{"id":4300,"date":"2017-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-02-02T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/blog\/cw_post\/building-consensus-for-change-at-d51\/"},"modified":"2020-02-05T13:01:03","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T18:01:03","slug":"building-consensus-for-change-at-d51","status":"publish","type":"cw_post","link":"https:\/\/aurora-institute.org\/cw_post\/building-consensus-for-change-at-d51\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Consensus for Change at D51"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"d51
D51 School Board<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This article, the second in the Designing Performance-Based Learning at D51 series, is about how the district has built the consensus for change and is engaging their community. A reminder: D51 uses the phrase performance-based learning or P-BL. <\/em><\/p>\n

One of the more challenging processes for medium to larger districts (as compared to the small ones that have led the way to competency-based education) is engaging the broader community in building the consensus for change. In general, when it comes to shifting course or introducing new reforms in larger districts, buy-in tends to be the most common strategy used; there is a single or big meeting with community members, presentation of the new idea, opportunity to react \u2013 and then it moves quickly into implementation. Engagement means that there are continued opportunities for community members to shape the \u201cwhat\u201d of competency education and that there are ongoing structures and processes for two-way dialogue. D51\u2019s Superintendent Steve Schultz explains, \u201cWe want to move from a \u2018decide and defend\u2019 mentality to one in which we gather information to inform a decision before it is made.\u201d<\/p>\n

Below are highlights (and we know there is much more to the story than recounted here) of how D51 is building consensus and shaping community engagement.<\/p>\n

A Bit of Background<\/h3>\n

Schultz had been guiding D51 toward personalization since 2006, when the school established three diploma pathways (normal, distinction, and individualized) with the district expanding the number of options and instructional pathways (IB, concurrent enrollment, STEM, Key Performance Program to demonstrate learning through capstones and presentations, and four alternative education programs). The emphasis was on helping students excel just as much as it was on increasing pathways for students who were having problems earning credits, were confronted with challenging life experiences, or had left school for a period of time to complete their diploma.<\/p>\n

In 2013, when Schultz began to engage his team in learning about competency education, the communities within the Grand Valley were still challenged by the Great Recession<\/a>. A region shaped by the boom and bust cycles of the oil industry, Grand Junction and the surrounding towns were having difficulty climbing out of the bust. Vast ideological differences had led to relationships becoming increasingly strained between the teachers’ association, administration, and the school board. Schultz remembers, “It became clear to us that we needed to focus on building relationships and finding common ground in order to move the district forward.”<\/p>\n

Then two things happened.<\/p>\n

From School Board to Learning Board<\/strong><\/p>\n

School boards are the strength and the weakness of our public education system. Public education is rooted in local accountability. Board members live within the communities that the district serves, are (hopefully) in touch with their constituencies, understand the challenges of public education, and are constantly seeking to develop effective high-level strategies to guide their communities. However, we also know that they can be the first step for many with political ambitions or those with representation diminished by the election rules, as well as a place where our nation\u2019s ideological battles can take place.<\/p>\n

Recounted to me by Darren Cook, I began to understand that the D51 school board election of 2011 opened the door to creating a \u201clearning board\u201d where members worked together to do what is right for D51 learners and were open to learning from each other\u2019s perspectives, shaping a vision that was beyond any one single political ideology. In this election, what had previously been a board sharing one ideology now became a group of board members bringing together a mix of ideologies. Board members found that they needed to be more collaborative. It wasn\u2019t that the new board members had a better or stronger ideology \u2013 it was that it shook up the hold of one way of thinking and opened up opportunities for board members to engage with each other. If we use our color-coded political system, you would describe the board as two reds and three blues all willing to think about shades of purple if that was going to be best for kids.<\/p>\n

Cook, then the president of Mesa Valley Education Association, described his first meeting with Jeff Leany, a more conservative board member who had retained his place on the board. Leany understood that the dynamics of the board had changed and emphasized that he did not want to be marginalized. As a business owner and a parent, he cared deeply about his community and public education, and wanted to make his contribution even if the overall strategies for improvement took a new direction. Cook described Leany as \u201cawesome\u201d in his dedication and openness. \u201cI realized Leany also wanted what\u2019s best for kids, but he starts from a different place and a different ideology,\u201d he said. Together, the two began a small study group, giving each other different readings that reflected their views about education, followed by discussion.<\/p>\n

It wasn\u2019t just Leany and Cook who were learning. The five board members began a formal study and reflection on how the world was changing. They began to ask themselves, How are we as a community preparing our students for a rapidly changing world?<\/em> They came to terms with the fact the public education system isn\u2019t broken, it\u2019s obsolete. The internet has made knowledge and information easy to get and find any place and anytime. Jobs are being automated, and the opportunities are in technical occupations. Technology is making the world more customized. It\u2019s opening up new ways to personalize. The global economy is increasing competition for the good jobs. We can\u2019t tolerate our children simply getting through the system; they need to be able to demonstrate mastery so they are fully prepared for college and careers.<\/p>\n

The focus of the board shifted from what it thought government shouldn\u2019t do to what it can do.<\/p>\n

