm sure is doing uplifting work with kids -- but the success is often hidden. Adding more leadership structures or responsibilities is not necessary, we just need to "release the hounds" and benefit from the energy that is already at work (and often at odds with dominant thinking). We need to keep working on developing social media, website, news media and conversational connections to share our good work with the larger stakeholder community that supports us, as well as for our own professional learning and work with students.

In short, if we want to talk about 21st century skills we have to plan for them and model them ourselves. Our province is pervaded with high quality examples, no need to look very far to see high bars for collaboration, tech planning, and communication. We have a long way to go here, but we also have lots of positive examples in our midst, thought often hidden among the underbrush. I was, nonetheless, proud to represent our district because the people I work and learn with place a high priority on the development of all children and generally have a good sense of humour... they put up with my blog posts, for example. It would be awesome, though, to get even a single response from any one of the folks who attended the leadership conference. Sending a dozen or so delegates to this conference cost our school district about $18000, and while there is no formal duty for senior admin and trustees to publicly share what they learned or respond to a fellow delegate, I am puzzled as to why they would not. This is not "holding your feet to the fire" this is a genuine invitation to dialogue... teachers, principals, parents, even students are interested to know what educational leaders get from a professional learning experience, especially one that centered around how schools and districts are implementing personalized learning and the BC Education Plan.

teacher evaluation

I have been appointed to a new School District 57 committee to discuss what teacher evaluation might look like over the coming years. I'll edit this post once I get more information on what that process looks like (and once I get to the pre-reading!), but I'd like to start by soliciting some input from other teachers (and others in the educational community).  I assume the committee will include representatives from the employer (e.g. senior administration), principal/vice-principal association, and DTA exec with teachers (Debbie Page and myself), possibly a trustee and maybe others (?).

What issues do you see as we approach this topic? What questions do you want raised? Do you know of successful evaluation models we should consider?

Please leave a comment below if you'd like to register some input.  Our first meeting is Monday March 11th.

Here are some of my preliminary thoughts and questions as I give first consideration to this topic:

Issue #1: Diverse definitions, expectations, and competencies for professionalism

Standards exists, but how do we apply these to practicing teachers who typically define their own challenges and solutions? Within accepted standards, which goals and strategies take priority, those defined by the Ministry? School District? School? Teacher? How do we resolve stark differences that may exist between philosophies of education? What critieria should be used to assess competence? How important is mutual agreement on criteria when evaulation takes place? How important are the qualifications, skills, or experience of the person or persons conducting evaluation? Should the process be "blind" to the evaluator and evaluation subject, or should each bring something of their own skill-set and identity into the evaluation design and process?

Issue #2: Competing goals for professional evaluation

Is evaluation a means to identify problems that teachers are experiencing? Is evaluation a refocusing tool to bring classroom practice back to student development? Or to a position more in tune with a goal or philosophy (see issue #1)? Is it a means to identify opportunities for growth by the teacher (and on the teacher’s terms)? Is it possible to lay out agendas in the discussion process, or during the evaluation process itself? Perhaps we need more than one option for evaluation – a different tool for different evaluation scenarios -- for they are not exactly the same.  One can’t simply say the focus is on improvement vs discipline… if there is a role for both, this must be clear. We should also be careful to avoid educational cliches about "learners" or assume that we all agree as to the meaning and importance of terms like AFL, differentiated instruction, 21st century learning, etc.

Issue #3: Follow-up on evaluation and role of growth plans

What happens after an evaluation? Does something need to happen (and what would trigger this)? Is there an expected role for growth plans? How do we make this process positive, meaningful, and relevant? Is it important to make this process simple? How can instructional leaders model effective practice (e.g. through use of their own growth plans)? What implications does the evaluation process have on other aspects of our system? For example, if a problem is identified during an evaluation that can be traced back to the workplace (i.e. school or district contexts), is there an expectation that something will be done to repair the context that may be triggering a problem? How else might the evaluation process actually build a more positive work climate and culture of improvement in the school district?  For example, might teacher evaluations be paralleled with administrative evaluations?  Another example, could we use voluntary test or pilot evaluations to explore models and publicly celebrate the work done by teachers?

Please feel free to add to this or challenge what I have written.

Effective Professional Development

Our School District 57 Superintendent Brian Pepper recently posted a blog about Effective Professional Development. While his blog does not currently allow comments, he notes in an earlier post that "this blog, if you can even call it that... will not be interactive. I just don’t have time to read, respond and monitor the interactive comments... I am confident you will be able to make your views known in other locations!" I'm not exactly sure if this refers to views about what he has posted or just views in general, but I thought I'd go with the former and take up the challenge to respond to some of the observations in his recent post on Professional Development.

