Two Things Companies Serving K12 Ed Need to Know

In my shift from public to private sector I have been considering several differences as well as what is essential for companies serving K12 education to know and understand. I've boiled it down to two (2) things.

From my perspective these are what I have come to appreciate and expect from those I did business with.

Number One: Relational Capacity

Relational capacity is all about trust!

Trust building and trust capital are derived from building and sustaining relationships. For me, I came to know and trust the motives, intentions, character, integrity, genuineness, and sincerity as well as the counsel of individuals representing myriad companies and their products, services, and solutions over my tenure as superintendent.

Over time, relational capacity led to reliability, dependability, and trust that products, services, and moreover, individuals would authentically meet the needs of our school system. I can’t emphasize loud enough that trust capital is built over time - it is never instant or automatic.

Number Two: Social versus Profit Mission

Superintendents and educators are not “meat on the hoof”. If Superintendents or other educators are viewed as “game” to be hunted, companies and individuals miss one of the most critical understandings about those who choose to serve public education. That is, educators are driven by a "cause beyond oneself”. They have a social mission - engaging and leading “the” work - making an enduring impact and difference on and in the lives of young people day in and day out.

My experience with most, if not, all companies serving the K12 space is that they do in fact have mission statements and even visions of making an enduring impact through their services, products, solutions and etc. The difference is that all too often the “profit mission” or the need to make a sale trumps the lofty aspirations of a company.

The profit mission more often or not conveys a lack of sincerity, genuineness, authenticity, and transparency. It feels like the sale is what matters. By the way, I believe it is relatively easy to see the difference between social and profit mission driven people especially in sales.

Please don’t get me wrong here.

I am fully aware and appreciate that companies need to be profitable. We need companies that are constantly and consistently partnering with schools and school systems to provide solutions through products and services.

My point is that social mission driven companies corporately and individually view schools and school systems differently in their behaviors.

Social mission companies and people build relational capacity resulting in a high degree of trust capital – both ways. For me, trust capital translated into truth telling, approachability, critical as well as crucial conversations, authentic and transparent feedback always with the intention of growing, leading and contributing to the greater social mission so important to serving America's children.

It Really Can Be This Simple

Recently, we were visiting with friends discussing myriad events as good friends do – current as well as past. I’ve always enjoyed listening to diversity of opinion, thoughts, and comments as well as offering a few of my own.

I shared I was in the middle of revisiting and writing about the school effects research specifically related to the educational attainment of those "in" and "at" risk. I’ve learned through experience that poverty – rural poverty is one of the most egregious forms of poverty with little or no relief or hope.

Risking offending some, it is very difficult to separate poverty from race in our country. This is not an epiphany or revelation. Poverty irrespective of geography creates lasting, generational cycles that are very challenging to break. Education has proven a significant factor correlated with breaking the bonds of poverty.

Even as a powerful and proven factor, much work remains.

What we have learned, however, is that a combination of powerful, proven strategies, conviction, commitment, and courage can produced consistent, constant, and long lasting impact.

From my perspective and based on experience, the school effects research provides clear understanding and foundation for not only school and school system leaders but for policy makers that are authentically and sincerely committed to “learning for all”. I have made this a centerpiece in each of the school systems I was honored and privileged to lead because I believe in the behaviors not just the words.

I temper my passion about the utility and effect of the correlates with this reality – “the learning for all mission is an inside out proposition”. That is, you can't mandate or legislate this mission or force from the outside in. If you could, we would not continue to fall short of our aspirations, goals, and intentions to achieve universal proficiency of the most basic of skill sets or knowledge sets. Inside out versus outside in – a lesson we continue to fail to learn.

Previously, I have written about two of the seven factors or correlates of effective schools – A Climate Of High Expectations for Success and Clear and Focused Mission. The third factor, Safe and Orderly Environment, is one that has significant meaning for me.

I believe that before schools and school systems can produce the desired and expected educational outcomes that the learning environment must be “free” of behaviors that impair, interfere, or contribute to an unsafe, insecure place for learners as well as teachers. My belief is based on the findings of the school effects research and the results of applying the research in classrooms, schools, and school systems.

Schools and school systems that out perform their demographics consistently and constantly have a safe and orderly environment. They are serious about creating the conditions for teachers and learners to be successful. They are committed to eradicating inappropriate behaviors as well as reinforcing and affirming behaviors that build efficacy in students and adults alike.

The Safe and Orderly Environment correlate became more than theory when I first learned and implemented Make Your Day (MYD). Going on 20 years of using MYD, I refuse to “box” it in as a program. Rather, it has and will remain a framework and process for creating and sustaining a safe and orderly environment.

My training as a pre-service and early career educator was in William Glasser’s “Control Theory” and Lee Canter’s “Assertive Discipline” underpinned with a lot of behavioral modification and theory. What would become clearer about my philosophy and practice of classroom management as well as administering discipline as a high school assistant principal was that there really was little or no consistency within and throughout a school with respect to behavioral expectations let alone the consequence of any/all violations. I count myself as guilty of the inconsistency. Then came MYD.

A proactive model and approach to “preventing” as best as possible the types of behavior that create an unsafe environment for children as well as adults. The framework and subsequent training has proven itself over and over again as effective and efficient. A key word - accountability! More on this next week.

The MYD framework answers the “how” question with respect to creating and sustaining a safe and orderly environment. Admittedly, MYD works when the adults are committed to modeling the very behaviors we expect and require from students. It is not only eradicating the undesirable behaviors but providing a process and expectations for the desired and expected behaviors of a civil society albeit in school or in the community.

We allow and tolerate certain behaviors often dismissing the antecedents of the more egregious acts. This is not a child or “kid” issue - it is an adult issue. This is where I believe MYD becomes invaluable. MYD is a comprehensive strategy for creating as well as sustaining a culture not just an environment that is safe and orderly for all.

Safe and Orderly environment comes first. Adults cannot expect a child – any child to learn when the environment is not safe as well as orderly. Though my intent was not to spend time advocating for MYD, the proof is too compelling.

For me, MYD provided the vehicle for a safe and orderly environment that in turn was responsible for unprecedented teaching and learning improvement and academic gains. It is worth serious consideration.