Notes |
Creating a New Vision for
Public Education in Texas
A Work in Progress
for Conversation
and Further Development
Respectfully Offered by
Superintendent Participants in the
Public Education Visioning Institute
i
Creating a New Vision for
Public Education in Texas
A Work in Progress
for Conversation and Further Development
Respectfully Offered by Superintendent Participants
in the Public Education Visioning Institute
Texas Association of School Administrators
406 East 11th Street
Austin, TX 78701-2617
512-477-6361
1-800-725 TASA (8272)
May 2008
Austin, Texas
Q
This edition reflects a revised document format from the initial printing,
specifically including space for reader reflections, questions
and recommended revisions or additions.
Comments may be submitted to any of the contacts listed on the acknowledgements page.
This edition also includes an additional item (G) under “Legislative Initiatives Required” (page 35).
Q
© 2008 by Texas Association of School Administrators/Texas Leadership Center.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to duplicate all or portions of this document,
provided that appropriate credit is given to TASA/Texas Leadership Center.
ii
Acknowledgements
We extend thanks and appreciation to the following:
• Our Design Team, who developed the structure of the initial design of the series of
meetings and speakers and, with our input, structured each successive session. Design
Team members included Cathy Bryce, Tom Crowe, Annette Griffin, Doug Otto, Jeff Turner,
Frank Kelly, Lennie Hay, John Horn, Keith Sockwell, Susan Holley, and Johnny Veselka.
• Our guest speakers who stimulated our thinking.
• Our lead facilitator and coordinator for writing this report, John Horn; along with Karen
Anderson, who assisted with facilitation in the final critical sessions; and Susan Holley,
Roz Keck, and Betty Jo Monk, who also helped with the report.
• Our co-sponsors: the Texas Association of School Administrators; the Texas Leadership
Center; Keith Sockwell, who conceived of the initiative; and the SHW Group, which
provided financial support.
• Our school boards and districts that supported our participation.
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................1
Use of This Document....................................................................................................................1
Major Conceptual Themes.............................................................................................................2
The Vision......................................................................................................................................4
Transformed Systems for Making the Vision Reality ......................................................................5
A Moral Imperative: Why We as Public Education Leaders Must Speak and Act Now...................7
Our Declaration of Commitment .................................................................................................11
Principles and Premises We Embrace ............................................................................................12
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 12
Article I: The New Digital Learning Environment................................................... 13
Article II: The New Learning Standards................................................................... 16
Article III: Assessments for Learning ......................................................................... 19
Article IV: Accountability for Learning ..................................................................... 23
Article V: Organizational Transformation................................................................ 28
Article VI: A More Balanced and Reinvigorated State/Local Partnership................... 32
Legislative Initiatives Required.................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A
The Story Behind the Visioning Institute.......................................................................... 36
Appendix B
Meetings, Topics, and Participants................................................................................... 38
Our Purpose .....................................................................................................................38
The Schedule/Topics/Resource Speakers ...........................................................................39
Participating Superintendents...........................................................................................40
iv
1
Introduction
challenge underlying assumptions was to define
and express a vision, based on relevant beliefs,
principles, and premises.
The Visioning Institute held its first of eight
workshops on September 6–7, 2006. That first
workshop focused on examining the culture
and structure needed in schools to meet the
needs of learners in a more global environment
with attendant new expectations. Subsequent
workshops held in 2007 explored moral and
intellectual leadership, the nature of the future
learner, assessment systems and accountability
mechanisms, and more innovative ways to use
resources.
We believe the work accomplished over the last
21 months of learning and intense dialogue has
made us better leaders. It is our sincere hope
that it will inspire others toward the common
goal of making public schools better for all
Texas children.
The Public Education Visioning Institute was
born from the work and ideas of thirty-five
public school superintendents who came
together as a community of learners to create
a new vision for public education in Texas. As
the representatives of over 1.2 million students,
we who were part of that group were frustrated
with the present direction, but realized no clear
picture was available to frame a conversation
regarding a preferred future. We were also
concerned that the principal architects of the
present system are politicians, business leaders,
and their policy advisors—not superintendents,
not principals, not teachers, and not parents or
school board members. Educators and parents
have vital contributions to make and their
insights and commitments should be utilized.
We knew it was time to begin a new and
different kind of dialogue. We also felt that the
only meaningful way to address the issues and
Use of This Document
We perceive this document as a “work in
progress” describing what we believe and
the possibilities we see for the future of
public education. It should be viewed as a
basic resource for all who want to join this
conversation, further develop these ideas, and
bring to fruition the results it envisions.
Our urgent desire is that this document be
used to begin disciplined dialogue, stimulate
questions, identify problems, and frame issues
that will eventually lead to strategic actions at
the local level and in governmental capitols.
Our intent is for it to serve as a catalyst for
the development of specialized publications,
presentations, and legislative testimony.
These statements of principle and supporting
premises furnish the foundation for developing
an understanding and commitment to a shared
set of values and a common vision for public
education in Texas, our public schools, and
their success on which our democracy depends.
We propose these to serve as a stimulus for
conversations that will result in refinements
and revisions from our colleagues, local
communities, and other interested persons and
organizations. This work can be used to create
a community-based, bottom-up movement
capitalizing on new and existing alliances
with professional organizations, local business
leaders, and similar groups. To quote author
Margaret Wheatly, “All great things begin with
a conversation between two people.” We are
committed to seeing that the conversations
continue and that the transformations we seek
become a reality.
2
Major Conceptual Themes
Why a New Direction and Why Now
Every parent has a dream that their children
will be happy and successful. Our communities
and the schools that serve them should
equally share in that dream and have a plan
for making that dream a reality. Preparing
students for success in the workforce is
secondary to preparing children for success in
life. The core business of schools is to provide
engaging, appropriate experiences for students
so that they learn and are able to apply their
knowledge in ways that will enrich their lives
and ensure their well-being. Unfortunately, the
present bureaucratic structure has taken away
that focus and replaced it with a system based
on compliance, coercion, and fear. If proper
focus is to be restored, the system must be
transformed into one based on trust, shared
values, creativity, innovation, and respect.
Engaging the Digital Generation
In today’s digital world, most students come to
school computer and technology savvy. With
their iPods, iPhones, computer games, MySpace
pages, and text messaging, they routinely use
multimedia and internet resources in their daily
lives. Technology development has also resulted
in widespread change in the way students
learn. To keep students fully engaged, schools
must adapt to this new and rapidly changing
environment. They must embrace the potential
of new technologies and make optimum use
of the digital devices and connections that are
prevalent today to make learning vibrant and
stimulating for all.
New Learning Standards for a New Era
A transformed system that meets the diverse
needs of students in a digital environment
demands new learning standards. Standards
should reflect the realities of the age and
recognize that students are not just consumers
of knowledge, they can be creators of
knowledge as well. Standards should focus
on development of the whole person, tapping
curiosity and imagination, and providing
opportunities for all talents to be cultivated,
nurtured, and valued.
