FEASIBILITY PLANNING IN THE SMALL PRIVATE SCHOOL

The preparation prior to initiating a capital campaign is a vital piece of the eventual success of the effort. Inquiring, testing, qualifying, ensuring, openly hearing responses to tough questions, and assessing the views of pivotal volunteer leaders and cornerstone donors, are all parts of verifying the strategic potential of a small school campaign. This is normally referred to as the feasibility study, or the pre-campaign planning/ capability assessment. This preparation process is an examination of the school’s readiness to ask and the constituent’s alignment = connectedness, readiness and willingness, to give.

Central things to assess or consider are: Does the school have the infrastructure to conduct the feasibility study? Does it make sense in the infrastructure for the development director to interview key constituents?  Or, is it wiser to hire an outside professional consultant to do the feasibility assessment?

While doing it in house saves some expense, it could be challenging for an inexperienced director of development to complete this sensitive work with constituents. Inexperience would make asking the right questions and evaluating responses difficult. Objectivity is a large part of a feasibility study, and the familiarity of the development director and prospect could color the communication and thereby, challenge the objectivity of the study.  For this reason, excepting in highly experienced scenarios,(unusual in a small school) it is best to work with an outside group on assessing your institutional readiness for a campaign.

The director of development and other key fundraising people – trustees, head of school etc. – work together to identify the names of constituents to participate in the study;  usually, donors who would provide the insights necessary to assessing the campaign’s feasibility. The list could include as few or as many as you deem necessary and it should incorporate administrators, faculty, trustees, major donors, prospects, and potential campaign leaders. At a minimum, the school should identify and include the top eight to fifteen potential donors.

Once you have figured out who you want to include, the interviewing process can unfold. *Whatever data is collected in an interview is considered confidential; if information needs to be shared for any reason, it is with the clearly communicated assurance that its source will not be identified.  Without this guarantee of confidentiality, sensitive information critical to the forward momentum of the campaign cannot be cultivated. This can be hard in small school communities and is therefore, vital.

Often, the hardest part of the interviewing is posing and listening to the answers to tough questions. These so called ‘hard questions’ are aimed at some essential data for understanding the feasibility of a campaign:

• Have we successfully made the case and does our case reflect the institution’s mission, goals, and objectives?
• Can the school’s constituencies understand it?
• Does it inspire potential donors to make a larger contribution?
• Have we created a sense of urgency for our donors?
• Is our fiscal goal sensible to our constituents? If not, why not?
• What are the problems?
• How many gifts do we need to make goal?
• How many giving levels do we need to make goal?
• Are there donors out there to make these gifts?
• How many gifts do we need from individuals, foundations, corporations - and in what ranges?
• Do we have a potential prospect able to give one gift worth 10 percent or more of the goal?
• What solicitation strategies will be required to get us to our goal?

If the campaign is to build momentum, the school needs leaders who will not only give but who will help cultivate/solicit large gifts from others. Do we have these leaders on our board and in our school?  How will we identify and enlist the right person to take on the role of campaign chairperson?

Finally, we need to be open to learning whether or not this is the best time for a campaign. A large part of understanding this includes assessing the amount of time we anticipate we will need to ensure success: two, three, five, or more years?  *Most schools embrace a three to five year span and at the outside, no more than seven years in order to maintain momentum.

Once these pieces are understood, then the school can consider next how best to promote the campaign; how to build positive support in the school community; the soundness of the development office infrastructure in supporting the campaign; and, of course how best to budget for the expenses of the campaign - from outside consultants to expanded staff, technological/data and reporting expenses etc..

The Challenges of Leading

In my work with school administrators, I often hear people discussing the difficulties they encounter in moving the school deeper into its mission.  Sometimes, it dissolves into a conversation about people's personalities and how that influences forward momentum. Sometimes, it evolves into a dialogue about leadership in schools in the twenty-first century and the complexities that need to be incorporated. 

