Can Shared Leadership Really Work?

Note - this post was originally written back in June (over 6 months ago, so all references to dates are for the 2015-16 school year) but never was published for a variety of complex and personal reasons which I won't get into here . . . but I found the text in my notes and thought it needs to be published.  So here goes, with a few small tweaks and updates . . .

This year, I became a "director" for the first time in my career. Now that the school year is almost finished, I would have to say that this social experiment in shared school leadership is partially successful and partially a failure. Just to back up for a moment, the school director had no intent to explore shared leadership for educational technology - he wanted to either continue with the traditional leadership structure with a Tech Director, or split off educational technology from technology services and support.  In discussing this latter option and what that would look like, I was asked to draft a job description for an Ed Tech Director. Some of you reading this now will remember me asking for copies of your job descriptions and a structural breakdown of technology at your school (BTW - everything that I collected from you back in the fall was greatly appreciated).  As the job description started to take shape, it became apparent that out of our team of 4 tech coaches, more than one of us would be interested in the director of ed tech position. With the potential for terminal discord and a fracturing of our working relationship as a team, we jointly decided to propose a shared leadership model.

After about a month of planning how we would work together to co-lead educational technology across the school, the four of us (tech coaches) were appointed to be Co-Directors of Digital Learning. Our proposal separated ed tech from tech services, and a new person would be hired to manage and lead IT which includes hardware, infrastructure and tech support. The four tech coaches (2x ES, 1x MS and 1x HS) would have dual roles supporting tech integration in our school division (or assigned grades), plus collectively leading educational technology across the school.  

With shared leadership - is everyone looking/moving in the same direction?  Is there a clear, shared and articulated vision?

We have been working with this model since about November of this school year, and I have really mixed feelings about how successful it has been.  In general, we have been able to move forward with a number of initiatives and projects which probably would not have happened or have progressed as far in a short time if we had stuck with a traditional Tech Director model. As there are four of us Co-Directors, we could divide up the work and push forward with projects which interested us or were important to us. For example, some of the bigger projects that I led were:

• promoting and organizing the third annual Hour of Code, which featured events spread across the entire school
• formally adopting the ISTE Standards for Students (through embedding the standards in our PYP and MYP planners), Teachers (currently working on adding the standards into our new teacher appraisal process), Coaches (which we adopted as tech coaches a few years ago) and Administrators (which we adopted as Co-Directors of Digital Learning)
• writing and formalizing our job descriptions as tech coaches and as Co-Directors, to make them into usable documents which accurately describe both of these roles and what they truly entail
• bringing Learning2Europe to Warsaw, taking on the role of conference chair and forming a team of teachers and staff who will form the core of the organizing committee and support team 
• initiating an exploration and testing of Google Expeditions Beta along with Google Cardboard for use in the classroom
• proposing a new project to put iPad Pro's into the hands of teachers (as an interactive whiteboard replacement and to facilitate teachers being able to annotate, comment, sketch/draw/graph on the fly in class) through a two stage approval program

So what were the challenges and problematic areas?

1) With a group of four individuals who are given "carte blanche" to initiate new ed tech projects, there is no single decision maker to say whether it is the right time and/or place to start each project, or to oversee how it all fits into the overall vision for the school. As a result, what we end up with is a collection of projects all in various stages of development, which may be disjointed, out of alignment and sometimes even at odds with each other. Without a single decision maker, everything moves forward on their own pathways, but sometimes in different directions.  

With shared leadership - are everyone's views of a similar hue, or completely different colours?

2) How well the group functions together really depends on the different personalities involved, their individual styles, and how well they mesh together. Any friction or lack of trust creates disharmony in the group and the team breaks down immediately. We all know how hard it is to regain trust once it is lost, and how quickly trust can disappear entirely. Given #1 above, trust will always be eroded as friction builds from differing opinions on direction and vision. Conflict will also come from the simplest of things, like how the group interacts with each other, talks to one another, and is inclusive or exclusive. In fact, the team started off with a feeling is distrust due to how we came to even brooch the subject of shared leadership. As the school director favoured a business approach to leadership, he pitted the four of us "against" one another and was looking to appoint one of us to the director role. This approach forced us all into feeling distrust for one another, which we had to address as a team before anything productive could be done as a group. 