From Misuse of Standardized Tests to
Unleashing the Power of Assessment
Assessment should inform accountability, but
the present practice of one-shot, high-stakes
assessment has failed the test. Appropriate
and varied assessment using multiple tools for
different purposes informs students, parents,
the school, the district and the community
about the extent to which desired learning
is occurring and what schools are doing to
improve. For assessment to be of any value, it
must move from the present “autopsy” model
to one that more resembles a “daily check up,”
which continuously identifies student strengths,
interests, motivations, accomplishments, and
other information necessary so that teachers
can design the learning experiences that will
best meet each student’s needs.
Accountability that Inspires
Accountability systems of themselves do not
produce excellence. Excellence can only come
from commitment and meaning. The present
accountability system has created schools in
which the curriculum is narrowed and only
academic abilities are valued. Students become
expert test takers but cannot retain or apply
what they “know” in a context other than
the test environment; and creativity, problem
solving, and teamwork are stifled. The punitive
approach and “referee” model embraced
by that system have hindered the success of
students and schools. A more appropriate
coaching model is needed to transform the
system into one that inspires and stimulates.
3
Transforming our Schools from
Bureaucracies to Learning Organizations
Bureaucracies value power and authority, while
learning organizations are driven by beliefs
and values. Schools must be transformed from
their current bureaucratic form, characterized
by rules and sanctions, punitive accountability
systems, routines, and standardization of
everything, to learning organizations where
only the mundane is standardized and
standards are used to nurture aspirations and
accommodate human variables. Learning
organizations maintain a clear sense of doing
the right thing and doing it well, shared
commitments and beliefs, common purpose
and vision, trust, accountability, and use of
standards to inspire. Bureaucracies discourage
and are disruptive to innovation and cannot
create the dynamic conditions that foster
superior performance of teachers and students.
Learning organizations capture the learning of
adults, share it, and support its application so
that capacities to improve student learning are
extraordinary.
Saying No to Remote Control
The shift in power in setting education policy
from the local community to the state and
federal government has resulted in a system
where schools feel more accountable to the
Legislature than to their students and their
communities. The school district’s role has been
relegated to one of compliance, and the local
community has been denied the opportunity
to make the more important decisions and
choices regarding the education of the children
and youth who live there. A more balanced
and reinvigorated state-local partnership is
needed to create the type of schools that can
best provide the learning experiences to help
students succeed in today’s world.
4
The Vision
We envision schools where all children succeed, feel safe and their curiosity is cultivated. We see
schools that foster a sense of belonging and community and that inspire collaboration. We see
learning standards that challenge, and intentionally designed experiences that delight students,
develop their confidence and competence, and cause every child to value tasks that result in
learning. Ultimately, we see schools and related venues that prepare all children for many choices
and that give them the tools and attitudes to contribute to our democratic way of life and live
successfully in a rapidly changing world.
In this context we see:
A. Schools that are safe havens for students
physically and emotionally, where
students and teachers feel liberated to
develop and nurture the whole person.
B. Students who are encouraged to
cultivate their curiosity and who
realize questions are sometimes more
important than answers.
C. A culture that inspires all to do their
best and a curriculum that is relevant,
challenging, and meaningful.
D. Learning standards that reflect
development of the total range of
student capabilities and that enable
students to acquire the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes they need
to successfully contribute to our
democratic ideals and to compete in
today’s digitally connected world.
E. High learning standards with reasonable
variation to challenge every child and
motivate him or her to success.
F. Students who have access to the
tools of technology and who value
the use of those tools in learning and
communication.
G. Students who own their learning, who
can remember what they learned,
and who can apply it wherever and
whenever needed.
H. Students who know that development
of all their talents is valued and fostered
by the school, their families, and the
community at large, and who know
safety nets and second chances are there
to help them succeed.
I. Multiple assessments that assist in the
ongoing learning process and that serve
as a positive influence in motivating
students to succeed.
J. Students who are prepared for life, for
pursuing further education, for taking
the first steps on their career paths, and
recognizing all options open to them.
5
Transformed Systems for Making the Vision Reality
The schools we need are community-owned institutions. They are designed and established as
learning organizations, treating employees as knowledge workers and students as the primary
customers of knowledge work. They are free of bureaucratic structures that inhibit multiple paths
to reaching goals. Reliance on compliance is minimized, and generating engagement through
commitment is the primary means to achieving excellence. Leadership at all levels is honored and
developed. All operating systems have well-defined processes that are constantly being improved.
Attention of leaders is focused on the dominant social systems that govern behavior, beginning
with those that clarify beliefs and direction, develop and transmit knowledge, and that provide
for recruitment and induction of all employees and students into the values and vision. The
evaluation, boundary, and authority systems are submissive to the directional system, allowing
for major innovations to flourish, new capacities to emerge, missions to be accomplished, and the
vision to be realized in an increasingly unpredictable world.
E. A school governance structure that
provides significant insulation from
direct political control and short-term
political expediency, a structure in
which the legislature is arbiter and
source of only major state educational
policy matters and does not involve
itself in minute decrees and directives or
imposing one-size-fits-all regulations.
F. Schools that support and invest
heavily in the continuous learning and
development of all their employees, with
a focus on substantive improvement,
leading to enhanced student success.
G. Schools with leaders who serve, support,
and ensure that student engagement is
and remains the first focus.
H. Districts that enter and sustain
collaborative partnerships with those
who prepare teachers, ensuring that
beginning teachers have had some field
experience to ready them for teaching in
engagement-centered schools.
I. Districts that recruit, induct, and
promote teachers who love learning
and kids, relish the conditions in which
they teach, work collaboratively, and
see themselves as designers and leaders,
In this context we see:
A. Schools that are kid-friendly and safe,
with multiple and varied learning
spaces incorporating state-of-the-art
technology, and possessing the capacity,
in alliance with the community, to meet
the needs of all children and youth.
B. Schools that are staffed by competent,
committed adults who are supported
and appreciated, and who understand
their first priority is the children they
serve.
C. Schools that operate in partnership
with the state, which provides adequate
financial resources in an equitable
manner, establishes frameworks for
learning standards, supplies technical
support, and enables assessment and
accountability systems that inform
the community and the public about
the quality of the schools and level of
student success.
D. Schools that foster a sense of
community, where local citizens know
that the schools belong to them and
they are responsible for the quality of
education and creating the community
conditions in which great schools can
flourish.
6
along with their traditional roles as
planners, presenters, and performers.
J. Schools where students advance based
on their learning and performance
instead of seat time, courses are
dominant over classes, and use of time
and space is flexible and innovative.
K. Assessment processes that are designed
to inform instruction in timely
ways, honor student feedback, are
comprehensive and fair, and do not
rely on a single standardized test for
important decisions.
L. School board members who are
focused on ensuring that the system
is responsive to student, staff, and
community needs and that the common
good of all students prevails.
M. Accountability systems that are
designed to inspire and that are founded
on high expectations, a sense of fairness,
trust, and complete confidence in the
measures employed.
N. Schools and communities that, with
state and federal support, transform the
present bureaucratic institutions into
organizations that recognize knowledge
work as requiring different conditions
within which staff and students can
excel.