• Teachers taking greater personal responsibility and self-initiative.
• Teachers and administrators working more effectively as a team.
• Tolerance and responsive attitudes with personality conflicts.
• Resolving conflicts in schools that are typically conflict-avoidant.
• Responding proactively to resistance to change,
• Encouraging buy-in for the needed changes.
• Retaining the right people.
• Responding to the difficult people.
• Communcating, clarifying and aligning the school's objectives.
• A process for solving problems.
• Nurturing leaders.
• Cultivating the best in people.
• Maximizing communication within and across teams.
• Intervening when something just is not working.
• Keepng people motivated by anticpating what they require in special situations.
• Identifying and maximizing the benefits of cross-affinity groups.

Something to mull at your next administrative retreat or faculty in-service. 

A Leader versus A Manager

In my work with schools, I regulary engage in conversation and reflection with school administrators about what good leadership looks like.  Opinions range on this question and in my experience often depend on the type of school setting, and the school culture.  What passes as good leadership in one school, may not in another.  However, in all of these exchanges there is a clear sense that a good school head must not succomb to simply managing.  In todays economic climate that becomes tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

Here are a few interesting excerpts that speak to the difference between leading and managing:

 "Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p. 21). Burns (1978) describes managers as transactors and leaders as transformers. Managers concern themselves with the procurement, coordination, and distribution of human and material resources needed by an organization (Ubben & Hughes, 1987). The skills of a manager facilitate the work of an organization because they ensure that what is done is in accord with the organization's rules and regulations. The skills of a leader ensure that the work of the organization is what it needs to be. Leaders facilitate the identification of organizational goals. They initiate the development of a vision of what their organization is about. "Management controls, arranges, does things right; leadership unleashes energy, sets the vision so we do the right thing" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p. 21).

 The central theme of the research is that those who find themselves supervising people in an organization should be both good managers and good leaders. As Duttweiler and Hord (1987) stated, "the research shows that in addition to being accomplished administrators who develop and implement sound policies, procedures, and practices, effective administrators are also leaders who shape the school's culture by creating and articulating a vision, winning support for it, and inspiring others to attain it" (p. 65).

Courage: The Missing Ingredient

The school systems educators follow aren’t us. They’re not even about us. They’re about someone else’s attempt to make managing us easier. (And we are going right along with it!) In our race to fit the school’s models, we’ve forgotten who we are.  In most schools, this is clear in the dichotomy between mission and practice. Instead of pursuing success, we pursue the mission. We focus on gaming the system rather than going after what’s important. We blame the administration for not letting us do it our way, blind to the tragic reality that we did do it our way, and that our way is to give up control and then complain about the way it is. This takes a certain kind of courage.

It’s time, as educators, to remember that we are the protagonists in our own stories—not fictional ones, either, but real, live, actual, here-I-am-in-the-flesh-stories unfolding in our work with students and colleagues each day. We are all the stars of our own life stories, and our 'careers' are subplots.  None of us should let that overtake our bigger life story—especially if we are engaged in education as  a predictable, formulaic progression.

Can you think of a good story where the main character lives life from start to finish in a predictable, formulaic way, as if led by a guide wire.

When you’re on a guide wire, you can’t have a story unless you let go and see where you go from there. That takes courage. Only protagonists can know surprises, friendship, obstacles, twists, victories, villains, daring, love, temptation, loss, luck, setbacks, choices, laughter, tears… only protagonists can know success. Have the courage to take risks.

So step off your career path; let go of the guide wire, be the hero of your own story.

Strategies for Dealing with Uncertainty

As an administrator and self-acknowledged change agent in diverse school settings, I think a lot about how best to foster creativity in me and the people I work with.  I am continually intrigued by the dualistic thinking I encounter in school leadership.  It is really fascinating to work with people who can read and report out on 21st century learning skills yet, not diverge from the know into the unknown as a leader of educators.  This piece on creative behavior appeals and strikes a chord.  See what you think.....

The ability to live in the question long enough for genius to emerge is a touchstone of creative success. In fact, a 2008 study published in the Journal of Creative Behavior revealed tolerance for ambiguity to be “significantly and positively related” to creativity.  Explaining the results, lead researcher, Franck Zenasni, argued tolerance for ambiguity “enables individuals to not be satisfied by partial or non-optimal solutions to complex problems. People who tolerate ambiguity may be able to work effectively on a larger set of stimuli or situations, including ambiguous ones, whereas intolerant individuals will avoid or quickly stop treating such information.”

