Developing a shared understanding for the need for change is the first Schlechty Center standard. One of the best ways to gain consensus for change is to take advantage of a defining event in the school community. In Washington state, for example, one school district seized the opportunity to adopt a new vision for education after steep budget cuts and fractious teachers’ strike threatened to set the schools back. As one of that district’s leaders said: “The strike was the best thing that could have happened because it opened the door for change.” In another example, a school district in Ohio used a $10 million from a local foundation to transform secondary education in the community. In the absence of a defining event, district leaders can also create a culture that is conducive to change. Two decades of steady population growth in a southwest Florida city, for instance, gave school district leaders plentiful evidence to persuade the community to support new plans for local schools.

Developing structures for participatory leadership is System Standard four. The Schlechty Center asserts that change does not happen in the absence of leadership; sustaining support for change in school systems requires leadership at all levels. One school district surveys parents on a regular basis and uses their comments to develop school improvement plans. The district also invites parents to serve on key decision-making committees so they will convey the community’s educational needs and help find solutions to problems. By finding opportunities for meaningful shared leadership, the district has broadened support for educational initiatives.

System Standard eight urges districts to foster innovation and flexibility to maintain reform. This means that district and school leaders must adopt a “whatever it takes” mentality to help schools achieve while simultaneously complying with state and federal mandates. This standard is particularly relevant in light of regular funding cuts that typically leave school districts with more regulations than resources. Consider how one school district in New Jersey upheld this standard. When the state Department of Education ordered all school districts to choose from a specific list of whole school reform plans, leaders of this particular school system were disturbed to discover that the Schlechty Center framework, which they had used for years with positive results, was not on the list. In an effort to comply with the state mandate yet not abandon a framework they knew was service their students well, district leaders compiled evidence of results and persuaded the state to add the Schlechty Center to the list of approved reform organizations. Several school districts in Indiana and Ohio made a similar case to their State Departments of Education.

back to How We Work