O. Acceptance of the fact by schools and
communities that the lack of success of
many students today is less a problem
of the students than of the systems
that define current schools and the
communities in which they function.
P. New learning standards dictating major
changes in how schools are organized,
the assumptions and beliefs on which
their culture and structure are based,
meaning the factory model must give
way to more flexible ways of achieving
the standards.
Q. Schools that embrace their (school
board members, in particular)
fundamental role in building the
communities needed for great schools.
7
A Moral Imperative: Why We as Public Education Leaders Must
Speak and Act Now
…not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say
things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of
the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in
the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or
sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an
expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called
for by the occasion.
—Thomas Jefferson on the purpose of writing the Declaration of Independence
The framers of the Declaration of Independence
provided inspiration for this monumental task
we have felt compelled to undertake. While
making no claim that this work is in any way
comparable to their epic accomplishment,
we have used what they did to inspire us, as
a metaphor to frame our own efforts, and to
reflect our deeply held belief in the assertion of
Thomas Jefferson that learning is essential to
liberty. So in that sense, we, like them, find that
we can no longer keep quiet and continue to
endure the injustices the present bureaucratic
school system is imposing on our youth and
their future.
External forces are creating requirements
for public education that are detrimental to
children and their teachers, as well as to the
systems and communities in which they live and
work, and, ultimately, to our democratic way
of life. We assert that the major present reform
efforts, in spite of some positive impacts, are
resulting in a multitude of unintended negative
consequences that far outweigh the benefits.
We concur that major changes in our schools
are needed, but we disagree with the present
direction and major assumptions and polices in
place (and similar ones that are contemplated)
to achieve that end. Therefore, we assert
that schools must be transformed based on a
different set of assumptions and beliefs if they
are to accomplish their intended purpose in
this new world that is so dramatically different
from the nineteenth and early twentieth century
world in which their basic form and structure
originated. This document reflects our sources
of discontent, but more importantly it clearly
conveys what we are for and declares our
resolve to work toward the transformations
needed.
Our collective experience and our intensive
study of what is happening in our schools
and communities lead us to conclude that the
future of public education is at risk and will not
survive if the present direction continues. It is
time to redirect this concern, energy, effort, and
support for improvement to create a positive
commitment to the education of our youth by
transforming systems that better meet the needs
of 21st century learners.
Educating Our Youth: A Shared
Responsibility
The creation of a system of public education is
a primary responsibility of the state; however,
the operation of the system is a local function.
The present situation has been brought about
by state (and federal policies) advancing the
false notion that education is a function that
can be directed from government capitols
instead of from the community. There is a
huge difference in the state seeing itself as
having major responsibility for providing for
8
school systems and assuming the authority for
operating those systems by remote control.
The state legislature seems to have forgotten
that all independent school districts were
created by a vote of the people who lived in
those districts. Those voters probably never
conceived that the day would come when the
local districts they created would become little
more than satellite state agencies for enforcing
regulations.
This shift in power has resulted in multiple
layers of bureaucratic regulations that
become more onerous and complex with
each governmental action. Government
policymakers, in an effort to correct what they
perceived as inefficiency and ineffectiveness
in public education, have over-mandated and
over-regulated the local function. Multiple
and largely punitive accountability provisions
were created to ensure compliance. Though
this continual proliferation of prescriptive
rules and requirements is probably wellintentioned, its impact on schools is inherently
counterproductive. Rather than focusing
efforts on student success, school districts
have been forced to behave like inflexible and
unresponsive bureaucracies, more accountable
to policies set by the government and their
enforcement agencies than responsive to
meeting the needs of their students and the
communities they serve.
Finally, this shift in power has stripped the
local community of a sense of ownership of
its schools and denied its citizens the right and
opportunity to make meaningful choices about
the quality and nature of education it desires
for its youth.
We believe the present direction will not result
in excellent schools or the properly educated
citizenry we need. The narrow focus of state
and federal compliance systems does not
promote the full range of students’ abilities
that parents want and society needs. The voices
of people in our local communities are not
being heard, which will ultimately result in
diminished support and involvement at a time
when they are needed most.
Restoration of Local Authority
The local/state partnership in providing
public education is founded on a set of core
values: equity, adequacy, and liberty. Equity
and adequacy are associated with the state’s
responsibility to fund public education,
while local control of decisions that matter is
embedded in the concept of liberty. The value of
local control, however, has been superseded by
the dominant value of state control.
In 1949, as a result of the Gilmer-Aikin Act,
public education funding in Texas took a new
turn and began a new commitment to quality
and equity with the state providing the largest
share of operational costs. In contrast to recent
times, the state set some standards but did not
try to run the schools. Today, the burden for
financing the schools has shifted to the local
level with most financial support coming from
local property taxes, while the authority to run
the schools has shifted to the state, not unlike
the plight of the original thirteen colonies. This
over-reliance on the local property tax forced
the creation of a “share the wealth” system to
correct equity issues, further straining the sense
of local control and community ownership.
Similarly, the locus of control for educational
policymaking was originally envisioned to
be centered in the local community. Today,
students, teachers, administrators, parents,
school boards, other local residents, and
businesses live the nightmare of state and
federal micromanagement. New laws are thrust
on schools and communities from the state
and federal levels without opportunity for
significant participation from the local level, yet
schools faithfully implement the biennial spate
of new laws and rules. This stranglehold by the
state is causing the tolerance level of those most
affected to reach a breaking point, resulting in
9
unbearable levels of frustration, particularly for
students and teachers.
We believe the state is interested in quality local
schools and that our responsibility as local
leaders is to work diligently within our own
districts to improve, but we cannot in good
conscience advocate policies that interfere with
real improvements that are so badly needed.
We believe strongly in accountability, but
accountability for the right things done
in the right way for the right purpose. We
cannot support a system that relies on oneshot testing, pushes a myth of objectivity,
and punishes students and teachers based on
false conclusions about student success and
development.
We believe the state/local partnership should
encourage community capacities to meet the
needs of the 21st century learner in ways that
develop the full range of a student’s abilities
and talents. We must restore the right of local
communities to have a significant say about
what the learning standards should be and how
they are to be met and assessed.
The Federal Role: Less Control, More
Support
In the context of shared responsibility, the
role of the federal government should become
one of research, support for solutions to
major problems that transcend state and local
boundaries, dissemination of information, and
protection of constitutional rights.
The federal government has circumvented
local and state authority by regulating many
school and classroom functions over the past
several decades. The No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act greatly accelerated this trend,
and regardless of its intent, discretion of local
school boards, administrators, and teachers has
been drastically diminished.
This has been done through a contractual
arrangement, the terms of which exchange
state and local control for federal dollars. The
same legal scheme could be used to create a
nationalized system with nationally-mandated
curriculum, assessments, and accountability
mechanisms. This approach, despite the
national interest it portends to advance,
will further marginalize the sense of local
ownership, community, and responsibility
and will significantly reduce the local support
and community capacities needed to function
in optimum ways. It will, in fact, result in
the opposite of what was probably intended.
