Successful visioning conference

Dear Terry,

I wanted to take a few moments to congratulate your SHW Group and Cambridge Strategic Services’ Shannon Buerk for a very successful visioning conference. In doing so there are some specifics I would like to bring to your attention:

1) I felt we had a very good representation of our volunteer community. We had people from the Boy Scouts; Girl Scouts; North Texas Board of Master Naturalists; Master Gardeners; Master Composters; Lions Club; Special Olympics; school district administrators, teachers, and students; city administrators and managers; and North Lake College. Many of these people are leaders within their own professions and interests. They are people who get things done. So, in that regard, I think we really brought together a dynamic and passionate group of people for the “visioning” process.

2) Also, I believe the venue of Tuesday set the stage for interest and success. TRAC is visually impressive and incorporates most of the things we wanted to discuss for our own Center. Plus, getting our group out of town helped to keep them focused on the task at hand without the distraction of family, business, or community.

3) Now, a few words about Shannon Buerk’s direction of the “visioning” process. As you witnessed, she was masterful at creating a productive environment within which each person felt comfortable:

a) She created a “come-and-go” casual environment which fostered a mutual respect atmosphere.

b) Her “classroom” was not about her being in control.

c) She was sensitive to input from participants.

d) All voices were heard; then she reflected back so that even the speaker understood being heard.

e) She incorporated many sensory vehicles to facilitate the process---audio, visual, drawing, etc.---all very good!

f) Although we had a diverse group of professionals—some administrators and some blue-collar—Shannon made each person feel their opinion to be equal to the next person.

g) Certainly, we will greatly benefit by the development of mission statement, objectives, strategies, and concepts. Those will begin to immediately affect our thinking, grant requests, and capital campaign.

4) In addition to providing credibility for the building, I believe the process moved City, School District, and even North Lake College participants to more “common ground” regarding partnership issues that may come up in the future.

5) Friendships were developed and strengthened as a result of the process. New, passionate contacts were achieved. And, additional momentum was given to our cause.

So, in total, it was a great process! We are getting very positive feedback from attendees, some of which I quote here:

“The ideas that came out of the sessions were absolutely fabulous. How energizing to hear the beliefs from that group. Thanks for pulling it together in such a valuable way.”

Amanda Vanhoozier
Parks Department
City of Coppell

“I have truly enjoyed being part of the team in the last two days. I would love to continue to be a contributor to such a wonderful mission.”

Marijana Clent
Girl Scouts

Terry, I hope the above is helpful. We appreciate you beyond words. Now, the ball is in your court!

Regards,
Lou Duggan

Dear editor,

I read with interest the March 2 story Building a Better Teacher and was troubled. If this approach to improving education in America were the single focus of changing our system, our students would be in trouble. Reform has been the status quo for the last several decades, and one of our main obstacles to truly transforming education has been pouring taxpayer dollars and teachers’ efforts into reforms that made incremental progress in an industrial-model system.

As an education consultant, and former curriculum assistant superintendent and classroom teacher, I’ve been on many sides of this debate. Mr. Lemov’s industrial model of teaching paints the picture of a room where teachers lecture to rows or circles of students, sitting upright at their desks, all equally absorbing the lesson of the day. This method is more about controlling a classroom than it is about engaging a classroom. To Mr. Lemov, I ask:

• If we are crafting learning experiences where students are engaged and see real-world application, why do we need to focus so much on classroom management for primarily teacher-directed instruction?
• If we only base results on standardized test scores, aren’t we simply doing the wrong thing better? True, they are our current measures of success, but are they the right measures or the only measures?
• Does the responsibility for effective learning fall only on teachers? Surely community support, district goals and strategy, curriculum, resources and design of a school building all impact student success.

For a brighter picture, envision a classroom where teachers are the facilitators of student success. Where teachers understand standards and real-world connections, and can craft experiences that empower students to be problem solvers. These classrooms are a reality across our country in public and charter school settings. For example, the New Tech model offers engaged, project learning where students not only grasp the basics and score well on standardized exams—many times outperforming comparison schools http://www.newtechfoundation.org/about.html, but they’re gleaning the skills that employers desire as described by a 2006 Conference Board study: work ethic, oral and written communication, teamwork and collaboration skills, and critical thinking or problem-solving skills.

Mr. Lemov and I do agree on two things: public education needs to change and the solutions aren’t easy. But instead of getting better at antiquated models, we need to be progressive in our thinking, redefine success beyond standardized testing, and help districts plan instruction, design buildings and grow teachers that equip students to be successful in their higher educational pursuits and their life-long endeavors.

Sincerely,
Shannon Buerk
Education Design Strategist
Cambridge Strategic Services

As submitted March 2009 to The New York Times