Brian discusses Helen Timperley's book Realizing the Power of Professional Learning and the knowledge-building cycle of inquiry that promotes valued teaching and student outcomes:

Timperley’s book certainly adds credibility to the process our district has been using for some time: learning team grants. The grants’ primary purpose is to support teams of educators working together on inquiry-based learning that will be utilized in the participants’ classrooms. In addition, the grants create opportunities for teachers to work together, to learn from each other, to create and to innovate. The rich discussion and sharing of successful practice is motivating, deepens understanding about the process of learning, heightens awareness regarding the critical nature of assessment, and often leads to improved results for students and improvement in teaching practice. This year over 150 of our teachers are working on learning team grants, in the areas of curriculum and instruction, technology, aboriginal education, play-based learning and assessment.

We need to celebrate and share this important work in a more effective manner moving forward. We need to direct more funding into inquiry-based learning initiatives. We need to expand the circle of involvement and influence beyond the school and district and into a province-wide professional learning conversation and interconnected professional learning initiatives that benefit our most important resource: children!

I'll respond specifically to the use of Learning Team Grants (LTGs) and the need to celebrate and share this work. Our district's use of LTGs started about 10 years ago with what were called Action Initiative Grants, essentially release time for teachers who wanted to work on shared inquiry. We also had something called Technology Innovation Grants that offered funding and release time for teachers who wanted to employ some new technology-informed practices with their students. The LTGs succeeded these grants and are now the default means for teachers to get time away from class to work on curriculum & instruction projects. The other means available are to seek release or lieu time from a principal or the Curriculum & Instruction department directly, or to seek an Inquiry Project grant from the Pro-D fund administered by the teacher's union. This idea of taking a bit of time to sort out pedagogy and hone our craft is not new, it has been going on for decades but has often been arbitrary... "please sir, can I have a day off" kind of thing. I think a more formal process like the LTGs is a good move, it provides the potential for accountability, collaboration, and student-centered action.

The part where LTGs are not working, as Brian suggests, is the celebrate and share part. I've informally polled a few elementary and many secondary teachers; there are clearly some misgivings about the quality and quantity of work being done. The majority of these LTGs appear to be secrets within their own schools, let alone the district level, and we have no established means of communicating either their presence or the results. Our staff email system, primitive locked-down websites, and limited social media presence are not up to the communication task, and as a result the LTGs live and die in small pockets of usefulness. A colleague recently told me that he thinks he is part of a Math LTG but is not quite sure. Is he one of the 150? The "best-kept-secret" problem reminds me of the S.A.L.T. group we used to have at our school. I think the S stood for Secondary but it became known as the "Secret Assessment Learning Team" because most staff had not heard of it, did not know what the acronym stood for, did not know how it was formed, or what it involved. Why are we so shy about professional learning? We do have an "All Around Our Schools" feature in the local paper; this gets into some of the fun events and student activities, but is not really scaled to delve into the "province-wide professional learning conversation." More deliberate and interactive tools are needed to make the connection. My wife had a good suggestion -- a searchable database that would allow teachers and others to scan past and present LTGs and other professional learning to find good matches for their own needs. Something between a list on a website and a wiki perhaps. In the olden days, educators working on curriculum projects would type up their reports and photocopy their resources into a booklet that would be stored at the District Resource Centre and at schools. My classroom bookshelf still has some of these now-dusty publications: local history, enrichment, critical thinking in Social Studies, student questioning techniques, etc. with names on them like Garvin Moles, Calvin Cosh, Keith Gordon, and my dad Walter. What astounds me is that 30 years later, in our hyper-connected digital world, we're still having issues archiving and sharing our professional learning.

Two further complications are the LTG criteria and format. The LTGs are limited to release time and won't cover other costs such as professional materials or technology, so the only way to take advantage is to prepare for a substitute and dodge class (which many teachers are loathe to do). One of our district LTG groups was surprised to find that their agreement to meet on their own time in exchange for some software related to their inquiry would not be met. That LTG, then, had a financial value of $0; a definite challenge in the "celebration" department -- might as well have stuck with twitter. The dilemma is that enrolling teachers (that have kids in seats everyday) have to incur substitute teacher costs every time they want to interact. 150 teachers using three release days costs the district about $135,000, more than the entire Professional Development Fund for the district's 900 teachers. How do we turn face-to-face professional learning from something one needs to escape their class to do into something embedded in our day-to-day routines? How do we schedule and fund that? Many schools have tried various schemes over the last 10 years to build "collaborative time" into the weekly schedule, but a variety of issues have made this divisive, especially at the secondary level. How might we listen and learn from the schools where formal collaborative models have resulted in "buy-in?" How do we remove the coercive elements (and major source of division) from collaborative models and shore up our capacity for mutual (peer) accountability?  Is there a role for the board to examine timetable/calendar adjustments to afford more paid time for professional learning?