Schools must be allowed to function in ways
that build communities.
We believe that the further removed from the
function of local schools, families, and centers
of learning the policymakers are, the greater
the likelihood that special interests will prevail
to the exclusion of the voices of school leaders,
communities, and families, orchestrated public
hearings notwithstanding. The schools cannot
be run either effectively or efficiently from
Washington any more than from Austin. Local
schools and communities may not always
function as well as they should, but removing
their authority generally instead of specifically
is not the answer.
A New Vision and Direction Needed
We are compelled to offer a new vision that
is based on our experience within our own
communities. We listen and continuously
search for new knowledge and ways to help
parents realize their dreams for their children.
What we envision comes directly from the
aspirations of our citizens, parents, community
leaders, students, teachers, and school board
members who we interact with every day. The
future we see is tempered by the insights and
beliefs derived from our professional judgment,
experience, and what we have learned from
our communities and each other. The voice we
10
reflect is a cry from home for great schools and
a better tomorrow for our children.
We believe that certain premises, principles, and
beliefs should drive a vision that is 21st century
in its character. We have articulated those
principles in the section that follows. A vision
that can frame the debates and conversations is
needed to create the deeper understandings and
commitments of all who care about the future.
We have painted a picture of a dynamic vision
of learner success in a global, digital world
and the organizational structures and supports
necessary to realize that vision. We have
proposed some strategies for action as well.
We believe this endeavor will result in major
changes in state policies and local practices,
better public education opportunities, and
stronger communities. To bring about these
changes, we will engage citizens of the local
communities and elected officials in open and
informed conversations focused on the agendas
contained in this document and the subsequent
topics they will generate.
11
Our Declaration of Commitment
The writers of The Declaration of
Independence expressed their beliefs on which
their vision of the new nation was based.
They also felt a responsibility to enumerate
the wrongs that justified their separation from
the tyrannical king and his parliament. We
too, have shared our beliefs, and a general
description of the preferred future we believe
can and must be created.
The principles and premises we embrace
are defined in this section. We think of
these principles on which the schools can
be transformed, in a metaphorical sense, as
analogous to the Articles of Confederation
and the United States Constitution. We
know they do not rise to that magnitude of
importance or clarity of expression of the
philosophical underpinnings of our great
nation, but we sincerely believe that moving
in this new direction for educating the young
is fundamental to the survival of the nation
of the free they envisioned and created. We
see the Federalist Papers as symbolic of the
conversations for understanding that must be
stimulated and provided for now.
We pledge ourselves to act on these beliefs, to
pursue these ends, and to be willing to take the
personal and professional risks required, for
we do not believe the next generation will have
the opportunity open to us today. It is with
that sense of responsibility and urgency that we
take on this enormous task, the first of which
is to invite those who may share our discontent
and the possibilities of our approach to join
us in seeking understanding, in improving it,
and in taking the strategic actions necessary
to begin and sustain this critical journey of
transformation.
12
Principles and Premises We Embrace
Bureaucratic Stranglehold/State Dominance
Must Go:
We believe this transformational process
must rescue schools from the bureaucratic
stranglehold of over-regulation and the
government-imposed and antiquated factory
model that now forms their character. The
state cannot have great schools and strong
communities as long as it insists on the real
power and authority residing in Austin, for
the long arm of control carries with it the
high cost of the very bureaucratic structures
for compliance that render local schools and
communities incapable of responding to
changing needs. A new, more balanced and reinvigorated state/local partnership based on the
principles embodied in this document can make
Texas the leader in which all can take great
pride in the schools—pride in ownership and
in a new sense of community committed to the
common good.
Six Articles
The principles and premises we embrace are
defined in the context of six separate articles:
Article I: The New Digital Learning
Environment
Article II: The New Learning Standards
Article III: Assessments for Learning
Article IV: Accountability for Learning
Article V: Organizational Transformation
Article VI: A More Balanced and Reinvigorated
State/Local Partnership
Introduction
Beliefs Behind the Vision:
Beliefs create vision and drive action. Purposedriven organizations are clear about what they
believe, who they are, why they exist, what
vision they seek to realize, and what missions
they must accomplish. The assertions we make
here are the basis for our vision. They form the
foundation for what we see for a new direction
and future for public education in Texas.
Importance of the Digital Revolution:
We believe that the new digital environment
will have more impact on the generation and
transmission of knowledge than anything
since the invention of the printing press. Like
the mid-fifteenth century scribes and monks
who were suddenly confronted with new
roles, leaders in public education must adapt
to these new realities or face extinction. The
current culture and structure that prevail in
most schools will not meet the needs of these
new “digital natives,” nor will they result in the
improved learning opportunities and engaging
experiences our students deserve.
Re-framing Required for Changing the
Conversation:
We believe it is our duty to help reframe the
“problems and challenges” of public education
in this new context. We offer these assertions to
stimulate different conversations and to provide
impetus for legislative actions so that public
education in Texas can take a new turn for a
vibrant future.
Article I: The New Digital Learning Environment
Article II: The New Learning Standards
Article III: Assessments for Learning
Article IV: Accountability for Learning
Article V: Organizational Transformation
Article VI: A More Balanced and Reinvigorated State/Local Partnership
13
Article I: The New Digital Learning Environment
Statement of Principle
Digitization and miniaturization of information processing power are expanding exponentially
and are changing the world, our lives, and our communities at an overwhelming speed. To be
viable, schools must adapt to this new environment. We must embrace and seize technology’s
potential to capture the hearts and minds of this, the first digital generation, so that the work
designed for them is more engaging and respects their superior talents with digital devices and
connections.
Supporting Premises
We hold that:
I.a The technologies that make this new
digital world possible must be viewed as
opportunities and tools that can help us
in educating and socializing the young
both in and outside the school.
I.b The virtual social-network connected
and tech-savvy generation will not
tolerate the one-size-fits-all mass
production structures that limit learning
to particular times and places and
conventions.
I.c The potential of learning anywhere,
anytime, “any path, any pace” must
be embraced. Future learning will be
a combination of learning at school,
virtual learning, learning at home, and
in the community.
I.d Schools must reach out to those
who would educate at home or in
small networks and welcome their
involvement in the school community.
I.e Virtual learning should become the
norm in every community to meet the
needs of students who prefer such an
environment.
I.f The secondary school credit system
should be expanded beyond school
walls so that any place/any time
learning, including virtual learning, are
equally valued and supported.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
14
I.g We (families, schools, churches, youth
organizations, etc.) cannot control
access to information by the young and
recognize that once existing boundaries
no longer exist.
I.h Children and youth need role models
and adult guidance and connections
even more than in the pre-digital era,
but the role of adults is different,
becoming one that is more about
facilitating understanding, raising
questions, and designing engaging tasks
that produce learning than lecturing and
instructing.
I.i School leaders, including board
members, must work to bring the public
into conversations that are needed not
just to support these transformations
but to help shape them and create
ownership.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
15
Article I: The New Digital Learning Environment
If we embraced this PRINCIPLE and its SUPPORTING PREMISES:
What changes might we expect to see?