3) Following on from #2 above, I think that the current school organization with two coaches in the ES, but only one each in the MS and HS created an imbalance, as two of the Co-Directors work very closely together and tend to have a unified position on any issue. Not that this is a bad thing - having at least part of the group working closely together is better than not having any of the group at all.  However, this made making decisions about the whole school difficult with four "votes" in total, but an internal coalition of two in place. This last point is key if shared leadership is to work smoothly. Instead of having each member of the shared leadership team be all things to their constituency (their school division), they should all represent the entire community at all times. Or perhaps it could be divided up by school division, but in a more balanced way such as two for elementary and two for the secondary school.  

Epilogue on this last point - this re-organisation of the tech coaches has actually happened for this school year, but not for the co-directors role (I think the school just kept three co-directors now that I have moved on and changed schools).  I think shared leadership would have a better chance of succeeding with a smaller group than 4.  I can think of many dual partnerships which were spectacular (Lennon and McCartney, Jobs and Wozniak . . . you can add to the list), but it becomes harder to think of some great examples of groups of 3 or 4.  Too many chiefs or chefs in the kitchen perhaps? 

In retrospect, I am happy to have had the opportunity to work in a shared leadership environment as it provided a unique learning experience and collaborative work at the highest levels. If another shared leadership opportunity comes up in the future then I will be better prepared and so much wiser about what the pitfalls are and try to address them up front.  Can it work productively and smoothly?  I am sure that it can, and I wonder if it is happening anywhere out there?  Have you ever worked in a shared leadership role? Did it/Does it work? What was your experience like?  What were/are the challenges?

Redefining Search!

Note - this post was originally written back in May/June but never published for a variety of complex and personal reasons mainly having to do with my health . . . but all is good now!


May 2016 - I meant to write this posting about a month ago, but things have gotten a little bit away from me with moving back to Asia for next school year. Too much to do with so little time left in Poland before we move on from here. On a fast train heading south to Kraków gives me a bit of time to reflect, write and just think . . .


After attending Learning2 Africa in Johannesburg in the fall, I have been thinking how I needed to alter my approach in the HS towards teaching research skills to students.  For the last number of years we have taught and reviewed research skills with all G9 students as they entered the HS (through a series of projects, lessons and workshops culminating in a large, personal research project in their English class) and in G11 as students began the Extended Essay process. Changes this year in faculty, curriculum, and the approach to launching the EE have resulted in most of this work with research skills falling away. After attending Jeff Utech's extended session at L2Jo'burg on research skills, I knew I had to do something different right away.

Rather than continuing with the model of periodically working with whole grades of students, I shifted my focus to the faculty. My reining was simple - up-skill the entire faculty to give them the same toolbox of resources, techniques and strategies and they will in turn use, model and train all students in the same way, in every grade and every class. What I developed was a differentiated workshop targeted at individual departments/disciplines which worked through how research skills have changed with Internet-enabled mobile devices in the hands of every student. As teachers, if we are still asking questions which can easily be Googled, then we are asking the wrong kinds of questions of our students. Are your students trained in how to conduct a really deep and targeted search, or to cope with conducting effective research when they do not have any search terms?

To answer these questions, I put teachers into research scenarios which changed their thinking about research.  When you have no search terms to begin with, research ceases being a solitary act. It naturally evolves into a collaborative and creative process involving critical thinking and communication - the 4 C's of 21st Century Learning. For example, in the workshop I had teachers work in small groups and try to answer the following questions about this image: what is shown in the photo and where was it taken?

Do you know what this is?  And where was this photo taken?  [can you figure it out without using Image Search?]

