Meeting Mandates: Cooperation, Communication, Coercion

Thank you for attending our breakout session!

25th Annual MIS Conference

February 16, 2012

•Linda Atwood, Operations Research Analyst, Montana Office of Public Instruction, MT

•Sonya Edwards, Education Administrator, California Department of Education, CA

•Tom Howell, SEA Director, Center for Educational Performance and Information, MI

•Marilyn King, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Bozeman School District #7, MT

•Laurel Krsek, Director, Technology, Napa Valley Unified School District, CA

•Kristina Martin, Director of Management Technology, Macomb Intermediate School District, MI

•John Metcalfe, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Fremont County School District #1, WY

•David Weinberger, Ph.D., Executive Director, Student Information, Assessment & Reporting, Yonkers Public Schools, NY

The evidence of unresolved conflict in our data environment:

•SEAs and LEAs are drowning in paperwork and reporting mandates.

•Communication gaps.

•Frustration.

•Lack of time.

•Lack of resources to get the job done.

•Differences in priorities.

•...and “The Elephant in the Room”…MANDATES: SEAs and LEAs are not equal participants in the reporting process.

SUMMARY OF CONSENSUS PROCESS

The conversations had several common themes:

  • The importance of understanding the perspectives of each entity.
  • Keeping in mind that the first step in understanding is listening.
  • The importance of developing relationships based on respect.
  • The philosophy that each person in the organization, despite different roles, is a data steward.
  • A highly functional system must work for everyone; everyone must see a benefit; ultimately, the benefit must be to students.

1. What would the characteristics of a functional process/system look like? (Responses are grouped by theme.)

Relationships

  • Strong informal relationships where people can pick up the phone and talk (and maybe even get coffee).
  • Need to see the view of other parties and understand them (empathy).
  • Two-way understanding of what everyone needs to do.

Communication

  • Bring groups together to discuss issues.
  • Communication about data elements and use.
  • Communicate the organizational structure.
  • Communication is a loop – keep in mind all parties. When you ask for something, you should expect a reply.
  • Horizontal communication within all entities.
  • Non-confrontational. Tone of communication should be civil. Communication should be constructive.
  • Two-way communication – top-down and bottom-up.

Conduct

  • Equal rules of conduct, e.g., if state wants something, ask for it early with a timeline and hold both parties accountable for their end.
  • Need to have everyone on board.

Common Language

  • Share a data dictionary along with the person at the state level who is responsible.
  • Establish clear definitions (vetted by an advisory group prior to publication).

Deployment

  • Everyone needs to be a participant – from the K teacher to the top level at the state.
  • Target the right people.
  • Target them at the right time.
  • Target them in the right way.
  • People need to feel that they are being listened to and that the process allows them a say.

2. What does each stakeholder group need to resolve impediments?

(Responses are grouped by theme.)

Need:

  • Common purpose – easier communication.
  • Common knowledge.
  • All stakeholders to take responsibility for the various mandates - from bottom to top.
  • Must be an opportunity to provide input from everyone who needs to make it work.
  • Appropriate channels of communication. (Direct communication is often the best way to go.)
  • Identify what is in it for their students.
  • Civil and even friendly discourse, i.e., “tone” is important…not “because I said so.”

Implement:

  • A system in which all stakeholders collaboratively determine “what and how.”
  • Stakeholders meeting(s) to make sure directives are communicated consistently and clearly after there is productive discussion of issues.
  • A committee to determine definitions and vet the definitions so that there are consistent understandings among stakeholders.
  • Advisory counsel of stewards/decisionmakers who would have authority over their specific areas whenever issues arose.
  • Listserv in which people could communicate and raise additional issues, and to facilitate how to implement decisions.
  • Listservs, webinars, etc. to make communication easier.