In students?
In the environment in which teachers and students work?
In the focus of our actions?
What new capacities will we need and how will we develop them?
How would embracing this PRINCIPLE impact our beliefs, bring greater clarity to our sense of
direction and what we want to be like five years from now?
16
Article II: The New Learning Standards
Statement of Principle
The new digital environment demands new learning standards for students so that they will have
the values and the capabilities to live, learn, and earn in a free society surrounded by a world that
is truly global, connected, and increasingly competitive in scope and character.
Supporting Premises
We hold that:
II.a Standards should be clear, attainable,
and high enough to provide for a system of student performance variance
where all can experience success and
challenge.
II.b Learning should be specified to the
“profound level,” that is, students are
able to apply their learning to new situations, to synthesize, solve problems,
create knowledge, and cultivate and
utilize the full range of their capabilities.
II.c. Learning standards should embrace
development of the whole person to
build students’ capacity to shape their
own destiny as individuals and as
contributing members of society.
II.d Standards should respect and value
students’ “multiple intelligences” and
talents and provide opportunities for
all students to excel and experience
success.
II.e Standards should tap curiosity and
imagination in the traditional academic core, aesthetic, and skill areas
in a way that lack of proficiency in
any one area does not discourage students from recognizing and pursuing
their special talents and learning in
other areas.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
17
II.f New learning standards should reflect
realities of the new digital era, where
students are not just consumers of
knowledge, but creators of knowledge.
II.g Content standards should serve as
frameworks that assist teachers and
students in creating learning experiences that motivate student success.
II.h Standards should be flexible enough
to provide for expansion and extension by local districts and their communities.
II.i Guidance should be given to teachers’
daily work so they can make the content standards clear and compelling to
their students for each unit of focus.
II.j Standards should be framed so they
do not sacrifice the profound learning
desired for easy and low-cost state assessment and accountability measures.
II.k When competent, caring teachers
provide properly designed learning
experiences in inspiring social environments, all students will engage and
can meet or exceed a reasonable variance to the standards.
II.l Standards should result in all students
being committed and equipped to
be competent lifetime learners, wellprepared for further formal education
and to pursue multiple careers.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
18
Article II: The New Learning Standards
If we embraced this PRINCIPLE and its SUPPORTING PREMISES:
What changes might we expect to see?
In students?
In the environment in which teachers and students work?
In the focus of our actions?
What new capacities will we need and how will we develop them?
How would embracing this PRINCIPLE impact our beliefs, bring greater clarity to our sense of
direction and what we want to be like five years from now?
19
Article III: Assessments for Learning
Statement of Principle
Appropriate and varied types of assessments are essential for informing students about their
level of success in ways that affirm and stimulate their efforts and for informing their teachers so
that more customized learning experiences may be provided in a timely way. Well-conceived and
well-designed assessments should also be used to reveal to parents, the school, the district, and
society at large the extent to which the desired learning is occurring and what schools are doing to
continuously improve.
Supporting Premises
We hold that:
III.a Assessments must be framed in a system development approach to meet
the information needs of all users of
assessment results. The system must
be balanced and reflect at least three
basic levels of assessment: the classroom level, with particular attention
to the impact of the assessment on the
learner; the program level, which allows evaluation of program effectiveness; and the institutional level, which
appropriately informs policymakers.
III.b Assessments used by teachers are the
most critical for improving instruction and student learning, and to be
effective must reflect certain characteristics, be interpreted properly in
context, and reported clearly. Conducting good assessments is a part of
the art and science of good teaching
that results from teacher experiences
and formal teacher professional development opportunities.
III.c Assessment should be used primarily
for obtaining student feedback and
informing the student and the teacher
about the level of student conceptual
understanding or skill development
so that the teacher has accurate information to consider for designing
additional or different learning experiences.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
20
III.d Assessment should be continuous and
comprehensive using multiple tools,
rubrics, and processes, and incorporate teacher judgments about student
work and performance as well as the
judgment of others, when needed.
III.e Assessment should not be limited
to nor even rely substantially on
standardized tests that are primarily
multiple-choice paper/pencil or on
similar online instruments that can be
machine-scored.
III.f Standardized tests should be used primarily to identify hard-to-learn/difficult-to-teach concepts to differentiate
learning experiences and focus attention on the more systemic curricular
issues involving student performance.
Assessments that rely exclusively on
quantifiable information remove from
the teacher and school informed judgment prerogatives that are necessary
to be timely and productive and deny
the human aspect of the daily interactions teachers have with students and
each other.
III.g Assessment should reflect and encourage virtual learning and incorporate
ways of recognizing its value and
counting it as credit in meeting graduation requirements.
III.h Reports about student performances,
generated as a result of assessment,
should inform students, parents, the
school, and the greater community
about how well students are doing.
III.i Sampling techniques involving all
student groups should be employed
periodically to evaluate programs and
overall student progress. On occasion,
community members or other teachers who have particular expertise may
observe student performances and
participate in protocols gauging the
quality of student work products or
examinations.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
21
III.j The voice of students should be respected, and their feedback should be
solicited regarding their learning and
their response to the tasks they are
assigned.
III.k The voice of teachers should be respected, particularly what they have
to say about student performance,
curriculum development, and program evaluations.
III.l The voice of parents should be respected, and they should be involved
in feedback processes regarding the
response of their children to tasks assigned as well as parental desire to do
work at home that extends the learning.
III.m Assessments for learning, when they
are varied and comprehensive, can
also furnish important information
in context as one factor among many
in personnel appraisal systems, in
ascertaining the performance levels
of campuses and departments, and in
measuring the impact of accountability systems on inspiring continuous
improvement.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
22
Article III: Assessments for Learning
If we embraced this PRINCIPLE and its SUPPORTING PREMISES:
What changes might we expect to see?
In students?
In the environment in which teachers and students work?
In the focus of our actions?
What new capacities will we need and how will we develop them?
How would embracing this PRINCIPLE impact our beliefs, bring greater clarity to our sense of
direction and what we want to be like five years from now?
23
Article IV: Accountability for Learning
Statement of Principle
Comprehensive accountability systems are essential to achieving minimal personal and
organizational performance only. They are necessary for weeding out the incompetent and
reconstituting unproductive schools, but such systems serve to create compliance and mediocrity at
best. Excellence and sustained exceptional performance come from a commitment to shared values
and a clear vision that encourages collaboration and teamwork. Creating organizations that foster
commitment requires superior moral leadership and a responsible use of authority.
Supporting Premises
We hold that:
IV.a Accountability systems should be
carefully designed on a theoretical
base that honors what teachers and
students actually do, that empowers
and builds integrity, trust, and commitment to the values that define the
school.
IV.b Assessment results and other examples of work products and performances of students should be used as
the primary information source for
understanding where students are and
what they need. These can also be
used for reporting to parents and the
public.
IV.c Accountability systems that draw
on assessment information external
to the class, school, or district are
important for internal confidence in
large systems and external confidence
in all districts. Descriptions of the
contexts in which assessments are
given should be a part of reports. All
parties should have some say in what
measures are used and the weights
assigned to different measures.
