ALPHACRUCIS COLLEGE
  • Home
    • Our Team >
      • Dr David Hastie Profile
      • Professor Mark Hutchinson Profile
      • Dr Stephen Codrington profile
      • Dr Stephen Fyson
      • Donna McClean profile
  • CFS Newsletter
    • CFS Global
  • New Schools Initiative
    • NSP Media & News
    • Members
    • The Incubator
  • Teaching Schools Alliance
    • TSA Media & News
  • Research & Services
    • Consulting Services
    • Programs
    • Research
  • Resources
    • Resources - links
    • Publications
    • Events
  • Contact
  • Professional Development
  • Christian History Teachers
  • Christian History Teachers
  • About Alphacrucis
  • CSCEFC
  • VETiS

Research in New School Formation

Embedded Value Risks in Starting Schools

4/5/2019

0 Comments

 
[Starting New Schools 1: Embedded Value Risk.]

Sectors (Public, Independent, Catholic) plant new schools in different ways. Those sectoral differences will thus affect the various ‘assets’ and approaches taken differentially. In order to conceive of how this works, it is helpful to think of New School Plants (NSPs) as business startups, albeit Not for Profit (NFP) businesses largely in the human services industry.  In his work with Nokia, Valto Loikkanen conceptualized the stages of a business startup as follows:

​Figure 1: Startup Development Phases.
Picture
Loikkanen, et al, at Startupcommons.org.

In a state-funded startup, 
ideation is largely driven by abstracted externalized values, such as the need to provide services to a new planned suburban growth corridor due to some sense of social contract, or a broader strategy (such as stimulation of the economy, or infrastructure development, etc). In a private startup, the ideation may be driven by profit motives, or in NFP settings by ideological commitments (‘reaching the unsaved’ or ‘expanding rationality’, etc). For some writers, such as Felix, the search to ‘re-ideate’ arises from the understanding that ‘it is nearly impossible to reform existing schools’ and that ‘public schools destroy children’. (Felix 2014, p. 1) School planting is thus a way to organizationally hit the reset button, and to open up the opportunity to produce the reform in a new space which was resisted in the old.  This is because Ideation implies (a) the target market in one way or another, (b) the value proposition (ie. what will change in a positive manner via the planting), and (c) a group who shares the vision.  This is a warning as to the flip side of this, ie. that purely opportunistic acquisitions or NSPs may by-pass this phase, and so present problems with:
  • Concepting: the ability to conceptualize (concepting) and address target market, issues and communication of value propositions, and skill concentrations necessary to bring schools into being.
  • Committing: the ability to gather and mobilize a core, capable team, to estimate the actual costs appropriately, and to mobilize stakeholders
  • Validating: the ability to validate and press through the failures and required ‘re-writes’ of the school plan, vision, etc, so causing the project to stall as 'too hard'.
  • Scaling: the ability to deal with exposed weaknesses in the modelling, and to mobilize additional resources to take the prototype to a broader market. This leads to the inability to hire and to expand as required.
  • Establishing: the ability to operate transgenerationally is undermined, with the implementation and maintenance imperatives undermining the founding intentions/ objectives (‘mission drift’).

​Failure at the Ideation stage can create significant internal or pipeline resistance to the concept of a new school. Al Shanker noted in 1988, for example, that in publicly-funded systems, those who start new types of school are often treated “as traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lockstep” or subjected to “to insecurity, obscurity and outright hostility ... ” (Shanker, 1988, p. E7). As Felix notes in her phenomenological study of school planters, “each school founder discovers one or more gaps in the educational landscape s/he then seeks to fill. The journey includes rebellion against established norms with a distinct philosophy and vision, and focus amidst a barrage of risks and naysayers.” Underlying all successful school planters is “a sense of purpose and an obligation to develop other people’s children.” (Felix 2014)

The type of system brings with it embedded values, and those values and related structures drive the barriers which face NSPs. Felix (2014) notes that school planting, homeschooling and the growth of charter schools in the USA are all responses to perceived ills in, and the inflexibility of, publicly funded schools. The embedded values in NSPs, therefore, are both negative (a pre-Ideational sense of ‘what this NSP will NOT be like’, or will be a solution for) and positive (‘what this school will be/ do/ achieve’).  This may be seen in the work of the Centre for Collaborative Education, a think tank and consultancy program specifically aimed at dealing with the problems of rapidly changing, plural technological societies. CCE emphasizes “equity, rigor, and continuous improvement”, and works out of a vision ‘of a world where every student is college- and career-ready and prepared to become a compassionate, contributing global citizen’. On the basis of work at Minnesota New Country School in Henderson, Minnesota, Edvisions was planted by the Gates Foundation in order to foster ‘new school development and the transformation of existing schools that wish to create more personalized, engaging learning through meaningful and relevant, student-centered project based learning and teacher empowerment’.  Such values may not be sufficiently focused for Christian school networks, but they do demonstrate the advantages very large systems have in being able to sustain think tanks and systemic innovation. 