The format can also be an issue -- it seems that all it takes to be approved for an LTG is that one frames a project idea in the form of a question... this apparently makes it an inquiry. Teachers and educational leaders often have the bad habit of confusing asking a question about work that is already firmly established and classic inquiry-based learning, where the outcome is less certain. Perhaps we've developed this habit from 10 years of writing school growth plans that muddle this process. We play a lot with data without a clear understanding of correlation versus cause, and almost none of what we write down in school or district plans would withstand statistical analysis. That's a problem outside LTGs, but I wonder if our notion of academic inquiry and action research is related to our lack of training and leadership in these areas (spoken by someone who failed a first-year stats course!). One way the district could improve the quality of inquiry is to provide facilitators, curricular specialists, or mentor teachers (different roles) that are available to meet with LTG participants. I have seen the value of this recently at Pro-D Rep training with a BCTF facilitator Teresa Fry (and our Pro-D chair Kim Rutherford) who guided us through the Inquiry Project model and a basic EdCamp. Adding experts to the groups would, of course, require an investment in more release time, part-time or full-time secondments, or other arrangements and appointments.

These LTGs provide nice little breaks for teachers to "work on stuff" and as a result are greatly appreciated, but do we know much more about them? A more thorough sharing of how they turn out is crucial for providing accountability for these projects; having a public audience for one's work is a very effective way of kicking up the quality of reporting and amount of professional pride invested in the work -- and helps ensure that the focus is on students success. If one digs around on the district website it is possible to find a list of the LTGs from the 2011-12 school year. To be blunt, many of them appear to be release time for teachers to do lesson planning, project design, and other work they would or should do anyways.  I can understand why that appeals to busy teachers -- this is a chance to work creatively with others and build some student activities that would be arduous without the collaboration and extra time... I've used release time for this "relief" before, so I am not condemning the process. We should be careful, though, to mistake this for innovation. Some of the LTGs appear to be replacements of district committees and ad hoc leadership groups that used to exist -- district-wide professional development and meeting time for core interests like literacy and numeracy. Among the LTGs from last year, there are a few that were probably innovative, but we have no way of knowing without the sharing and celebration part -- the lists do not contain detailed project descriptions or links to their work.  I also do not know of any formal invitations to share their work, although anyone can host a session at our annual Professional Development Conference (next one March 8, 2013). The LTGs will become less invisible as we make sharing habitual and not accidental. The tools and even the provincial network are already in place; many of our teachers and educational leaders are engaged at the district and provincial level through Social Media and their own channels of communication -- increasingly educational leaders in other parts of the province are interconnected and accessible. Our district has a lot of ground to make up -- an uncontroversial place to start is a concerted effort to bring the hidden success stories into the conversation. Much needed and more provocative work can follow.

This is also a great opportunity to forge a positive culture, to reverse some of the malaise that afflicts true partnership between the various employee groups in the district. We need to break the cycle with a few positive habits and narratives around professional learning that serve as a common "hearth" for us to hear each other and set new directions. To start, the innovative stories from among these 150 teachers should be profiled, posted, and praised -- tweet, blog, web, news media -- there has got to be at least one great story a month of how district-supported teachers are innovating and bringing benefit to students. I had a chance to drop in on a LTG group that was using a "critical friends" approach to review each other's designs for project-based learning. It was well facilitated, exciting for the participants, and had as an outcome the subtle turning of familiar designs for learning into innovative plans. I also had some lingering doubts and questions addressed about the value of the "project tuning process." This is what we hope for out of "co-creative" collaboration. How could this group's success be shared with others? How could we speed up the rate of "contagion" related to their excitement? We seem to be doing a good job with Timperley's knowledge-building cycle at the classroom level and likely within these LTGs, but are we serious about trying this openly at the organizational level? How often do our staff meetings capture this cycle?

Brian relays a good question: “What will it take for what we know to change what we do?” I would suggest that what we know is that some of our systems of communication and collaboration are broken and that we've known this for many years. The "sustainability" process of 2010 and last year's labour dispute exposed some wounds across all employee groups that have been long untended (or even unexamined) and as a result we deal with a high level of distrust and reluctance to engage at the organizational level. Knowing this has been a keen push for many teachers and parents to change what we do. I've seen the board of trustees (that includes my wife Kate!) and others make some strides here, but much of the change that needs to happen takes place outside of the board's usual gaze. The realization of broken systems and seeing the potential for positive change has spurred me to get more involved with educational advocacy and professional discussions over the last five years. Thankfully I am not alone in this. It has also been the impetus for thinking about what my own professional growth plan should look like and to consider how I can step up my approach to professional learning and leadership at the district and provincial level.  The "need to celebrate and share this important work in a more effective manner" also poses a challenge to the work of our district teacher's Professional Development Committee. We try to do a lot with limited funds, and much of the work is done in isolation of the LTGs even though the focus is very much the same.

I have seen plenty of vibrant "interconnected professional learning" in our district and elsewhere -- learning teams, personal learning networks, and individuals that keep being awesome regardless of what goes on around them. Maybe the informality of this work is what makes it work? But if we want to turn these into "interconnected professional learning initiatives" that are part of the "province-wide professional learning conversation" we first need to get out LTGs out of the closet, or look at other means of supporting and communicating professional learning. Too much of the best work in our district happens "underground" -- we need to be more deliberate about coaxing educators out of their bunkers. There are barriers that need to come down (I've blogged about that ad naseam), but more than that we need coaxing that is welcoming and progressive -- more freedom and means to speak freely about our issues and successes, more freedom and means to experiment wildly with improvements to teaching and learning conditions, and sometimes simply to temper wild ideas with actual research and planning. How do we do this? What does that look like? Where's the best return on our effort or bang for the district buck?