IV.d Districts should be allowed to design
their own internal systems of assessment for learning and accountability,
as long as they meet certain specified
state standards.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
24
IV.e Those for whom the accountability
mechanisms are to apply must have
confidence and trust that they are fair
and unbiased.
IV.f Sampling techniques (the full range of
examinations, evaluation of student
work products, and performances as
well as teacher tests and standardized
tests) should be used in lieu of testing
every child every year.
IV.g Processes should be clearly defined so
they can be controlled, measured, and
improved.
IV.h End results are not the only results
that matter, for some results are set
as goals that, if achieved first, would
enhance the end result.
IV.i An effective accountability system
has multiple measures in place that
provide for continuing employment,
promotion, development, probation
or termination; and respects the perspective that most people want to do
a good job and want others to do a
good job, as well.
IV.j Standardized tests (including criterion-referenced tests) cannot measure
with precision profound learning.
IV.k Much for which schools need to be
accountable will require subjective
measures, and the decision about
what and how to measure is admittedly one of the most subjective.
IV.l Accountability systems are guided
by the fact that to attach any matter
highly valued by students, teachers,
school leaders, or schools/districts to
any single measure such as a standardized test, corrupts the test and the
integrity of what it measures as well
as the accountability it was intended
to provide.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
25
IV.m Labels for schools and particularly
those that use the lowest performing
unit as the basis for a punitive label
should be avoided. There is a distinction between identifying performance
gaps and labeling. Identification of
performance gaps enables schools to
move forward in designing different
instructional strategies or approaches
to help students achieve the learning
desired.
IV.n Complete transparency is a requisite
for how all data is collected, analyzed,
and reported, including the subjective,
sometimes political, manner in which
state proficiency standards are set on
state tests, if such tests are to be used.
IV.o A multi-year cycle for periodic district
and campus performance reviews
should be established, using highly
trained visiting teams to analyze a
predetermined set of student performance information.
IV.p As single measurements, standardized norm-referenced tests, criterionreferenced state tests, aptitude tests,
end-of-course exams, other oral and
written examinations, student performances/projects/portfolios, regular
teacher assessments, and grades each
give a piece of the picture; and used in
combination, can provide a more holistic view. However, if a high-stakes
standardized test is given a preponderance of weight, it will become the
assessment that really counts, others
notwithstanding.
IV.q Standardized tests to which high
stakes are attached can become substitutes for the learning standards
themselves and result in “teaching to
the test” rather than teaching for attainment of the standard.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
26
IV.r Consequences (sanctions) should be
associated with a performance assessment only if the assessment uses
a combination of measures including sample examinations and other
student performances to ascertain the
degree to which the learning level is
outside the variance allowed.
IV.s Alternative assessments in combinations as indicated in other premises in
this section should be considered.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
27
Article IV: Accountability for Learning
If we embraced this PRINCIPLE and its SUPPORTING PREMISES:
What changes might we expect to see?
In students?
In the environment in which teachers and students work?
In the focus of our actions?
What new capacities will we need and how will we develop them?
How would embracing this PRINCIPLE impact our beliefs, bring greater clarity to our sense of
direction and what we want to be like five years from now?
28
Article V: Organizational Transformation
Statement of Principle
The digital revolution and its accompanying social transformations and expectations dictate
a transformation of schools from their current bureaucratic form and structure that reflects
the nineteenth and early twentieth century factory after which they were modeled, to schools
that function as learning organizations. We believe that a learning organization can create the
conditions and capacities most conducive for leaders, teachers, and students to perform at high
levels and meet the expectations of new learning standards.
Supporting Premises
We hold that:
V.a Excellence emanates from a shared
commitment to values and standards,
high levels of engagement, and strong
leadership at levels functioning within
an accountability system that inspires.
V.b The teacher’s most important role is
to be a designer of engaging experiences for students, supporting students in their work by incorporating
more traditional roles as planner, presenter, instructor, and performer.
V.c The overall quality of the present
teaching force is excellent, and most
teachers are capable and willing to
take on their new designer role if their
sense of moral purpose for entering
teaching is honored, and if they are
provided relevant developmental opportunities and a climate and conditions that support them.
V.d To attempt to incentivize teachers
with material rewards for improving
test scores is an insult to teachers and
infers that improvements in learning
can be measured with precision. Such
pay schemes should not be mandated
by the state but left to the discretion
of local districts.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
29
V.e The costly loss of so many teachers
from the profession in the first three
to five years of employment is likely
more a function of the social systems
and conditions that dominate most
schools than a lack of material rewards.
V.f Districts will have increasing difficulty
in attracting experienced teachers to
teach in poverty-stricken schools, and
the overall teacher retention rate will
decline even further if federal and
state bureaucratic controls continue
excessive focus on high stakes standardized tests.
V.g Leadership development at all levels
(teachers, included) must become a
primary means of building needed
capacities to function in required new
roles.
V.h Students are in charge of determining
where their attention, effort, and commitment go, and their access to information gives them even more power;
hence, they must be treated accordingly.
V.i The variation in student learning is as
much a function of student effort as it
is of ability, meaning that we must incorporate into the tasks we design and
assign to students those qualities that
will increase engagement.
V.j Profound learning (owning the knowledge) as opposed to superficial learning (short-term memory) comes more
from engagement and commitment
than from various forms of compliance, coercion, sanctions, or rewards.
V.k The use of too tightly monitored curriculum and a scripted approach to
teaching to ensure coverage of the
material for the test instead of broad
understandings of connected content
is a detriment to profound learning.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
30
V.l The district is responsible for creating the conditions in which student
commitment and engagement become
central and for attracting principals
and teachers who can learn to use
appropriate frameworks, protocols,
processes, assessments, and resources
in different ways in a collaborative
setting.
V.m Operating and social systems exist in
all organizations including schools.
Transforming these systems is the
only way to transform schools into
the type of organization needed.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
31
Article V: Organizational Transformation
If we embraced this PRINCIPLE and its SUPPORTING PREMISES:
What changes might we expect to see?
In students?
In the environment in which teachers and students work?
In the focus of our actions?
What new capacities will we need and how will we develop them?
How would embracing this PRINCIPLE impact our beliefs, bring greater clarity to our sense of
direction and what we want to be like five years from now?
32
Article VI: A More Balanced and Reinvigorated State/Local Partnership
Statement of Principle
A more balanced, reinvigorated state/local partnership can generate the public involvement and
community support needed to meet the demands of new learning standards essential to the success
of the 21st century learner. The present state-dominated partnership is inherently incapable of
creating the type of schools that can provide the learning experiences most needed by students
in our schools today. New levels of trust and reciprocal arrangements, including a return of
significant authority and responsibility to local communities, are the only hope.
Supporting Premises
We hold that:
VI.a The state’s interest in great schools
and communities can best be assured
by a partnership that may specify the
basic standards for graduation and
general accountability measures but
does not detail how standards are to
be achieved nor the assessments needed to inform and guide instruction.