Problem is, with rare exception, when faced with the need to live in the question, most people, creators included, experience anything from unease to abject fear and paralyzing anxiety. And there’s a neuroscience basis. According to fMRI studies, acting in the face of uncertainty lights up a part of the brain known as the amygdala, which is a primary seat of fear and anxiety. That sends a surge of chemicals through our bodies that makes us want to run.


So, what do you do if you’ve been put upon the planet with an insatiable jones to create, but not the ability to handle the potential angst that goes along with leaning into the unknown?


I spent the last few years interviewing everyone from Mullen Chief Innovation Officer, Edward Boches, to The War of Art author, Steve Pressfield, and devouring reams of research that spanned neuroscience to decision-making theory in a quest to find out. What emerged surprised even me.


There may, in fact, be a very thin slice of creators who arrive on the planet more able to go to and even seek out that uncertainty-washed place that destroys so many others. But, for a far greater number of high-level creators, across all fields, the ability to be okay and even invite uncertainty in the name of creating bigger, better, cooler things is trained. Sometimes with great intention, other times without even realizing it.


And what surprised me even more was that so many creators, field-wide, work in a way that is in direct contradiction to the way your brain functions best. Not because it works for them, often it doesn’t, but because “that’s just the way it’s always been done.”


It’s possible to effectively build “uncertainty scaffolding,” practices that allow you to do what you do (a) without ending up a psychotic mess, and (b) giving you access to an often untapped reservoir of creativity.


This uncertainty scaffolding tends to fall into three different areas:

• Workflow adaptations
• Personal practices
• Environmental/cultural shifts

Here are five examples to get you started:


1. Single-Task.
The part of the brain that helps keep fear and anxiety in check -- the prefrontal cortex, or PFC -- is also tasked with managing working memory. Problem is, it’s easily overloaded. Doing too many things as once lessens its ability to keep the discomfort that tags along with moving into uncertainty at bay and makes you more likely to shut down. Only by rejecting multitasking and focusing on a single task at a time can you harness your full brainpower for optimal performance.


2. Exercise Your Brain.
Meditation and exercise have well-documented mood-enhancing, stress-management, and disease-prevention effects. What you may not know, though, is that they also have a profound impact on creativity, decision-making, and problem-solving. Recent research even shows certain approaches increase brain mass, something that’s always been thought impossible.


Also, these two daily practices bolster your ability to go to that edgy place where the good stuff happens and stay there long enough for next-level innovation to emerge. Together, they combine to create the single most powerful mindset, creativity, and innovation force multiplier on the planet.


But not all forms are equal. High-intensity, cardiovascular training, for example, has a greater effect on the brain than moderate level activity. And mindfulness training has the added benefit of training creators in the art of observing, then dropping storylines, which creates the space for more empowering patterns of thought to emerge.


3. Reframe.
Reframing is the process of asking questions that allow you to change the storyline around a particular set of circumstances. We often become so close to a project, we lose objectivity about its viability and start to tell ourselves stories that not only stifle action, but stunt creativity. Reframing is a process that allows you to see an identical circumstance in a way that motivates action and fuels creativity. And, as noted above, one of the most effective tools to build the awareness needed to pull back and reframe is a daily mindfulness practice.


4. Pulse and Pause.
Though we often tend to work in 2-4 hour chunks of seemingly uninterrupted time, our brains are really only equipped to productively focus for a max of about 90-minutes. Beyond that window, we may feel like we’re cranking, but in reality our attention, creativity, and cognitive function decline rapidly. So, rather than push through and watch your frustration levels skyrocket while the quality of your output craters, rework your day into intense, 90-minute bursts with refueling periods in between.


