What would you do if you could do anything?

What would you do if you had complete autonomy to structure a school where the only definite was that you had to dramatically improve student achievement? Would the student growth be enough of a motivator for you to change your practice or try something new? What would you need in order to have enough instructional mastery to take risks and fail forward? Daniel Pink, in his book, Drive, presents research that directly contradicts that "reward the top performers" mentality that is central to TIF (Teacher Incentive Fund) grants and other incentive based programs that have surface since the APPR legislation that has changed much about how we look at teacher performance.

 One of the key concepts in Drive, is that productivity is increased, not by monetary incentives, but rather by increased autonomy, higher levels of mastery, and a strong sense of purpose.

click here to play video on mobile device

This makes me wonder about the ways that we make decisions in education. If the teachers are actually charged with the task of dramatically improving student achievement, how are we as turnaround leaders increasing their autonomy, purpose, and mastery so that they can truly innovate within classrooms? I know that in my first months as a turnaround leader, I worked with teachers as we mapped out our first months of school, but I did not empower them to really be innovative. What's more, it can be difficult to feel like you have the autonomy to be innovative within curricular structures and with deadlines for assessments.

So, I am trying to reflect on Pink's work and challenge myself to increase the level of mastery in my teachers in order to be able to increase their autonomy. We have a clear purpose - we have to move our students from predominantly below level (2% baseline on state assessments before turnaround) to predominantly proficiency (we are charged with achieving 85% proficiency within three years on state assessments). But even that is more of a goal than a real purpose. My purpose is to provide the same level of education for the children I serve that I would expect for my own children, but Pink reminds me that I have not asked teachers to define their purpose - to articulate what they are working for. We have goals, but Pink challenges us to think about the purpose of goals in changing what we do. Without autonomy, mastery, and purpose, we will see very little impact in our day to day interactions despite clearly articulated goals.

Pink's work has significant implications for education - and particularly for turnaround schools. We lack innovation in education. We try to keep everyone inside the same box. Teachers are scared to try new things for fear of not being "effective" or "highly effective." Leaders are scared to stand alone in an approach for fear that it will not have the desired impact on student achievement. We try approach after approach that promises "significant results" from "research-based strategies." As leaders, we must be strong enough to get off the hamster wheel. Look at our teachers, our students, and our staff and ask them to be part of the solution. Slow down in order to go fast. Let's reach as high as we possibly can - not just settle for good enough.