VI.b The dramatic increase in number of
students, diversity, and poverty levels
demand that the state/local partnership be shaped to respond to these
needs with innovations not bound by
bureaucratic rules of the present.
VI.c Schools reflect the problems of the society from which their students come;
therefore, it is essential that community/school partnerships be developed
and supported that coordinate social
services to students and families.
VI.d Educating our youth is a state responsibility but a local function. Attempts
to run the schools from Austin and
Washington will result in a further
decline in the local sense of ownership and responsibility at the very
time when local involvement is most
needed.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
33
VI.e The public education finance mechanisms must be adequate, equitable,
and provide for local meaningful
discretion and flexibility in the allocation of resources to support goals and
priorities. Digital learning opportunities will require innovative revenue
generation and accounting possibilities not yet invented.
VI.f A stronger sense of community ownership would prevail if conversations
by school board members and other
community leaders focused on substantive issues over which they had
control rather than on state and federal compliance matters.
VI.g Regional education service centers
are a vital resource and developing
their capacities to provide technical
assistance in collaborative ways can
accelerate the transformation journey of schools and school districts,
particularly in development of assessment tools for learning and training
for school personnel.
Reflections, Questions,
Recommended Revisions/Additions
34
Article VI: A More Balanced and Reinvigorated State/Local Partnership
If we embraced this PRINCIPLE and its SUPPORTING PREMISES:
What changes might we expect to see?
In students?
In the environment in which teachers and students work?
In the focus of our actions?
What new capacities will we need and how will we develop them?
How would embracing this PRINCIPLE impact our beliefs, bring greater clarity to our sense of
direction and what we want to be like five years from now?
35
Legislative Initiatives Required
These principles and premises and the resulting vision involve major transformations throughout
all aspects of public elementary and secondary education. The initial changes in laws and rules
should include the following:
liberating them to innovate and focus on
children and ensure they are accountable to
their families and communities.
F. Transform the state governance structure
from a system that locates inordinate
power in the governor, providing little or
no insulation of schools from political
expediency, to a system that has clear
lines of authority and accountability
and provides for general oversight of the
agency. Clarify the role of the state board
of education and its authority related to the
core business of schools.
G. Transform the public education system by
allowing some “trailblazing” districts to
advance this vision. The Legislature should
authorize the establishment of a network
of at least 10 school districts broadly
representative of the state and exempted
from inhibiting laws and regulations.
These districts may then design and lead a
piloting endeavor to transform themselves
in ways that reflect the spirit and intent
of the principles and supporting premises
proposed by the Texas Public Education
Visioning Institute.
A. Transform the current litany of overly
detailed curriculum specifications to
frameworks that identify at the state level
the most important topics for the new
learning standards in a way that leaves
room for local communities to make
decisions about the details.
B. Transform the current assessment system
that is cumbersome and focused on a series
of snapshots for accountability to a system
of multiple types of assessment that satisfies
various state and district needs but has a
primary focus on informing instruction
and design of work for students. Invest
in piloting assessment alternatives to
standardized testing.
C. Transform the Texas Education Code from
a litany of overly prescriptive regulations
and a myriad of practices imposed on the
schools that restrict local prerogatives,
distract attention, and use resources,
particularly misuse of time, to a streamlined
compendium of major policies that support
the new learning standards and focus
schools on their main purpose.
D. Transform the accountability system from
one based primarily on standardized test
scores with counterproductive high-stakes
that result in mediocrity at best, to a system
that enables excellence through inspirational
standards, comprehensive review processes
that ensure accuracy in reporting levels of
learning, outstanding moral leadership, and
a culture of commitment.
E. Transform the Texas Education Agency
from an organization that is totally focused
on compliance and enforcement to one
that carries out its compliance function
as secondary to providing leadership and
technical assistance to school districts
36
Appendix A
The Story Behind the Visioning Institute
Where’s the vision?
This story begins with conversations among school
superintendents and other school leaders. Such discussions are often dominated by compliance issues such
as how to implement the latest mandate from Austin
or Washington. At other times, the exchanges relate to
school finance, politics, changing demographics, challenges of technology and its impact on students and
society, the test-focused craze, dysfunctional school
boards, and the negative impacts of the present accountability mechanisms on students and teachers.
On occasion, we lament how we allow ourselves to
be co-opted into supporting policies that we know are
counterproductive and take away local options, and
how we permit ourselves to be discouraged from being
more assertive in representing our local communities in
support of meaningful improvements.
But when the discussion turns to thoughts about the
future for Texas public education, no clear picture
emerges to frame the conversation. We sense the present direction is wrong but what direction would we
propose? Most of us have some understandings of the
future we want in our districts, but even those descriptions are framed by the present state accountability
labels, as if reaching “Exemplary Status” defines it. Can
we begin a new and different kind of dialogue about
the future? Should we challenge the underlying assumptions on which so many bureaucratic practices are
based? In the absence of a clear picture of the preferred
future, should we as public school leaders define and
express our own vision to “get the ball rolling”?
What are we for?
The second part of the story has its origin in the state
educational policymaking environment and associated
debates. Politicians, state business leaders, and their
policy advisors have been the principal architects of
the present system—not school superintendents, not
principals, not teachers, and not parents. What we hear
most often from these external decision makers is that
they know what school superintendents are against, but
don’t know what they are for.
If they are asking us to describe what we are for in a
broad based and coherent way, then we tend to come
up short in spite of our issue-specific legislative programs, with the exception of the principles we favored
in the school finance issue. Otherwise, we often gave
inadequate answers. What evolved from these interactions was the assertion that we could answer the “for”
question only if we were clear about our relevant beliefs, principles, and premises and the vision they would
generate. One thing we know for sure is that we object
strongly to the present debilitating conditions for students and teachers generated by the false assumptions
that underlie many current policies. Therefore, we feel
duty-bound to discover and express the answers to the
“for” question, not in a piece-meal fashion but in a
comprehensive and fundamental manner, and in a way
that makes sense of the digital revolution now impacting every aspect of our world and our lives.
Where did we start?
The catalyst for bringing these ideas forward was Keith
Sockwell, retired superintendent of Northwest ISD,
and, at the time, with SHW Group LLP, an architectural firm in Plano. In his visits with a number of superintendents around the state during the spring and summer of 2006, these questions kept coming up again and
again. The “what are we for” and the “no vision” bug
bit him hard. So he asked SHW Group if they would
underwrite such a quest with “no strings attached.”
The only stipulations SHW Group made, through its
Chief Executive Officer Gary Keep, were to take the
long-term view, think creatively, follow through, and
ask the participating superintendents’ school districts
to support the effort by paying their travel costs and a
minimal fee, and, more importantly, supporting their
commitment and the time to make it happen.
We anticipated that the effort would require at least a
yearlong pledge, and that it would be professionally developmental for participants. Secondly, it became clear
that follow through could involve significant resistance
from the backers and benefactors of the present statecontrolled system. However, our confidence in the democratic process was such that if parents and other local
community members were empowered, they would rise
in support of the new vision if it were clear, reflected
their values, and appealed to their interests and needs
and dreams of success for their children.