5. Drop Certainty Anchors
Certainty anchors are repeated daily experiences where the decision-making aspect has been removed. They can be as simple as eating the same thing for breakfast every day, wearing only black t-shirts, or walking to work the same way. The key is removing the decision-making element from the experience and, in doing so, turning these moments into repeated occasions where you know in advance that you’ll be able to drop out of the creative ether and land on firm ground.

***

Jonathan Fields

Students Lead Parents and Teachers in Conferences

Good progressive schools include in their mission and philosophy of teaching and learning the idea that an important aim of education is fostering the development of student independence. In these settings, students assume responsibility for a deeper degree of educational independence by leading their own academic conferences in what are called student-led conferences.

In preparation for student-led conferences, upper elementary and middle school students work with their teachers to set goals, reflect on their learning strengths and weaknesses, self-evaluate their outcomes, and select academic work for a portfolio that illustrates their learning profile. At conference time, the meeting agenda is set by the student. Each student takes responsibility for guiding his or her parents and teachers through an in-depth and thoughtful discussion of his or her academic progress. During a student-led conference, adults and children identify next steps and, when necessary, work together to reevaluate and rewrite student goals.

For eighth graders these moments are important to reflect on their whole experience at school and to envision the future after graduation. To provide choice and encourage creativity, these students should be encouraged to structure this as a longitudinal reflection through technology or media, a video, or a collage of photos.

Progressive educators tend to strongly believe that student-led conferences serve the progressive educational mission well – an attitude well supported by educational research. An example of this research would be the work of University of Maryland Professor William Sedlacek. I believe there are clear parallels to a progressive educational approach to learning and more directly, the thinking and assumptions about learning that informs student-led conferences.

Non-cognitive Characteristics that are Predictive of Academic Success

• Positive self-concept: The confidence that leads to the determination to succeed

• Realistic self-appraisal: The ability to accurately assess your own strengths and  

   weaknesses and to use this assessment to further your own development

• Successful navigation of the system: Knowing how to assess resources and how to use

  the system to help you achieve your goals

• Preference for long-term goals: Knowing how to set and achieve long-term goals, delay

   gratification, and persevere in spite of obstacles

• Availability of strong support person: Finding someone to confer advice, particularly in

   times of crisis

• Leadership experience: Having the ability to organize and influence others

• Community involvement: Being involved in community

• Knowledge acquired in and about a field: Having the explicit and implicit knowledge of a particular field of study

Dr. William Sedlacek, author of Beyond the Big Test

   

Role of the Adult in the Classroom Today

Recently, a parent friend of mine whose child attends a fairly well established, well known, progressive school shared an uncomfortable parent/school encounter. Apparently, this person was endeavoring to understand better how said school approached a particular piece of the science curriculum. As this parent framed the questions, he said it felt as if the administrators listening to him sort of glazed over and then suggested that this parent simply did not seem to understand the aims of the program. My parent friend indicated that from the moment the conversation turned to the inquiry with this what are we trying to do here?, and, how do we measure that we have done it?, the possibility of real conversation ended.

I listened to this person as both a parent and an educator. I thought again about how tough it is for parents and schools to really weigh in on the learning stuff of schools effectively.  Moments like this just seem to separate rather than unite the adults in working together.

Interestingly, I came across a piece by Will Richardson that powerfully encapsulated what the heart of the matter is in talking about children’s leaning as adults.

‘What if instead of seeing the adult in the room as the point through which the curriculum ebbs and flows and as the ultimate arbiter or what’s been learned we saw that person as the chief instigator of discovery, or the person that continually asks questions that he or she doesn’t have the answers to, or the learning expert that constantly models passionate and discerning practice around “learning more?” ‘  Will Richardson educator and author

Seth Godin, writer and change agent, speaks to this when he says:

If there’s information that can be written down, widespread digital access now means that just about anyone can look it up. We don’t need a human being standing next to us to lecture us on how to find the square root of a number or sharpen an axe. (Worth stopping for a second and reconsidering the revolutionary nature of that last sentence.) What we do need is someone to persuade us that we want to learn those things, and someone to push us or encourage us or create a space where we want to learn to do them better.

Sometimes, parent feedback serves to push schools and teachers to learn how to do what they do better – ironic!