Challenge: What would you change about how our district celebrates and shares the work of teachers? What would be the most effective use of district funds to support professional learning among teachers and other educators that results in a benefit to students? Feel free to comment, share the success of your LTG, or relate your own experience if you are from another jurisdiction.

koolaid vs wild mushrooms

BC Educational Leadership Conference Fall 2012 - Nov 15/16 - Participant Report

I walked down Burrard Street toward the harbour last Thursday with thoughts of tall buildings and tall trees, the sight of well-dressed wealthy folk getting somewhere fast and street-tested poor folk in no particular hurry. A soft 7 a.m. traffic-sound bounced off the buildings like sea-breeze, broken by the cry of gulls. Sitting there behind my senses was the question of what to expect as I stepped into the Vancouver Convention Centre for the BCSSA Fall Conference. I expected to be greeted by jugs of koolaid but soon found I would feast on wild mushrooms. Let me share the difference between the two and what I took from this big gathering of "BCED" leaders -- senior administrators, trustees, principals, and others including parents, teachers, and students. The topic was "Parterships for Personalization: Leading and Transforming Together" -- putting some meat and potatoes onto the BC Edplan table.

First of all, my reservations about the jargon and embedded agendas in the BC Edplan go back a few years to the Premier's Technology Council 2010 Vision for 21st Century Learning. When I first read it, I thought "oh crap, what are they going to do to our education system?" Like many teachers, I am concerned that the vision is about reducing and privatizing services in public education and downloading costs to parents, students, and teacher volunteerism. That's the koolaid part. Read to the bottom and you'll see there is an upside to the koolaid, the part of the BC Edplan that says "what are you waiting for?"

I'll be the first to admit that the conservative service-reduction agenda was not obvious at the ELC conference. What I found instead was diverse ways that schools and districts across the province are experimenting with collaborative pedagogy, environmental and community connections, attaching children and teens, purposeful use of technology, and a focus on making the school experience more imaginative for all involved, primarily the students. There was very little teacher bashing (no more than any other stakeholder, and nothing we shouldn't "own" anyways), no examples that I could find where projects were designed as cost-cutting measures, and a general respect for the social, emotional, professional and contractual contexts in which we practice. There was also an emphasis on local knowledge and projects that reached out to people and places. It was in these contexts, incidentally, that technology and project-based learning found the right balance. This composite of unique offerings was the wild mushroom part -- homegrown, fresh, diverse, and special. Of course, the metaphor fits because we also had great local food at the conference. Yup, wild mushrooms were on at least one dish at every meal.

I went to sessions on blended learning in Rossland, heritage/place based inquiry in Arrow Lakes, and one on the Thomas Haney school experience. My wife (who also attended) and I noticed that the most functional districts tended to be the smaller ones. In the bigger ones, it was school-wide rather than district-wide efforts that stood out, with a few exceptions (West Van comes to mind). The plenary speakers each shared an hour of profound high-caliber research and observations. I found enough to either agree with or challenge my thinking that I am left with many ideas to consider. The plenary speakers emphasized how collaboration relates to school improvement, and encouraged leaders to do a few things well.

The Thomas Haney story was cool; they've been doing blended learning in some fashion for 20 years. Obviously lots of learning curve -- they relied heavily on paper modules or packages, and of course now these all are going digital. Sounds a bit like the Moodle trap our DE school is standing next to. Still, they are a choice school, full (in a district with declining enrolment), and drawing from almost every elementary catchment. They have huge open spaces in their school and smaller student study areas, lots of light and greenery, etc, which is a big part of what makes it work. Presenter and Principal Sean Nosek was a charismatic fellow who was obviously doing the right thing with his talent -- passion, pride and ongoing inquiry for the THSS school community. He remembered me my from summer session of teacher training at SFU in 1995... something about wearing a bearskin and shouting poetry in class. I don't remember that but it sounds like something I would do.

Rossland Secondary School is the only high school in a town of 4000, tucked up in an extinct volcano midst the Monashee Mountains. With declining enrolment, they were in threat of school closure, compounded by a preemptive flight down the hill to J.L. Crowe Secondary in Trail. So, some teachers in the school proposed a whole-school blended learning model for Sep 2012: http://rssblendedlearning.wordpress.com/. Very interesting to see the start-up and how open and progressive they are with mistakes. Seems to be working great for the middle class masses, but they're having some issues with the few at-risk and LA kids they have; need more direct supervision, etc. They have put serious thought into how blended learning could/should work, and are open to visits and inquiries. This Rossland Telegraph article explains the context.  I have some friends whose kids attend the RSS program and it seems to be a good fit for families where flexibility is sought-after.