Individually, most teachers had no idea where to start with such a task. In their small groups some started discussing what they thought it might be and what search terms they could use to describe the image. All sorts of search terms were tried ranging from "golden dog poo" to "swirls" and to "golden ratio spirals". Other groups tried to work around the task to find the actual photo on the web, or to use Google Image Search to find similar images, but I did not provide them a copy of the image to work with. The most successful groups spent a lot of time talking and collaborating about what they thought the image might be, before jumping into any searches. These groups hit upon really important search terms like "Buddha" and "statue" through their collective knowledge, which they used to quickly used to figure out that these are the top knots on the back of Buddha's head at Wat Pho (the reclining Buddha) in Bangkok. Every time I did this workshop with another department team, they all agreed that this exercise was not only fun and exciting, but very thought provoking. As we are now an MYP candidate school, this exercise placed teachers in an open inquiry process which was unfamiliar for some.

Some of the groups who started with an easier task wanted to try the more challenging images rather than finishing the rest of the workshop. Simple testimony of how much they enjoyed working on this. The remainder of the workshop focused on sets of resources and alternative sites for research, compiled by discipline.  If you are interested, you can use the following shared doc as a resource with your faculty or students.

Harder - Who are these women (what "people" are they)?  And what does "what they are doing" mean?

Following the ripples and impact of these workshops was really interesting. It was great to hear about how teachers took my materials back to use with their classes for ongoing research projects, and how students could immediately employ these techniques and resources for their projects. Other teachers still required more support  and booked me to work with their classes - even small steps forward are still making forward progress.  One tech-hesitant teacher took the initiative to present these skills and resources to their class who were engaged with an large-scale IB Diploma Internal Assessment involving deep research into a topic of the student's choice. This teacher still felt that they could not completely help all of the students in their class with their research so I was brought in to work with a few particular students. I ended up working with two students in particular who were truly "stuck" in their reach process and it was really gratifying to help them get unstuck, and then immediately pass on some more advanced techniques to their friends . . . Students teaching students . . . it doesn't get better than that!

Another teacher had an epiphany in the workshop, and took my exercise with open, collaborative inquiry revolving around an image, and adapted it directly into their lesson . . . the next day! This teacher had been struggling with a unit centered on the Renaissance and the rise of religious art and its symbolism. The lesson changed from a lecture and discussion about a few important pieces of art, to open inquiry process where small groups of students truly looked at and analyzed a piece art to discover its importance, symbolism, and hidden meaning. This teacher told me with great enthusiasm about how the class were looking and thinking deeply about art for the first time . . . in years . . . and how much they enjoyed the process of discovery.  Huge win, and a big step forward.

Epilogue (October 2016) - a number of months have passed by since I wrote this, plus I have changed schools and continents. At my new school in Singapore, not a whole lot is different and I have discovered that I need to take the same approach with faculty. So Redefining Search is being rebooted and recycled, and relaunched with both faculties that I work with (my new school has two separate systems/curricula under one roof).  It's interesting to think about how the "students are digital natives" thinking has really taken hold all over the world, and how teachers don't often consider how student's search skills (and their own) need upgrading.  Taking this approach of up-skilling the entire faculty in order to reach the most students (hopefully all of them ;-) has been a successful and necessary approach at my last two schools . . . so, how are your search skills and the skills of your faculty? 

Morphing from a Tech Coach into an Instructional Coach . . . is it worth it?

As the Technology Coach for the HS, everything that "plugs in or goes bing" (as my former principal used to say) falls into my domain.  But sometimes, the boundaries seem to get stretched, blurred, bent and twisted out of shape so that other non-tech things seem to end up on my plate, for better or for worse.  Case in point . . . over a year ago I was asked to lead a committee for examining how our school could move towards Standards-based assessment and reporting, and to eliminate some of the toxic grading practices of the traditional gradebook.  The committee that I was asked to lead was focussed on separating a student's Approaches to Learning (AtL) grade from their Achievement grade, and how to assess the AtLs by creating a rubric that the whole school could use and adapt.  I was chosen to lead this committee because I have a lot of experience in the classroom working in a Standards-based system, and I was already well-versed in separating the AtL behaviours from a student's Achievement.  The committee did its job and fulfilled these two huge goals successfully, but I think that this was the starting point for my transition from being a Tech Coach, into an Instructional Coach . . . it all started here.

