What Does it Take to Be a Visionary Leader?

What Does it Take to Be a Visionary Leader?   OK, so I admit the title may be misleading.  I'm fairly certain that if ANY leader isn't visionary they are not really a leader.  To me that is one of the primary separations between leadership and management. Leaders are visionary, managers don't necessarily have to be. Leaders need to be able to consider future needs and potential problems as one of their primary functions.
Nonetheless, Brian Tracy (SuccessNet Online) suggests there are "Seven Qualities of Visionary Leadership."

1. Leaders inspire others because they are inspired themselves. They are excited about the possibility of creating an exciting future for themselves. They get up every morning and they see every effort they make as part of a great plan to accomplish something wonderful with their lives.


2. Leaders are optimistic. They see opportunities in everything that happens, positive or negative. They look for the good in every situation and in every person. They seek the valuable lessons contained in every problem or setback. They never experience "failures;" instead, they write them off as "learning experiences."


3. Leaders have a sense of meaning and purpose in each area of their lives. They have clear, written goals and plans they work on every day. Leaders are clear about where they are going and what they will have to do to get there. Their behavior is purposeful and goal-directed. As a result, they accomplish five and ten times as much as the average person who operates from day to day with little concern about the future.


4. Leaders accept personal responsibility. Leaders never complain, never explain. Instead of making excuses, they make progress. Whenever they have a set-back or difficulty, they repeat to themselves, "I am responsible! I am responsible! I am responsible!"


5. Leaders see themselves as victors over circumstances rather than victims of circumstances. They don't criticize or blame others when something goes wrong. Instead, they focus on the solution.


6. Leaders are action-oriented. They are constantly in motion. They try something, and then something else, and then something else again. They never give up.


7. Leaders have integrity. They tell the truth at all times. They live in truth with themselves, and they live in truth with others.

This is certainly a good list. I would say it is a good list for leaders, period.  I remain convinced that being visionary is a significant trait of good leaders. I am not convinced that "visionary" leadership is a new, separate, model

Leadership and the value of reflection.

"In the end it is important to remember that we cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are."  Max DePree, Leadership is an Art. 2004,
"It is easy to go astray when we forget that the heart of leadership is in the heart of the leader." Bolman & Deal, Leading with Soul. 2001.
"We are emotional beings in a social setting."  Faverty lecture. 2004
I wish I could remember where the saying came from, it may actually have been the Bible, "as within, so without."
All of these quotes suggest that the function of leadership is an 'inside job,'  that is inside the head and the heart of the leader.  How does a leader bring to light the issues living in the head or the heart?
Reflection.  

Reappraisal of technology in the classroom

For some time now, the call for technology integration in classrooms has been a regular topic of school reform, transformation, and improvement. Nonetheless, many educational leaders will attest that while technology is increasingly finding its place in classrooms, it is only a small cadre of teachers actually utilizing technology in classrooms to improve student learning.  It may be that merely "integrating" technology is not the real issue.  If pedagogy itself is not changing through the use of digital technology then the problem is clearly not the tool but the method in which it is used.

 Much has been made of this inability of technology to add any real capacity to improved student learning regardless of academic level. Increasingly the evidence has shown that "teachers have been painfully slow to transform the way they teach, despite the influx of technology into their classrooms" states Benjamin Herold in his article for Education Week, June 11, 2015. It is, therefore, critical for 21^st Century educational leaders to address this situation.  There are many already concerned with the situation:

“In general, teachers at many schools seem to view technology as a more valuable tool for themselves than for their students.” Kelly Shapley (2015), Educational Researcher, Shapley Research Associates.

“The net effect”, says Leslie A. Wilson (2015), the chief executive officer of the One-to-One Institute, a nonprofit based in Mason, Mich., that has consulted with hundreds of schools and districts across the country and world, “is that schools rarely realize the full promise of educational technology.  There's nothing transformative about every kid having an iPad unless you're able to reach higher-order teaching and learning.  If schools take all this technology, and use it like a textbook, or just have teachers show PowerPoint presentations or use drill-and-kill software, they might as well not even have it."