The Arrow Lakes SD10 schools had a focus on place-conscious learning, for example discovering the community through art. Big projects saw students doing field work and interviews around local cultures, landscapes, and issues, for example investigating the Japanese Internment experience and telling their stories through film (the Nikkei Memorial Centre is nearby in New Denver).  A key inquiry related to the local Doukhobor culture. Their work focused on recognizing and articulating values -- directly, in the case of the interview subjects, and indirectly, in that students discover what is important for themselves when they look for it in others. The students made the connections between the Doukhobor and Aborginal residential schools, and asked powerful questions about different forms of colonialism. The presenter, District Principal Terry Taylor, talked about how they clear off a whole week for students to do field work and interviews, parents and teacher involved but no regular classes. Their superintendent Perry also arranged for whole school TOC time, I day per month. She was a fiery, determined sort of leader who seemed absolutely committed to breaking down barriers any time a group of teachers or admin had a vision for something that supported innovative student engagement.

Of course, the "unconferencing" was also important. I tried to tweet some of the big ideas and funny bits -- look through my Nov 15/16 tweets before they disappear, or scroll though some of the conference tweets (archived below as well).  I got to meet a few people I've interacted with on social media but have either never met (e.g. Chris Wejr and Peter Jory) or haven't seen in a while (e.g. Cale Birk). I made some new educator contacts (e.g. Sean Nosek, Terry Taylor).  I very much enjoyed talking with Nicola Kuhn (Rossland Teacher-Librarian and a lead coordinator of the blended learning initiative). It was not hard to bump into folks that are making an impact on student learning and the education system -- these six educators make for good follows on twitter for anyone wondering about the value of social media. I had some awesome and frank discussions with superintendents from a few districts, like Mark Thiessen from Williams Lake and Greg Luterbach from Kootenay-Columbia. They are still close to their roots as teachers and were able to drop all pretense and TALK. Very encouraging. I asked about six Supers how they managed to clear their desks of tasks that didn't have lasting value and focus on relationships. Great responses! Favourite one was "I don't do politics!" The topic of trust also came up, as in trust for other members of the team to do their best work.

I presented at this conference as well, on the topics of personalized project-work for students, teachers, and leaders. I spoke about personal learning networks, social media, strategies for getting the "underground" work many of us do out in the open, and allowing this work to be subject to mutual accountability and further collaboration. My presentation and notes are posted here. I was anxious before I presented (too many topics, perhaps) but it went well, engendered great small group discussions, and got good feedback from people that seemed to have their act together. The exemplars and stories of student heritage inquiry generated the most interest. The discussion questions were basically "what ignites your interests or excites your learning and provides a hearth to centre your professional learning?" and "what can we do to welcome, celebrate, and support hidden but promising practices at schools from students, teachers, principals and within board office staffs and partner groups?"

Our School District 57 sent the two assistant superintendents (Johnston, Carson), curriculum & instruction principal (Heitman), human resources director (Patterson), finance manager (Reed), and five trustees (Warrington, Cooke, Hooker, Bekkering, Bella).  I'll link to them if they have any conference reports or thoughts to share. Yes, that's a hint... we'd love to hear your thoughts!

Maybe other SD57 participants can offer their own perspective, but I am left wondering how our district staff and trustees felt about the relative progress of our school district in light of the stunning exemplars from around the province. I would suggest that we have three major challenges that stuck out in comparison with other school districts:

1. Need to pursue more creative and meaningful experiments in collaboration, both formal and informal. The idea of a regulated collaboration system with prescribed topics sits on the ridiculous end of the spectrum -- there were a few districts doing this -- do any of our school still do this? We need "co-creative" habits modeled at all levels, and active support for any group that embarks on a promising path moving from "sharing of practice" to "joint practice development." For example, the practice shared by David Hargreaves of one school staff visiting another school’s staff at work (and vice versa) led to diverse collaborations. Not suggesting we try this, but asking the question about what culture and design would need to be in place for this sort of thing to happen in our district? The need exists from the classroom to the boardroom. Simply acknowledging that we interact with partner groups is not enough; we should move into an interdependent relationship where we actually meet each other's ambitious goals. What actions would result if we asked powerful questions about the strengths of and challenges to our collaboration across the organization?
2. Need for more thoughtful planning on technology. Our narrow focus on managing systems, maintaining network integrity, controlling platforms, reducing costs, and banning devices to comply with backroom purchasing decisions are holding us back. We need free-wheeling, inclusive, formal discussions on integrating technology into learning (to compliment the informal professional learning on the topic that already happens), and a support plan that begins with pedagogy. One the elephants in our room is the inexplicable and hushed decision to ban ipad purchase requests (and other devices and technologies) from principals and teachers for student use. Another elephant is the collapse of district-wide educator teamwork on tech philosophy and implementation -- the platform or devices is not the issue, it is the avoidance of a pedagogical discussion that leverages technology. The once-vibrant culture for collaboration on technology in our district died a few years ago and we are now left with an appalling lack of interaction between teachers and district leaders on technology. The examples across the province showed how good tech blends into the background of solid teaching and learning, but nonetheless requires district-wide dialogue, planning, training, support and shared decision-making. Every district that told me they had a BYOD (bring your own device) philosophy also had a complimentary purchasing strategy based on the expressed needs of educators. Our "prime directive" with tech needs to shift from network security & standardization to teaching & learning, creating & collaborating. These are not incompatible but the priority is important. To be blunt, the longer our school district sits on these issues, the more we losing technology capacity, educator excitement, and student interest.
3. Need for improved communication and celebration of success. We certainly saw amazing provincial evidence from blended learning programs, attachment strategies, environmental and community connections, innovation with technology, collaborative practice, and students showing leadership. What’s happening in SD57? For educator examples, we have had some success with the mentorship program and learning team grants, but they are for the most part well-kept secrets. For student examples, each school I'm sure is doing uplifting work with kids -- but the success is often hidden. Adding more leadership structures or responsibilities is not necessary, we just need to "release the hounds" and benefit from the energy that is already at work (and often at odds with dominant thinking). We need to keep working on developing social media, website, news media and conversational connections to share our good work with the larger stakeholder community that supports us, as well as for our own professional learning and work with students. 