Last year, the school started down the road of transitioning to a Standards-based system for assessment and reporting with the hope that we would get there in a year's time.  Ambitious for sure, and very challenging for the school community (teachers, students and parents alike) as predominantly, they were not familiar with this kind of system.  But even the best of plans sometimes fail or take unexpected turns, and this school goal did just that.  Our year-long implementation was forcefully changed into a 2 month implementation (but that is another story for another venue), which in turn forced the school to immediately implement a new online electronic gradebook which could handle Standards-based assessment and reporting.  So you can see where I come into the picture . . .

So I am put in charge of implementing and testing this new system (Easy Grade Pro Web), training the faculty to use the new electronic gradebook, and distribute the new system to the end consumers . . . our students and their parents.  All of this in the short span of a few weeks.  It was a monumental task, which I jumped on along with Tech Services who had to install the new system.  After getting the system up and running, I focussed on testing the system and nailing down how we were going to rollout, launch and train EGPWeb with the entire HS faculty.  

In conducting the gradebook set up and training with the faculty in small departmental groups and through individual workshops, most of my time was absorbed by discussions revolving around Standards-based assessment and reporting rather than "things that go bing".  We talked at length about the separation of the AtL Standards vs Achievement Standards, what the Achievement standards would be for each department or subject area, how these standards could be modelled in the gradebook, and the primary differences between a traditional gradebook and a Standards-based one.  Everyone's need to have their gradebook online and fully functional was driving the training with EGPWeb.  This in turn was forcing faculty to come to terms with Standards-based assessment, and I could not conduct the gradebook setup workshops unless departments knew what they wanted for their Standards of assessment.  And so the story goes . . . I was in charge of getting everyone up and running with their gradebooks, which quickly morphed into me being the main go-to person for anything and everything related to Standards-based assessment.

For me, the change was rapid and in many ways natural . . . I worked with the faculty to get to where we all needed to be, in a very short amount of time.  Looking back on that period of time, it was completely frenetic, full of energy (some positive and lots of negative) and brimming over with spite at times.  There was a lot of pressure - internally to get this done right, and externally to move the faculty forward when they did not want to move anywhere.  It was stressful - some teachers were simply not on board with the school-wide goal of moving to Standards-based assessment, so they resisted the training that I was trying to deliver.  My principal was very supportive with getting these individuals to step-on-board, as the ship was sailing and pulling away from the dock (so to speak).  We were all following directives that were coming from senior administration and the board, but some staff saw me as the frontman for everything Standards-based assessment, and took out their frustrations, anger and fear on me . . . not fun!

This is the part that I have been thinking about since last year . . . as the Tech Coach for the HS I have to work alongside and with all of my faculty.  Due to the volatile and contentious nature of this whole project, my changing role came as an unwelcome surprise to me, and in some ways, undermines the relationships that I have built with the faculty as a whole.  Many staff are now on-board with Standards-based assessment, but some others are still stuck in their familiar, traditional practices.  Some of these folks relate me to this whole change (which they fear and loath), rather than to educational technology.  This is where I lose.  This is where we all lose.  Something that has only loose connections with technology has negatively impacted my computing karma in the school.  As a Tech Coach, the relationships that you build with your faculty are equally as important as your NOWledge, skills and experience put together.  So is it really worth it?  I don't really know at this point.  Some faculty seem to be able to separate in their minds my role with tech and what I did for the school in terms of helping to bring in Standards-based assessment.  But others cannot.  And I am now being thrust into a similar role as the "guru" in the HS, as the MS follows our lead.  I have coined a phrase to describe this somewhat helpless feeling of being stuck in situations like this . . . "guilty by competence".  Which raises the question in my mind, do I really want to go through this again?

Have you ever been put into a role which has really changed how you work with faculty and how they perceive you?  How do you handle the negativity surrounding "the job" when it really has nothing to do with you and what you are doing?  How do keep your role compartmentalised and within the boundaries set out by your job description . . . and not be sucked into the vortex of work?

