Well I thought that I would take a fresh look at Cage Busting Leadership by Frederick Hess. I wanted to make sure that my bias from my initial impression wouldn't get in the way of what Hess was trying to say to me as a reader. The more I read the more my earlier bias quickly percolated to the surface. Dr. Hess condescendingly tried to explain to me, that as a district leader, I had a blind spot concerning the true nature of what school leaders do. Hess writes: "That said, these experts routinely make two mistakes. First, they have erected a notion of instructional leadership that reifies consensus, deifies stakeholder buy-in, and insists on the “specialness” of education—while dismissing or ignoring the half of the leadership equation that deals with statutory, bureaucratic, contractual, or organizational obstacles." He follows up with the idea that these leaders create solutions that only work in optimal conditions, and that we're not even interested in acknowledging that "the cage" exists. That line of reasoning is disingenuous, and pure ad hominem. Hess unconvincingly tries to create false divisions between leaders that are concerned with what Hess derisively calls the "five Cs", and the real work of leadership such as paying attention to statute, contract and bureaucratic institutions. He goes on to boldly count the number of times the words collaboration, consensus, capacity, coaching and culture are counted in educational articles, as if that represents statistically important data to give credence to his argument.
As I continue to read through the pages of Cage Busting Leadership, I'm perturbed and I can't quite put my finger on the reasons why. Hess's own words helped clarify my own thoughts when he writes, "That same lack of enthusiasm for strategies that promise discomfort or controversy is echoed by school board members." This sentence crystallizes what's been brewing in my conscious and subconscious thinking since I started reading the book. His basic premise that disruptive action, and controversy are actually part of a recipe for a litmus test to a leader's commitment to well-rounded, thoughtful, and visionary practices is preposterous. I also find it a ridiculous statement that district leadership doesn't work to create efficiencies as part of the business structure of the district. Again, I can only speak to the experiences of my school district. We never have conversations regarding systems and structure without considering all of the factors that contribute to the possible success or failure of our mission. Contract, regulation, law, collaboration, capacity, culture, etc., are all ingredients considered during the conversation.
Next time I'll start in on the latest quote from his book that has me thinking:
"The truth is we’ve been able to identify the elements of “effective schools” for four decades, going back to Ron Edmonds’s seminal work in the 1970s, but we’ve struggled, through the whole of that period, to scale up scattered successes. This history illustrates the problem with focusing on instructional and improvement strategies without attending to the statutory, regulatory, contractual, or organizational obstacles. The problem is that we fixate on the climb and turn a blind eye to the terrain. The result is a constant chase for new miracle solutions that never quite pan out."
No comments:
Post a Comment