In short, if we want to talk about 21st century skills we have to plan for them and model them ourselves. Our province is pervaded with high quality examples, no need to look very far to see high bars for collaboration, tech planning, and communication.  We have a long way to go here, but we also have lots of positive examples in our midst, thought often hidden among the underbrush.

I was, nonetheless, proud to represent our district because the people I work and learn with place a high priority on the development of all children and generally have a good sense of humour... they put up with my blog posts, for example.

So, hurray for wild mushrooms - the diverse, local, and fresh experiences that we forge for ourselves and our students. Let us continue cultivating the ecosystems that result in sturdy specimens.

And, hurray for a bit of koolaid - the part of the bcedplan that actually recognizes that educators have been trying smart, dynamic, innovative "7C" student-centered work for a long time (and want to do more), and that their efforts for learning and system designs should be greeted with "YES" as often as possible.


.........................
Some references

The keynotes and most of the break-out concurrent sessions have been archived at http://www.bcssa.org/fallconference.html

Conference program (full list of sessions)
http://www.bcssa.org/fcprogram.html

Most of the conference tweets (#elcfall2012 via Tweetdoc)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68985044/Share/elcfall2012_conf_tweets.pdf

Post-conference "follow-up" tweets (#elcfall2012 via Tweetdoc)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/68985044/Share/elcfall2012_postconf_tweets.pdf

Another version of archived conference tweets (#elcfall2012 via @ChrisWejr)
http://storify.com/ChrisWejr/day-1-of-bcssa-fall-leadership-conference-elcfall2
http://storify.com/ChrisWejr/morning-of-day-2-at-bcssa-fall-conference-elcfall2
http://storify.com/ChrisWejr/afternoon-of-day-2-of-bcssa-fall-conference-elcfal

SD20 Superintendent Greg Luterbach on what he pulled from Ben Levin's presentation:

http://www.sd20.bc.ca/superintendent.html

SD43 Manager of Info Services Brian Kuhn on disruptive technology and conference interaction
http://www.shift2future.com/2012/11/reimagine-learning.html

SD45 Bowen Island Principal Jennifer Pardee reflecting on the conference and environmental connections:

http://go45.sd45.bc.ca/blogs/schoolblogs/biblog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=41

SD57 Trustee Kate Cooke on what she pulled from the conference:
http://trusteecooke.blogspot.ca/2012/11/educational-leadership-conference.html

SD69 Kwalicum VP Rudy Terpstra reflects and asks a big question
http://sites.sd69.bc.ca/rterpstr/2012/11/19/reflections-on-the-educational-leadership-conference-november-15-and-16-2012-vancouver-bc/

Plenary keynotes:
Ben Levin - Building Great Schools
http://www.bcssa.org/PDFs/fall2012/benlevin.pdf (big file)

Daniel Wilson - Cultivating Effective Professional Collaborations
http://www.bcssa.org/PDFs/fall2012/danielwilson.pdf

Andreas Schleicher - Teachers in the 21st century
http://prezi.com/x7zrlsmaehfv/teachers-in-the-21st-century/

David Hargreaves - The Shape of Things to Come, and Self-Improving School Systems:
http://www.bcssa.org/PDFs/fall2012/davidhargreaves.pdf
http://www.bcssa.org/PDFs/fall2012/hargreaves-siss-oct2012.pdf

Thanks to PGDTA, by the way, for covering my registration and TOC costs. Thanks to BCSSA (conference organizers) for covering flight and accommodation. Thanks to SD13 Pacific Slope for the evidence and support. Thanks SD57 trustees Cooke, Warrington, Hooker, Bekkering for table talk at the conference and Elephant & Castle. Thanks for to so many committed educators and leaders for F2F and SM chats throughout conference... as I said in the presentation, there is lots about the BC Edplan that causes concerns across stakeholder groups, but the push to try new things and remove barriers to change fits well with some really cool current and future projects around the province. I think our students will benefit from the thoughtful and resourceful praxis that has caught fire in so many jurisdictions in our province any time educators have been able to move beyond rhetoric to collaborative practice.