“Public schools now provide at least one computer for every five students. They spend more than $3 billion per year on digital content. Nearly three-fourths of high school students now say they regularly use a smartphone or tablet in the classroom.  But a mountain of evidence indicates that teachers have been painfully slow to transform the ways they teach, despite that massive influx of new technology into their classrooms. The student-centered, hands-on, personalized instruction envisioned by ed-tech proponents remains the exception to the rule.”  Benjamin Herold, Education Week, “Why Ed Tech is not Transforming Teaching” (2015).

"The introduction of computers into schools was supposed to improve academic achievement and alter how teachers taught," said Stanford University education professor Larry Cuban (2015). "Neither has occurred."

The purpose of this reappraisal is not to make projections or proposals to be followed for success, rather to consider the teaching, leadership and/or management issues that likely must be attended in improving this situation: 1. Developing a culture for critical digital pedagogy for use in K12 schools or HE program,  2. The leadership support needed for same, and  3. The sustainability of effort and effect of the leadership for ongoing success.

Suffice to say my reappraisal is based on the belief that each organized professional educational group of shared focus, e.g. schools, districts, or education departments must answer the important pedagogical questions around these three areas themselves. Their decisions regarding pedagogy, technology, and student performance will require shared goals, shared commitments, and regular review of their growth. Unless the professionals themselves ask the important questions about improving critical digital pedagogy and student performance, regardless of tools used, any real success will be fleeting. 

A "NEW" year of more of the same.....

Each and every year, prior to my retirement this Spring, I remember always looking forward to the new school year.  I remember saying that the Summer in which I did not look forward to the Fall and the new year would probably indicate I was done. While this Summer I knew I was not returning to the daily function of school, I nonetheless was still excited. Maybe excited is not the correct word, I was more hopeful.  More hopeful that some of the early adoption /"underground" educational issues would start to really pay off.  Issues like fewer days of testing pointless facts, increased awareness by principals of the critical job they play in establishing a positive school culture, of increased technology use by students in tech savvy classrooms, and teachers owning their own professional development needs rather than spending two days prior to school in large body "sit&get" training. Sadly, in visiting schools and talking with teacher colleagues this year did not start out as I would hope. The tests are still scheduled for too many days with inadequate feedback fo teachers, principals still read from lists of top down policy, technology is still not much more than a some computers (or chromebooks - which are no different) in classrooms, and teachers had to sit through another round of sit&gets that will ultimately only add more notebooks gathering dust on their shelves.

The function of mandatory change

In some of the courses I took in gathering a Master's Degree in Counseling Psychology, there often was mentioned the condition of personal change.  How do we change, why do we change, why would we want to change? Obviously, counseling is about change.... of one sort or another.... change in behavior, change in relationship, change in thinking, etc.  Counseling assumes that the person 'wants' to change and the counselor can assist.  So how does change work when someone else tells someone to change.  Sometimes in an intervention the support of the others suggesting the need for change helps the person to see they want to change.  But what about the function of forced change - "you have to change"?  I'm not aware of too many people that appreciate being told that they have to change. That often ends relationships, jobs, etc.
My point here is why do we tell all teachers that they have to change.  I mean really what was the point of NCLB or even Race to the Top?  Trying to force teaches to change, either through perceived incentives or consequence, will never work.  There is not enough incentive or enough consequence as long as the policy tries telling teachers what to do AND how to do it.  While my experience has shown me that teachers try to do what they are told to do, most know that what they are doing is not best for their students.
The bottom line here is this, educational policy tries to control the outcome of every classroom and, for that matter, every student.  Control is an illusion and will never 'force' change.  Since we know now, after 25 years of trying that forced change doesn't work, why don't we incentivize change in education differently.  First, let's give teachers full responsibility AND accountability for student learning in their classrooms.  They are the only ones who really get to know the needs of the specific students in their classrooms. Second, let's pay them better given what we are asking them to do. Every teacher needs to be in charge of their own classroom AND every teacher needs to know that student outcomes are their responsibility AND every teacher needs to be remunerated at a professional standard.  We don't need tests to tell us whether they are successful or not. Just require each teacher to provide an annual portfolio of each student's work that shows that the student gained academic improvement while in their classroom. Finally, third, let's make certain that every school has a highly qualified leader that will assist teachers in their daunting tasks.  Leadership of a school needs to be about servant and supportive leadership.  If teachers are 'in charge' of their classrooms, there is no need for an authoritarian leader.  Principals are responsible for the social culture and climate of the facility.