Building Your NOWledge and Understanding

What is NOWledge?

No, I didn't spell it wrong, and yes, I used a new "N" word when I was thinking about the meaning of the letters in the SNiCK acronym.  If you are wondering about "why SNiCK?" then have a read here.  I don't think that I am the first to coin or use "NOWledge" (I see there even a few websites and companies that use the word), but I might be the first to use it in the context of educational technology.

In the Ed Tech world, keeping up with all of the changes that are going on around us is more than a full time job in itself, but crucial nonetheless.  So what is NOWledge?  What do I mean by this?  I would describe NOWledge as what we know about a given topic right now, that we can use to make decisions or guide what we do or how we work.  Your NOWledge on any given topic might be current, or out of date by a few minutes/hours/days, but you have to use the tools that you have on hand at the time.

In an ideal situation, you would have the time and opportunity to do your homework and conduct some research, before making a decision or recommendation.  But we all know that this does not always happen, and that the rate of change with technology is just too fast to always keep pace.  More often than not, you have to use what you know right here and right now, to make a decision.  That's just the way it is sometimes.  So keeping as up-to-date as you can becomes even more important.


Building and Maintaining Your NOWledge

Keeping up-to-date is a constant struggle and takes up a lot of a tech coach's time every day.  Finding the right tools that work for you to keep abreast of changes in the ed tech world is the key.  I am not going to get up on a soapbox and evangelize on tweeting, or creating your own PLN through some social networking site, or lament about the demise of Google Reader . . . you have to find what works for you, that you will access and use regularly, and where you can build your NOWledge.  Personally, I use a variety of tools and resources from reading people's ed tech blogs, following educational journals and publications, subscribing to forums and groups through different social media, and engaging in online conversations on topics that interest me or where I have something to add/share.  This blog is a place where I share my experience and ideas, and I am glad that you are taking the time to read it.  So, find the tools that work for you and keep in touch by leaving a comment - contribute to the conversation.  It is virtually impossible to keep up with everything out there, so focus on what interests you and let your connections/colleagues/cohort give you the highlights on the other stuff.  So get connected and involved . . . it's the only way you can keep up-to-date.

I have never been one to jump on the bandwagon of something new, just because it is there.  I have never been one to use tech in the classroom just because someone thinks it is "cool".  And I have never been one to suggest that we use technology in the classroom just for the sake of using technology . . . it has to enhance teaching and learning in some way, otherwise it is merely substitution of a tool.  Maybe it is my high school mentality, where I have to see the "bang for my buck" up front before adapting a new piece of technology into the classroom.  Maybe it is just me being terribly practical in all things - a friend and colleague of mine once told me that the I am really good at "keeping it real" which I equate to being down to earth and really practical at all times.  That does not mean that I am not a risk taker, or don't like to test new technology tools.  On the contrary, whenever I see something new, my mind immediately starts racing and analyzing how/where/when/why this new tool might be used.  My computer science background comes into play then, as I always prescribe to test something new, test it again, and test it further.  Essentially, test, test, and test some more.  The combination and balance between these two approaches (looking/testing/trying while not jumping on the bandwagon) serves two purposes for me: to help build my NOWledge while keeping me grounded and not be pulled in too many directions at the same time (which is always a danger).

Many of us in the ed tech world have worked with faculty or even administration who were always jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon.  Can you think someone like this?  If they are the tech leadership in the school, then you never really know where you are going with educational technology, as you are constantly discarding one tech tool for the latest new thing.  Often in these situations, the faculty are constantly crying out for stability with tech tools, platform, systems, or machines.  Does your school have a pile of technology which was brought in but went unused, and was eventually either forgotten or put aside for something else?  If so, this is the accumulated evidence of jumping on and off various bandwagons, and not having a solid NOWledge base to fall back on.  In my mind, having a good balance between striking out in new directions based on a strong NOWledge base is key to moving forward and sparking innovation.  So how do you maintain or build your NOWledge?  Is your school led by someone who does not have a solid NOWledge base when it comes to educational technology?  How is that working for you and your students?