If you have a conference report, let me know so I can share and post the link.

School Plans

Our school's annual "Plan for Student Success" is at a crossroads.

Now a post about school data and goals might seem a bit dull for most, but I wanted to do a bit of work here to clarify my own thoughts about school growth cycles and lay out some history for my school's staff, some of whom are new to the process.

I want to begin by differentiating between the ongoing work we do to affect students learning, to make connections with students, to hone our craft as educators and so on, from the reports we file about how our school, as a whole, does this. I have read about thirty of these official School Plans in our school district (we call the School Plan for Student Success or SPSS), as well as the overall District Plans over the last few years, and have crafted or helped write five of them at my own school. These shelves full of plans are read by few, but are nonetheless required documents in British Columbia. They sometimes tell the story about how professional learning, reflection on data, and strategic actions translate into student success, but more often these documents contain shifty data, goals too broad to be useful or too complex to ever gain traction, and usually hinge on assumptions that teachers find themselves too busy to fully explore. I would also say that elementary school plans are generally simpler (more elegant?) than the secondary ones, and enjoy a higher level of buy-in from staff (and probably impact on students).

Here's what we've seen at my school:
2012 no formal plan?; used compiled feedback from staff
2011 diverse department goals
2010 diverse department goals
2009 break out school-wide literacy goal into dep't goals
2008 school-wide goal: cross-curricular literacy
2007 school-wide goal: cross-curricular literacy
2006 wrap up dep't goals & prioritize for school-wide goal
2005 department goals
2004 departmental and small group strategies responding to school-wide data
2003 departmental strategies responding to school-wide data
before 2002 the "Accreditation process" was used

The SPSS is a School Achievement Contract or Growth Plan (ie. ensuring student learning needs are met) that was introduced provincially in 2002 along with the School Planning Council (SPC) -- a team consisting of the principal, three parents elected by PAC, and a teacher elected by staff. The inclusion of teachers on SPCs has been boycotted by the BCTF since 2006. According to the BC School Act, the SPSS requires annual consultation, review, and approval by the SPC, and when this does not happen it defaults to the principal to submit the plan. The only references I could find to the School Plan in the School Act were in Section 8.3 (p. C-22). The defacto local policy until recently was to have a paid teacher position (usually one block) that includes SPSS-writing duties (secondary level), or a team of teachers/admin with varying levels of release time (elementary).

The SPSS looks different from school to school, district to district, is sometimes group-based (e.g. department) or school-based (common goal/s) although there is no policy about this at the school, district 57, or provincial level. Elementary schools, particularly those with small staffs, have often had an easier time focusing on school-wide goals (and collective problem-solving), while secondary schools are all over the place. Fragmentation of goals seems to result from diverse subjects, complex student needs, and the nature of departments (e.g dep't of one, some dep'ts have leadership time, some do not, some teachers work across dep'ts), and the tasks of administrators (more discipline focus in secondary). Some schools rotate through goals according to theme or custom, some are tied to collaborative groups or PLCs. Some are quite obviously "owned" by staff (again, more common in elementary), and others range from perfunctory to practical. A former Director of Instruction described her view of the plan as "a record of the conversations about learning that take place at each school." She thought this was the only way to make the plans useful, otherwise they appeared to be mere exercises.

When I've interacted with other SPSS writers, the elementary/secondary split was significant, and the level of disengagement over the planning process reported at the secondary level was stunning. That doesn't shock me, the disconnect between the goals-setting and what actually takes place in classrooms is not a secret in our education system.  When people are thrown together arbitrarily, because they happen to work at the same place or teach the same subject, their efforts at goal-setting tend to sink to the lowest common denominators, or acquiesce to the loudest voice in the room. What does shock me is that when teachers and principals find themselves midst a dysfunctional process they continue to press on and do a rush job with it just to get it done without too much complaining, and then complain about it as soon as it is done. That's a special form of cynicism that can rot school culture. I've got a bunch of ideas for fixing this but this post is long enough as it is (recurring problem!).

In other districts, the story at secondary schools is not always so bleak. One exemplary case stands out for me -- the School Improvement work done at South Kamloops Secondary: inclusive, practical, thorough, innovative, and appears to have won the respect of staff or least takes their engagement very seriously. Their planning also makes use of novel technology (see the list of skills they aim to model) -- e.g. google docs for collaboration and social media for staff development. Scroll back on the Dipity Timeline at the top (or here) to the beginning of their process to see how it was designed for success from the start.  The SKSS principal Cale Birk (blog/twitter) is very open to questions about the plan and process. I'm sure there are other examples of engaging school plans in BC -- please leave a comment if you can share a story or if you want to challenge my perspective.