What were the next steps?
Sockwell contacted John Horn, retired superintendent,
Mesquite ISD, and now a Senior Associate with the
Schlechty Center for Leadership in School Reform. He
has worked with several Texas school districts and has
37
been facilitating planning and goal setting sessions for
leaders of the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA). He was also the primary facilitator some
years back when eleven educational leadership organizations came together to develop the core principles
around a school finance system that would provide
adequacy and equity and meet constitutional requirements.
Along with Frank Kelly, director of educational facilities planning, SHW Group, Sockwell and Horn met
with Johnny Veselka, Executive Director of TASA, who
saw the need for such a visioning effort, eagerly agreed,
and with the TASA Executive Committee’s unanimous
support, obtained approval of the Texas Leadership
Center to be the fiscal agent. TASA would provide coordination and other staff support. SHW Group agreed
to pay for facilitation, materials, cost of resource
speakers, and publication of the initial draft product
that would be used to foster intentional conversations
around the agenda promoted by the proposed principles and premises.
The Visioning Institute then became a reality. The Institute contracted with the Schlecthy Center to help
design and facilitate the work sessions. A small nucleus
of superintendents from the larger group was invited
to form what became known as the Design Team.
They met with Lennie Hay from the Schlechty Center
and John Horn to develop clarity about the objective,
map out a 15-month timeline, select topics for discussion germane to the objective, identify experts in those
fields, and design each session as a developmental experience for participants that would free them up to think
creatively, elicit insights from their own experience, and
to develop a sense of collegiality and moral commitment to the goal and to each other. Horn worked with
the Design Team between sessions to adapt and meet
the needs of the participants so their contributions
could be maximized.
How were other participants selected?
The superintendents invited to participate were those
with whom Sockwell had been visiting, and who, for
the most part, were SHW Group clients. The Texas
Leadership Center Board of Directors and TASA officers were also invited. Horn and Hay advised the
Design Team that a maximum of 35 participants would
be the most conducive to having the type of disciplined
conversations and dialogue needed to reach the stated
goal.
When the 35 participants were identified, it became
clear that the group included an appropriate sample of
superintendents representing various types of districts,
serving over 1.2 million students. The Design Team
members believed that if the initial proposal were a
“work in progress” or an “initial draft,” that any who
desired could help to shape its continuing evolution,
that if it were inspiring and captured the spirit of what
any similarly constituted group of superintendents
would also produce, then it would be welcomed and
well received.
The original participants were sensitive to not make
presumptions about speaking for all. We viewed our
work from the perspective of how we would react if we
had not been part of the original group. Our conclusion was that if it were kept as a “work in progress”
until anyone who desired could weigh in with suggestions and changes, then it would be judged on its quality and relevance.
It was agreed that an extensive written record of the
discussion and video recordings would be made to
ensure that, at the end, the thoughts and contributions
of all had been captured and honored in the resulting
product. However, to ensure completely candid discussions and protection from those who might misunderstand such free and open dialogue, it was agreed that
no video or quotes of individuals would be made public without their consent.
Now that the initial “work in progress” document has
been offered, the SHW Group has agreed to support
further dissemination and public information strategies to give our colleagues the opportunities described
above and to put “feet and legs” to the more fully developed ideas and policy initiatives that emerge. They
will also support efforts to extend conversations in
local communities, with other organizations, and with
state leaders in hopes that many of them will embrace
the statements of vision, principles, and premises required to create the future envisioned.
38
Appendix B
Meetings, Topics, and Participants
The Visioning Institute had its first meeting with participants on September 6–7, 2006, and met
for seven sessions during 2007 with an additional work session in November and the most recent meeting in January 2008. The Design Team continues to meet and additional sessions are
likely to orchestrate the next steps.
Our Purpose as Framed in the Invitation
Letter to Prospective Participants
The Public Education Visioning Institute is a unique opportunity for thirty visionary, progressive
superintendents to learn from one another by challenging conventional thinking to improve their
leadership capacities and their school systems.
Participants will engage in stimulating dialogue with each other and leading thinkers to explore
ways they can create more meaningful educational opportunities for their students. The first in a
series of eight workshops will focus the group on examining the culture and structure needed in
schools to meet the needs of learners in a more global environment of new expectations.
Development of relevant core values from which new visions and purposes for public education can emerge is a goal. The remaining workshops have been designed to explore moral and
intellectual leadership, the nature of the future’s learner and the new social contexts in which
they will live, more appropriate assessment systems, and more equitably designed accountability
mechanisms.
Participants will explore innovative ways of using resources such as people, time, space, technology and funding to realize a new vision for public education in the year 2020.
39
The Schedule/Topics/Resource Speakers
Session 1: Purpose, Core Values, Vision—Phil Schlechty
September 6–7, 2006
Session 2: Learners and the Design of a Productive Social Context (I)—Marc Prensky
November 8–9, 2006
Session 3: Learners and the Design of a Productive Social Context (II)—Judy Johnson/Lauren
Resnick
January 10–11, 2007
Session 4: Results for Public Education—Doug Reeves
March 7–8, 2007
Session 5: Rethinking Resources for Public Education (I)—Milton Chen
April 25–26, 2007
Session 6: Rethinking Resources for Public Education (II)—Ian Jukes/Ted McCain
June 22–23, 2007
Session 7: Moral and Intellectual Leadership for Change—Michael Fullan
September 27–28, 2007
Session 8: What Could Public Education Look Like in 2020?—Phil Schlechty
January 16–17, 2008
40
Participating Superintendents
Superintendent District
David Anthony Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
Cathy Bryce Highland Park ISD
Gene Burton Rockwall ISD
Deborah Cron Weatherford ISD
Thomas Crowe McKinney ISD
Ralph Draper Spring ISD
Robert Duron San Antonio ISD
John Folks Northside ISD
Alton Frailey Katy ISD
Greg Gibson Crowley ISD
Annette Griffin Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD
Jim Hawkins Killeen ISD
Michael Hinojosa Dallas ISD
Rick Howard Comanche ISD
Mark Jackson Burleson ISD
Melody Johnson Fort Worth ISD
Duncan Klussmann Spring Branch ISD
Richard McReavy Waller ISD
Leonard Merrell (Retired) Katy ISD
Richard A. Middleton North East ISD
Vernon Newsom Mansfield ISD
Dawson Orr Wichita Falls ISD
Douglas W. Otto Plano ISD
Thomas Randle Lamar CISD
Rick Reedy Frisco ISD
Jerry Roy Lewisville ISD
Karen G. Rue Northwest ISD
Rod Schroder Amarillo ISD
Greg Smith Clear Creek ISD
Barbara Sultis Goose Creek CISD
Jeff Turner Coppell ISD
Stephen Waddell Birdville ISD
Ryder Warren Marble Falls ISD
Nola Wellman Eanes ISD
Leland Williams Dickinson ISD
41
Texas Association of School Administrators
406 East 11th Street
Austin, TX 78701-2617
512-477-6361
1-800-725 TASA (8272) |