A leadership lesson from college football

This evening I came across an article on ESPN's website that really resonated with me.  I am fascinated with the influence culture has on teams and also how it influences the academic outcomes in a school setting.  The culture at my school is still a work in progress, so I seize any opportunity to learn about how to implement the culture I believe necessary to assist out school in reaching its potential.

Below I summarized the main lessons I took from the article and italicized any direct quotes from the article.

A house divided

“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand” (Mark 3:25, The Lutheran Study Bible).  This is most likely evident to all leaders and Abraham Lincoln used this quote prior to becoming President, as he saw the truth in these words. Charlie Strong also recognizes the importance of getting all team members on the same page.

Just ask Charlie Strong. Speaking in March at the start of his second spring practice as Texas' coach, Strong began by spotlighting the team's inability to stay united last season, which led to shaky results.

"Within a team there's different cliques, and you've got this clique here and they've got a clique," said Strong, who added that a player's loyalty to his clique can hinder his individual development. "In order to come together as a team, trust has to be built and a team has to come together. That's what we never did, and we still had these cliques we were dealing with."

When I assumed leadership of my present school, numerous team members warned me of the various cliques present with in the school.  I am happy to say that we have largely eliminated this problem, but we still have a few folks holding on to bad habits.  In the coming months tough decisions will have to be made regarding their continued membership on our team.  The work we have to do is too important to allow them to hold us back.

Horizontal leadership

I believe strongly in the importance of horizontal leadership and I wrote on it previously.  There is no doubt in my mind that the presence of horizontal leadership has the potential to take teams, groups, and organizations from good to great; and it appears that some of the top coaches in college football agree.

LSU never goes longer than six weeks without an established unity council. Saban relies on Alabama's peer intervention leadership group, which he meets with twice per month. Saban saw how Alabama's leaders reacted to a series of off-field issues this spring, including the dismissal of defensive lineman Jonathan Taylor.

"They’re really pissed that some of the things have happened, so it creates a heightened awareness that people want to do things to affect it," Saban said. "Where sometimes, when everything’s going good, everybody just assumes it's going to stay that way."

Others agree that team leaders, rather than coaches, can best manage troublesome cliques. Iowa State coach Paul Rhoads thinks player-driven accountability is "the strongest force" to prevent roster splintering, especially when losses pile up.

If you can create a culture in which team members hold one another accountable, I believe you are well on your way to creating a great team.

Summary

Talented teams lose all the time.  Over and over again talented teams fail to reach their potential because the leader fails to get each member of the team on the same page. 

However, books are written and films are made about those less talented teams that somehow pull off the impossible victory because all team members are united in a common purpose, and choose to sacrifice ego and individual agendas in order to achieve victory.  I want to be on that type of team.

Contagion effect:The double standard for charter schools

 Introduction

It would take countless hours to combat all the lies, half-truths, and misconceptions regarding charter schools.  While some of these inaccuracies are rooted in fact (most long since addressed and rectified), most are simply not true, but continue to be propagated by opponents of school choice.

  I have a particular quarrel with those opponents of school choice attempting to lump all charter schools in the same category in an effort to spread the failure of one across the entire spectrum of schools.

 Folks engaging in this type of behavior are guilty of espousing a double standard, are intellectually lazy, and contribute little to the conversation or efforts on how to better serve the children of our state.

The standard for traditional public schools

Traditional public schools generally are not plagued by the problems of perception as are our state’s many charter schools.  They are afforded the luxury of building their own unique brands and traditions, unencumbered by the failures or missteps of other districts.

 For example, in Genesee County there are two districts that are perennially low performing districts, consistently ranked near the bottom of the state’s top-to-bottom rankings.  By any quantifiable measure both of these districts are seen to be as failing and the schools within each district are often referred to as “bad schools.”

 Not surprisingly, the reputation of these two districts in no way influences the reputation of other districts in Genesee County, such as Grand Blanc, Goodrich, or Fenton.  People understand that the performance of Beecher Community Schools has no correlation to the performance of Grand Blanc Community Schools.  Although they are both traditional public schools, they are two very distinct entities and the failures or successes of one are not transferable to the other.

The double standard for charter schools

In contrast, when it comes to charter schools, opponents generally attempt to lump all such schools together when discussing those that are low-performing. 

Charter schools, just like traditional public schools are far from a commodity.  In fact, a strong argument could be made that there is far greater diversity when it comes to charter school than what is observed in traditional public schools.

 The diversity of charter schools

Looking at the 303 charter schools currently operating in Michigan, there are charter schools with specializations in aviation, business and technology, the culinary arts, and numerous other areas.  To lump all charter schools together into one homogeneous category is simply intellectual laziness.

In addition, just as with traditional public schools, while two, or even more, schools may have a similar focus, there is no doubt a great deal of difference between the schools due to their respective cultures, demographics, geographic locations, and staff composition.

 The inconsistency in the view

Quite obviously a double standard exists when it comes to how traditional public schools are viewed and how charter schools are viewed.  This intellectual inconsistency is not needed, not warranted, and certainly not valid.  Moreover, it serves as an impediment to any constructive discourse on how to best serve the educational needs of the children of our state.

There is no doubt that there are many, many similarities among both traditional public schools and charter schools.  However, there are undoubtedly just as many differences and slight nuances that serve to set them apart from one another.

No matter how many similarities there may be between two schools it is generally illogical to associate the successes or failures of one with another simply because both schools fit into a very broad category.  The failure, or success, of one is not necessarily transferable to another.

Conclusion

There are top-performing charter schools and perennially low-performing charter schools, just as there are top-performing traditional public schools and perennially low-performing traditional public schools.  One low-performing traditional public school should not taint the rest of traditional public schools, just as one low-performing charter school should not taint the rest of charter schools.

It is my experience that educators from both camps could learn from one another were we able to get past the false beliefs and misconceptions currently held.  There are great practices in place at schools all over our state and the broad labels of private, traditional public, or charter have little to nothing to do with the presence of these practices.

Rather than focus on perceived differences or inadequacies, what we should focus on is how do we better serve the children under our care.  This is a conversation that should be inclusive of all educators, regardless of the type of school in which they teach.