A Trip to Lindsay<\/strong><\/p>\n

Superintendent Steve Schultz sent a party of four \u2013 Cook, Leany, another school board member Greg Mikolai, and Chief Academic Officer Tony Giurado \u2013 off to Lindsay, California<\/a> to see personalized, performance-based learning in action: a model he hadn\u2019t seen himself. I continue to be a bit shocked by this story until I remind myself that this is one of the ways that one demonstrates and builds trust. He trusted this team to be learners, to share and listen to each other\u2019s perspectives, and to bring back their insights without bending them around their own agendas.<\/p>\n

Cook, a middle school social studies teacher, recounts his experience. \u201cIt was eerie,\u201d he said. \u201cI visited an eighth grade classroom where all the kids were working and engaged. It was hair-raising. I had never been in a classroom where 100 percent kids were on task. There was no behavior to be managed. Every kid could tell me what they were learning and why, how they would know if they had mastered it.\u201d After classroom visits at Lindsay, Cook described Leany\u2019s reaction: He spoke personally about his daughter, challenged by special needs. \u201cThis is what my daughter needs,\u201d he said. \u201cThis would change her life.\u201d<\/p>\n

All four returned from Lindsay and other site visits inspired and excited. After subsequent visits to Lindsay by other teams, Steve Schultz was amused to learn that some board members wanted full implementation by next fall. \u201cOf course the board members wanted to do it now, next year. How do we go about implementing this? I knew we were facing a transformation, not an add-on program. It couldn\u2019t be done next year. We had to set realistic expectations.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Schultz jumped on a steep learning trajectory about how to implement performance-based learning and helped the board and district manage expectations and set timelines, it became clear that \u201ceveryone was all in.\u201d Two more trips to Lindsay were organized. One had a broad representation of the community, including representatives from Colorado Mesa University (CMU), the owner of the Daily Sentinel, and directors of the Grand Junction Economic Development and Chamber of Commerce. The final site visit was organized for the seven demonstration schools. Over two days, the seven principals and seven teachers were able to engage with peers at Lindsay.<\/p>\n

Cook, in reflecting upon this point in time, explained that he was concerned about how to get 1,325 teachers to make the transition. \u201cWe\u2019ve all experienced the enthusiasm that accompanies the new educational panacea that is supposed to turn everything around,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd then the new panacea is introduced the next year. We had just created a high degree of trust between teachers and the school board, but did we want to spend the entire cache right now on performance-based learning?\u201d He continued, \u201cI felt that this time it was going to be different. I knew we were going to have to weather cynicism in public and from people whispering behind our backs that this would never work. I knew that this placed all of us in a vulnerable position. But there wasn\u2019t really any choice after we had seen performance-based learning in Lindsay.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve heard this phrase before, of not having a choice but to go forward, during other site visits. Often it is described as \u201cmoral urgency.\u201d I asked Cook about it. He explained that after visiting a district that had been trying to balance teaching students at their performance levels part of the day with grade-level curriculum the other half (as far as I know, this was a failed experiment, so don\u2019t try it at home) he realized that trying to do P-BL in baby steps, small chunks, halfway, or as hybrids wasn\u2019t going to work. \u201cThere are many who don\u2019t realize that delivering grade level curriculum day after day to kids regardless of whether they are learning or not is based on an archaic pedagogy,\u201d he explained. \u201cMany students are harmed by this \u2013 they end up thinking that they aren\u2019t smart or give up on school. We know so much more about how students learn today, and our schools should be shaped around it. But if they don\u2019t know that they are doing something harmful, are they really responsible?\u201d He continued, \u201cOnce you see personalized, performance-based learning in action, you face a moral question. Are you going to be like Thomas Jefferson who knew that slavery is wrong but kept doing it anyway? Or once you realize that there is a better way to help students learn, are you going to do it, even if you bump up against other parts of the system?\u201d He emphasized, \u201cAs a school system, we need to be clear \u2013 are we chasing students or test scores? Or trying to do both at once?\u201d (You can listen to Darren Cook yourself on this video<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

The Visioning Process: Respectfully Engaging the Community<\/h3>\n

Currently, D51 is in the midst of an intentional community engagement process to create three important design nodes (ideas that guide the development of the system and intersect with other ideas and frameworks) for the performance-based system by the end of 2017. First, they are creating a graduate profile that captures the hopes and dreams of what the community wants for their children when they graduate. This profile will be used to help shape the graduation competencies as well as inform the pedagogy and mix of learning experiences students will need over time. Second, they are creating a shared vision that includes embedded metrics that will guide the district. Third, a set of guiding principles will be created that will be used for decision making. This set of work, graduate profile, shared vision, and guiding principles, establishes one of the hallmarks of local control: mutual accountability. The school board is accountable to the community through elections; however, the shared vision creates mutual<\/em> accountability.<\/p>\n

The first set of community engagement sessions, initiated in 2016, invited parents of seventh graders as well as the broader community to respond to the following questions in order to create the graduate profile:<\/p>\n