In contrast to the arbitrary nature of school plans, the district's achievement contract is guided by the School Act and has many parts that respond to regulation. Locally, it used to have a mandate to build on what came out of the school plans, but this never really happened -- one can imagine how difficult it would be to consolidate themes and potentially incongruent goals from 48 plans, let alone use this composite to set direction and allocate funds. As a result there has not been a high degree of congruency between the school and district plan. Typically the district plan sets out one or more broad goals, finds data to support the goals, and reports on progress in provincially required categories (e.g. literacy) and local areas of concern (e.g. numeracy). It is in part a reflection of what is already happening to affect student achievement and in part a look ahead -- in this respect it is similar to the SPSS. The district plan also takes on flavours depending on hot topics from the Ministry of Education. For example, in 2006 it was PLCs, 2007-08 it was Success for All, in 2009-10 it was AFL, in 2011-12 it was 21st century learning. Alongside these are persistent goals related to literacy, numeracy, social responsibility, and Aboriginal achievement. The guided process and provincial requirements do not ensure that district plans are great -- the ones I've seen span the spectrum, but they do make them more predictable.

Back to the school plans. Our district encourages one of two types of SPSS: some goal/s with strategies, methods & assessment, or inquiry-based (centred around one or more questions and a plan for action research). Up to 2007 the plan was submitted to the board office using a web-based program with standard fields to fill in. In 2008 it took on the format of a written report. Plans can be written by administration, by teachers, or by both, but in theory are the work of the SPC. Goals can be set by administration, by teachers, or by both (again the SPC is supposed to have a role). Planning and work on goals can take place on the required administrative non-instructional day and voluntarily at any other time (e.g. department meetings or optional collaborative time). Some schools have developed structures to allow time for planning, facilitation, and goals within the work schedule (e.g. collaboration/tutorial models, release time, leadership blocks, positions of special responsibility). Some schools use staff meeting time for this.

According to the official district planning process, the SPSS is supposed to use a staff self-assessment tool and then sent in June for review by the board, with feedback and follow-up to take place in September and a final plan approved at a board meeting in October. This no longer happens -- for years the review has been tasked to senior staff, typically an assistant superintendent and/or a curriculum & instruction administrator. From 2003 until 2007, our plans were formally evaluated (e.g. rubric) and followed up with suggestions for changes from senior staff. The 2008, 2009, and 2011 plans were reviewed with minimal feedback. The 2010 plan was not reviewed at all (explanation given was board office retirements) and 2012 was affected by job action -- plans appear to have been optional. Throughout this period the deep purpose of the SPSS and explanation about what was to be done with the contents has never been fully communicated to staff. Most teachers spend an hour or two on the process and don't think about it again until it comes up again the following year.

This leads us to the crossroads. There are a number of steps in both the district and school planning process (locally determined, contained in past district achievement contracts up until 2009) and steps involving the SPC which have not been followed in the last number of years. The school and department leadership blocks have all but disappeared in our district, an easy target for funding cuts.  The awkward planning process and disinterest by teachers speaks to a need to change the approach.

The model was cumbersome by all accounts, but we should be mindful that changing it up or even preserving select elements from a partially abandoned method should be done with an understanding of process and a sense of purpose. We should recognize the costs, time, and structures associated with group, department, or school-based planning. We should also weigh the balance and impact on student success between traditional mandatory goal setting and work done by freely associated groups (individuals working interdependently with others). For example, the end of department structures as we have know them in the past and the rise of personal learning networks (often across teaching areas and jurisdictions via social media) presents some challenges to the status quo.

Links:
Past District Achievement Contracts: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/schools/sdinfo/acc_contracts/
Past D.P. Todd SPSS reports (2008-2012): http://dpts.sd57.bc.ca/~gthielmann/share/SPSS/
Other SD57 SPSS reports: http://www.sd57.bc.ca/index.php?id=532

Questions to ask:

• What value do we see in the current school improvement (SPSS) planning process?
• What "total cost" value for students do we see in the time put into a School Plan (e.g. pros & cons)? 
• Outside of the classroom setting, where are the deepest needs and desires for goal-setting, group inquiry, or projects for school improvements? 
• What process can be used to translate needs and desires into meaningful goals and inquiries that will benefit students? 
• How much time and passion is staff willing to commit to work on common goals, inquiry, or school improvement? 
• What form would this take (people, scale, timeline, format) and how could a School Plan support these endeavours? 
• What kind of preparation, data, and support/leadership structures would allow successful school planning and inquiry to take place? 
• What kind of process, support/leadership structures, and follow-up would allow the School Plan to translate into action, ie. student success? 
• How do we avoid "lowest common denominator" goals that often accompany whole-school and departmental planning? 
• How can we leverage personal learning networks or alternate freely-associated groupings to develop goals, conduct inquiry, and provide accountability? 
• Are there some new skills and technologies (ones we hope our students will learn and use) that we can model in the school improvement planning process? 
• What are some ways we can challenge the dysfunctional aspects of the process at the school, district, and provincial level?