In Christian school settings, such innovation/ adaptation is often not systemic, and being ‘hit and miss’ can depend on the charisma and insight of a founding leader.  Interestingly, the CCE has also ‘landed’ on an apprenticeship style of education for new school leaders, not unlike that pioneered by Alphacrucis College in Australia. The AC Hub Model embeds an HDR-based reflection process in the middle of the learning ecology.  Likewise, the Centre for School Change runs ‘a leadership academy with district and charter leaders in Minneapolis/St Paul that has helped educators and young people, while recognizing the value of what has been done before’. (Nathan 2012) The first question with regard to developing a systematic approach to new school planting (NSP) and innovation (two non-identical but related terms) is thus the ‘Why?’ – what are the values which underpin a particular approach to NSP, and why do it in the first place? Is growth of the system a value which lies at the core of the network (as it does with the ‘Achievement First’ network of Charter Schools in the USA), or are additional campuses and ‘sponsoring’ of innovations not directly of advantage to the existing campuses seen as a threat or an impost?

Unreflective approaches can lead to unexpected results. Positive discrimination and negative discrimination can further act to limit the drawing pool for talented leaders. In state-funded systems, new school planting can require founding leaders to step outside the normal promotions pathways, and to stick with a developing school for many years (so limiting mobility and the rewards which come with it). One might assume that this would be less the case for a leader appointed within a networked Christian school setting. In such a setting, after all, the rewards are less bureaucratically driven, there is potentially a higher level of group mission orientation, and the leader is actualizing strategy for the group. However, it is also the case that
  • the risks associated with the new school can also be associated with the leader to whom the task is committed, producing resistance to the ‘newcomer’, or regret that such a troubler of the waters has been introduced into the core leadership group.
  • the costs associated with the new school can also be associated with the new leader, and so give rise to opposition to ‘taxation without representation’.
Personally, new school leaders may face:
  • mismatch between the systems required for implementation as opposed to the legacy systems in place across the broader system
  • ‘ranking’ on the basis of small start-up numbers or the sense that the new plant is not ‘the core business’ of the network
  • blocking and gerrymandering behaviour by existing leaders or existing knowledge elites, and impacts on personal advancement.
  • resistance to innovation and a pressure back towards the norm.
  • Difficulties in HR and funding arrangements.
  • critical news media coverage

​When someone is asked to do something new, they are being asked to sacrifice something. The sponsoring school network needs to take that sacrifice (as a form of ‘embedded risk’) into account in how the program is designed.
 
Sources:
  • Centre for Collaborative Education, ‘District + School Design’, http://cce.org/work/district-school-design, accessed 5 April 2019.
  • Felix, D. (2014), Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Lived Experience of Starting a School, PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland.
  • French, D., et al. (2014), The Path Forward: School Autonomy and Its Implications for the Future of Boston’s Public Schools, Boston: CCE.
  • Loikkanen, V., et. al., 'Startup Development phases', https://www.startupcommons.org/startup-key-stages-previous-versions.html.
  • Nathan, Joe (2012), review of Starting Up: Critical Lessons from 10 New Schools by Lisa Arrastia and Marvin Hoffman (Eds.): (2012). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 174 pp., $29.95, in the Journal of School Choice  6.4 (October), pp.518-520.
  • Shanker, A. (1988, July 10). Convention plots new course–A charter for change (paid advertisement). The New York Times, p. E7.

© CFS NSP Team, 2019.​
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    AuthorS

    David Hastie, Mark Hutchinson and Andrew Youd run the Alphacrucis College 'New Schools' Program, bringing together the best available research and leading practitioners to advise and assist in the planting of new schools and new school campuses.

    Archives

    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

We Would Love to Hear from you!


Hours

M-F: 7am - 5pm

Telephone

1300 228 355

Email

[email protected]
  • Home
    • Our Team >
      • Dr David Hastie Profile
      • Professor Mark Hutchinson Profile
      • Dr Stephen Codrington profile
      • Dr Stephen Fyson
      • Donna McClean profile
  • CFS Newsletter
    • CFS Global
  • New Schools Initiative
    • NSP Media & News
    • Members
    • The Incubator
  • Teaching Schools Alliance
    • TSA Media & News
  • Research & Services
    • Consulting Services
    • Programs
    • Research
  • Resources
    • Resources - links
    • Publications
    • Events
  • Contact
  • Professional Development
  • Christian History Teachers
  • Christian History Teachers
  • About Alphacrucis
  • CSCEFC
  • VETiS