Essentialism for School Leaders

I was listening to a podcast from New York Times Bestselling author Greg McKeown, who summarized the thesis of his book Essentialism this way:

It's not that when you say yes to something you say no to something. [But] that is progress, if you can psychologically get there, then you are further ahead than what we often do, which is to look at something and say, 'Is this good? Is this a good thing?' And if it's a good thing, well then we need to do it....As soon as you say, "Well, a yes equals a no," now you're being more sensible about it [and] more thoughtful about it. You say, "OK, It's not whether it's good, it's whether it's better than this other thing I would be doing instead." 

But then really, where it starts to become almost shocking is where [we learn that] every time you say yes, you are saying no NOT to ten things, NOT to a hundred things, but everything. That's the point [of Essentialism]:

Every yes is no to everything else that you could possibly be doing right now. 

What a great insight. I remember learning about opportunity cost -- or the value of the next best alternative -- in Econ 110 as an undergraduate student, and finding it to be a really helpful in making decisions. But McKeown is expanding this idea to not just include the best foregone alternative, but everything. 

The implications for this seem far-reaching, especially for school leaders. You'll, of course, know how to apply this to your own situation. But it makes me think of how this could be a powerful mechanism to help leaders break out of the "tyranny of the urgent," as one colleague recently called it -- those tasks that always seem most urgent, but not the ones we'd choose to put first on our list. It can certainly help towards identifying and acting on what is most essential. 

Search Post

Label :

Navigating Conflict (rd.2)

When they're about to graduate, I like to ask our principal candidates, "What's the most important lesson you've learned about leadership?" Almost every time, they mention how important it is to build positive relationships. In my own experience, it really does seem to be the key ingredient in effective school leadership—not the only ingredient, certainly, but an essential one. 

In a previous post, I argued that a foundational component in understanding how to navigate conflict was to make sure to view the other person as a person and not an object. In this post I want to develop this idea further with something I learned this weekend reading Arthur Brook's excellent book Love Your Enemies. In it, Brooks draws upon Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics to outline three levels of friendship.

A level one friendship is based on utility. Aristotle argues that this is both the lowest form of friendship and most shallow because it is subject to changing needs and conditions. As soon as the benefits in the relationship end, so too does the relationship. 

A level two friendship is based on pleasure. This type of relationship is built upon some shared characteristic or quality, such as a common interest, similar humor, or attractive appearance. For example, we might be friends because we both like to run, or you laugh at my jokes, or you're beautiful. Though deeper than a level one relationship, it can also be rather shallow and subject to changing conditions.

A level three friendship is based on goodness or virtue. In contrast to the first two levels, level three relationships are defined by a focus on recognizing the good in the other person. And, while these relationships often provide benefits (level one) and pleasure (level two), they are not dependent on them. Rather, level three relationships are deep and resilient. Major disagreements over anything—even polarizing issues related to politics or religion—never become contentious because each person knows and values the fundamental goodness of the other.

As I read these three levels, it became clear to me: 

Levels one and two relationships describe ways in which we convert people into objects. 

In both cases our relationship is defined by our own personal benefit or pleasure. Instead of seeing people as individuals with goals, desires, dreams, hopes, and needs as real as our own, levels one and two relationships convert people into objects in our own story. 

So what does this mean for school leaders? 

Well, if we are committed to seeing people as people and not objects, and if we can agree that building positive relationships is a critical component of effective school leadership, then we have to ask ourselves if we are building relationships because of their utility or pleasure, or are we building relationships because we try to see the humanity and goodness in others. Now, I'm not suggesting that school leaders need to have deep, meaningful relationships with everyone in their school and community. Clearly that's impossible. But I am saying that the way they view others matters. And if we approach everyone with a level three attitude—that is, by recognizing their core goodness—then we will be better able to address the conflicts that inevitably arise in pluralistic societies. 

Search Post

Label :

Kindergarten Classrooms

Perhaps it is because I spend a fair bit of time working with large datasets, but I have always been fascinated by studies that use classroom observations to collect data. While the Hawthorne effect is a real threat, I always find it fascinating when researchers are able to get into classrooms and observe practice.

Which is why I loved reading a recently published article on daylong observations of kindergarten classes. Our son Owen was a kindergartner last year, and there was only so much we could get out of him about his day:

Me: How was school? Did you have a good day?

O: Yeah.

Me: What'd you do?

O: Nothing.

Well, it turns out that "nothing" isn't too far from the truth. At least, when researchers conducted 82 classroom observations, they found that an average of about 33 to 42% of kindergartners' day was designated as "non-instructional time." More specifically, kids spent an average of 5-6% of their day starting and ending school; 7-9% transitioning between lessons; 9-11% moving to or from specials, recess, or lunch; 9-13% at meals; and 3-5% conducting other non-instructional or behavior management activities. 

Now, this wasn't too surprising to me. At least, it still shocks me how long it takes our family to get out the door to go anywhere, even places our kids want to go. All kids -- especially 5- and 6-year olds -- take a while to transition.

But the other findings in the paper are also interesting. The authors found that schools serving kindergartners with low income students spent an average of about 30 minutes more on literacy and 9 minutes more on math per day than schools serving high income students. In total, schools serving lower income students spent about 43% of the day on the core subjects of math, reading, science, and social studies, compared with with 34% in higher income settings. Schools serving higher income students also spent an average of 32 fewer minutes on non-instructional time.

So where do the differences show up? How do schools in higher income settings use instructional and non-instructional time differently? The researchers found 2 major areas: 

1. Gross motor - Any activity where students were physically active including recess and physical education, as well as dance, stretching, or breaks with structured or unstructured movement. 
2. Mixed content - Multiple types of content occurring simultaneously or for under a minute each, such as center time or small group activities that include math and science. 

As a parent, I want my kids to be in classrooms where they spend about a half hour more moving their bodies and another 40 minutes working in centers or engaging with multiple subjects, not to mention about a half hour less time transitioning. I think we all would. But, we have to recognize that the accountability pressures our schools face to perform in math and reading are real, especially for those schools serving low income students. 

Of course, a stronger focus on math and reading isn't inherently bad, but I worry that it may be counterproductive to child development. That is, what does it mean for our kids future school success if kindergarten becomes the new first grade? 

In future posts, I will wrestle with this question and begin to describe some of the research that my colleagues Michael Little, Lora Cohen-Vogel and I are beginning that examines how school leaders can navigate and strategically lead in early grades' spaces. 

Thanks for reading! More soon.

Search Post

Label :