BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 2

INTRODUCTION
Across the nation, our schools are charged with the ever increasingly, difficult task of preparing
students for college and career readiness and to be functioning members of a democratic society. To do so,
schools are faced with increased demands including, but not limited to more standardized testing, higher
standards, increased professional development, measuring student growth, and teaching a common core
curriculum. At the epicenter of this movement is student achievement. Specifically, all stakeholders of the
education community are charged with the task of increasing student achievement at all levels. In Failure is
Not an Option, Alan Blankstein highlights six principles that focus on increasing student achievement in highly
effective schools. Below is an analysis of how these principles are being utilized in Country Oaks Elementary,
as well as recommendations as to how they could be implemented, altered, or realized to increase student
achievement.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHOOL
Country Oaks Elementary is a K-12 school currently servicing approximately 675 students. It is located
in a suburban area and serves families in four separate townships. The staffing changes at Country Oaks are
minimal and, at most, lose or gain one to two teachers per year depending on enrollment. Although the
percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch at Country Oaks Elementary is slightly below the
district average of 26%, large socioeconomic gaps between families continue to pose a challenge to the
educators at Country Oaks.
PRINCIPAL 1: COMMON MISSIONS, VISION, VALUES, AND GOALS
A mission statement reminds us of why we, as an organizational entity, exist. According to Blankstein
(2013), a mission statement is essential to an organizations success and gives those involved in the
organization a clear understanding of its purpose for existence. (p. 86). When thinking of effective mission
statements in education, it would seem fitting that during times of continual change in pedagogy,

BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 3
accountability measures, evaluation, etc., the mission statement should serve as the power-steering, helping
to maneuver through twists and turns, and keep the educational vehicle on track.
The mission statement of the school in which I last taught (Country Oaks Elementary), reads The mission
of Country Oaks Elementary is to educate all children. At first glance, this mission seems to be vague, clich,
and lackluster. Personally, due to the nondescript, obvious, and bland nature of this mission, it leaves me
feeling unsatisfied, and ultimately, uninspired. On a functional level, I suppose one could say that this mission,
even considering the aforementioned shortcomings, could serve to answer the question why are we here?
However, in reflecting on the three critical questions to be addressed in a mission statement (Blankstein,
2013, p. 89):
1. What do we want to do?
2. How will we know if we are succeeding?
3. What will we do to ensure success?
it becomes glaringly obvious that this mission statement is incomplete, as it fails to specifically answer
numbers two and three (above). Perhaps a better mission statement that would serve to meet the needs of
the school, maintain the intended integrity of the current mission (educating all children), and answers the
three critical questions, would read: The mission of Country Oaks Elementary is to educate all children. We
will use instructional BEST practices to meet the individual needs of every student, ensuring that all students
show academic growth in all areas as measured by statewide, national, and local assessments.
The vision statements of Country Oaks, as related to the schools vision, are many and read as follows:
Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated Instruction at Country Oaks Elementary will be motivating, engaging, and individualized to
challenge students with varied abilities and learning styles.
Behavior

BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 4
Our building will have a consistent school-wide behavior plan with specific K-5 expectations that are supported
by staff, students, and their families.
At-Risk Students
To provide early and continuous interventions for at-risk students, a team of building staff, parents, and
volunteers will support children as they achieve goals.
Effective Schools
Our school is a collaborative environment where students and staff are actively engaged in learning and
supported by family and community.
Here, I believe the school has done a better job highlighting the vision of what we would like our school
to become. The vision statements address student behaviors and learning, as well as instructional practices.
Lastly, the vision ties in the familial and community components as well.
Reflecting on my experiences as a teacher at Country Oaks, I have few, if any, memories of the mission
or vision statements being reiterated, emphasized, or so much as mentioned. It seems that we dealt largely on
the assumption that we knew what our mission was. Although this may be true to an extent (we know we
must do all we can to educate all children), I believe continually revisiting our mission and vision statements
would serve to shine a light on the why component of what we do on a daily basis.
As a district, our Central Office leaders, and Board members are steadfast at reiterating our mission
statement and goals as defined by the District Strategic Plan. Strategically, this elicits buy-in from the
employee groups and community, and demonstrates the competence and focus of the district and Board at
ultimately achieving our district mission. Taking this same approach at a building level would likely yield similar
results.
Found in the Country Oaks Elementary School Improvement Plan, are the building goals. They read as
follows:

BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 5
Goal 1: All Students at Country Oaks Elementary will become proficient readers.
Goal 2: All students at Country Oaks Elementary will be proficient at the year-end District Math
Assessment.
Goal 3: The Country Oaks Community (parents, students, and staff) will become a Leader in Me
school.
Each goal is then followed by a measurable objective as well as resources that can be used to meet the
objective. For Goal 1, 81% of students will demonstrate proficiency in ELA by 6/12/14. Goal 2 states that 69%
of students will demonstrate proficiency on the year end district math assessment. Lastly, Goal 3 states that
collaboration to successfully become a Leader in Me School by 6/12/14 will be measured by staff participation
in Leader in Me training. For this goal, I would have liked to see a percentage for the amount of staff needed
to deem the implementation of Leader in Me a success.
In terms of these goals being specific and strategic, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and time
bound as outlined by Blanksteins (2013) definition of SMART Goals (p. 106), I believe these goals are
appropriate. However, there seems to be a slight disconnect in the alignment of the vision statements of the
school, as none of them specifically mention literacy or math as areas of focus. That disconnect is further
magnified when juxtaposing the goals and vision statements with the mission (to educate all children) as the
mission statement is void of any mention of specific areas of focus. Perhaps, the intent of the mission and
values was to be strategically vague, serving as catch-alls in terms of what is taught and expected to be
learned.
Understanding that goals should be focused on result, not process (Blankstein, 2013, p. 106), Im left
wondering where in the School Improvement Process time is allowed to circle back around, review what we
did the previous year, and most importantly, adjust our pedagogy to close achievement gaps. Too often it
we allow instruction to continue as status-quo and expect data to yield results that are magically improved. As
Blankstein (2013) suggests (p. 107), it is essential to look at past data, new circumstances, and processes that
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 6
can be modified to improve results and define what will be done differently this year from last year? Much
time, energy, and effort is spent creating, analyzing, identifying and adopting assessment tools (both internal
and external), however, a disproportionate time is spent focused on how we teach. It makes sense that we
should focus more attention on what research based best instructional practices we will put in place to raise
student achievement. Instead, we are constantly expending energy on implementing new ways to gather data
(assessments), in hopes that one of these will be a silver bullet in telling or showing us exactly what we want
to see or hear.
Lastly, I could find no documentation outlining building values. Not surprisingly, I find this to be the
area of greatest volatility within our school. Stabilizing a system or norms for how we behave (to bring our
vision and mission to fruition) has, until recently, been absent from building discussions. There is little
uniformity or common language for behaviors that if in place would underscore our values and galvanize
our efforts to achieving our mission and vision. This year, we have begun Covey training. The process was very
much inclusive, soliciting input and involvement from ALL building stakeholders. Our building has committed
to becoming a Leader in Me school and I am hopeful that the 7 Habits will provide the common language
and structure for how we interact with one-another, children, parents, and community members.
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PRINCIPLE 1
Country Oaks would be well served to dust off their current mission statement and, as a staff,
determine whether or not it is currently relevant and serves the larger purpose of answering the question
why we here and what are we doing each and every day? In doing so, it would make sense to consider
revising the mission to address the following two questions: 1) How will we know if we are succeeding and 2)
what will we do to measure success? The vision statements were well written, however, seldom (if ever)
posted or discussed. It would benefit the leadership at Country Oaks Elementary to make available and visible
the mission and vision statements to all stakeholders. Lastly, the SMART goals were outlined in the School
Improvement Plan, but again, are seldom used as a beacon of light to guide the staff. Instead, they are
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 7
created, documented, and seemingly packed away. These goals should be visible and easily articulated by all
staff members.
PRINCIPLE 2: ENSURING ACHIEVEMENT FOR ALL STUDENTS
So often, mission statements, vision statements, or SMART goals are laden with altruistic phrases such
as all students will, or 100% of our students will go on too. On the surface, these statements are not
only powerful, but necessary. After all, we would never suggest that, by any measure, only a percentage of our
students should succeed. Unfortunately, that is often what happens. We print, post, and say these lofty
statements publicly, but what we do organizationally and systematically is often times out of alignment (with
the mission, vision, or SMART goal statements).
The idea that all students can learn is not new. For years, this has been the cut and paste phrase
often heard in teacher education courses, interviews, mission statements, etc. What is new, however, is how
we as educators and leaders are monitoring and adjusting our practices to ensure that this actually does
happen. Specifically, there is a greater focus on what we do when students are not learning.
Thinking back to my first year teaching (2000), I can remember my principal giving me a book by
William Glasser. The books central focus was on Choice Theory and understanding what was in a childs
quality world. At the crux of his writing was building relationships with students. Of all the books Id read at
the time, this one truly resonated. Overwhelmed by curriculum, professional development, observations, and
everything else that encapsulates being a new teacher, building relationships was something that I could
relate to; something that I was confident I could be good at because it was at the core of who I was as not only
an educator, but a person.
In reading Chapter 6, I was both delighted and relieved to find that Blanksteins approach to closing
achievement gaps is largely centered on our ability to build relationships. Again, the I can do that sense of
confidence has surfaced within me. Blankstein writes that in a 12 year study of 120 organizations in 35 cities,
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 8
research unveiled that building relationships with young people and holding relationship building events was
one of the guiding principles of success for these organizations (Blankstein, 2013, p. 120). In the respective
roles of teacher, teacher leader, principal, union leader, husband, and father, building relationships is crucial
to experiencing success. It is not surprising that building relationships would serve as a foundation for
closing achievement gaps as well.
When reading Chapter 6, many of the RtI approaches were familiar. When students are not learning
we have systems in place to catch them. Each year data is used to compile a Needs Assessment for each
classroom. Once children are identified, systems are put in place to meet these needs. Recently, we have
adopted an initiative known as WIN (What I Need) time. During this half an hour block, paraprofessionals
work in small groups or one -on-one with students most needing support. Those not receiving WIN, are
focused on independent work or enrichment.
Also, in Huron Valley, tiered interventions have become common language; Tier 1 focuses on
classroom interventions that the teacher is implementing (mostly best practices), Tier 2 may include
paraprofessional support, and Tier 3 involves more intensive special education interventions. Monthly BEST
meetings focusing on student achievement are held at the building level. Present at those meetings are all
stakeholders in ensuring success the teacher, counselors, social workers, special education team, principal,
and sometimes the parent. Collectively, we focus on students that are having the most difficulty meeting
grade level expectations. There is an outpouring of data as well as a sharing of tiered interventions that have
been implemented or should be implemented. Although these meetings are productive and often times
cathartic, there are still roadblocks to the common goal of making sure that all children are successful.
The first and most common challenge is time: time to meet with coworkers, parents, and sadly
students most at need. Although we consider our district a PLC district, I do not believe we are using the
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 9
intended system with fidelity. Too often our PLCs focus on what is being taught and when. Not enough time is
spent on what we are doing with the students who are not achieving. As Blankstein suggests, developing a
system of prevention and intervention is a major task (2013) deeply rooted in school culture, which often
times is the most difficult variable for which to effect change.
In tying Chapters 1-6 together, I liken the systematic implementation of prevention and intervention to
Stephen Coveys 7 habits of highly effective people. Covey believes that achieving the public victory (which
involves moving an organization forward via habits 4-7) cannot be realized until one achieves the private
victory (mastering habits 1-3). The same could be said about the systematic implementation of a program
designed to ensure that all children are truly learning and successful. By first focusing on mission, vision,
value, and goals and more importantly, achieving buy in from staff and stakeholders, the likelihood of
achieving success for ensuring achievement for all students is far greater. Once we have a foundation or
defined our organizations core, we can then move on to the public victory ensuring success for all students!
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PRINCIPLE 2
Country Oaks Elementary and Huron Valley Schools as a district have a well-defined and established
system of intervention for identifying those students most at risk. Where more work needs to be done, is at
the PLC level in making sure we are meeting the needs of all learners. To solicit ownership in this area, it
would be wise for Country Oaks to incorporate a synergistic model to develop a plan to do so. As a staff,
conversations related to student growth and PLCs should be used to collectively develop and decide upon a
school wide system for ensuring achievement for all students. By working together and allowing staff to be
major players in creating a syatem that works for them, tepid buy-in becomes galvanized ownership.


BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 10
PRINCIPLE 3: COLLABORATIVE TEAMING FOCUSED ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Building truly collaborative teams is a difficult but necessary component of school success (Blankstein,
2013, p. 162). Educational practice and pedagogy have evolved over the years, moving from a model that once
fostered isolationism, independence, and introversion to one that celebrates interventionism,
interdependence, and extroversion. As research based best practice has shone light on 21
st
Century Skills such
as communication and collaboration, it has become increasingly important and evident that as educators, we
too use these practices in how we grow and professionally develop ourselves. In short, the age old adage of
two heads are better than one rings true more now in education than ever before. Developing,
implementing and sustaining systems of teacher leadership that promote collaboration among colleagues is a
means to an end: enhancing teaching for learning (Blankstein, 2013, p. 143).
I was fortunate to have begun my career in a building in which the physical structure was one that
encouraged teaming and collaboration. Our rooms were separated by collapsible partitions. Even when fully
expanded, a ten foot opening from one room to the other remained. Although this arrangement did pose
unique challenges such as adjusting for distractions caused by cross-classroom noise, it also provided me a
wealth of de-facto peer observation. Fortunately for me, my neighboring teacher (and mentor) was a master
teacher. Every day I had the opportunity to observe quality instruction, often times allowing me to reflect and
alter my lessons (for the better) in real time. Those first six years of my career provided the most meaningful
and relevant professional learning experience to date. Although classroom observation is just one of ten of
Blanksteins (2013) areas of collaboration, it resonated with me.
Beyond my individual experience, in reflecting on the overall type of school culture in my building, it is
difficult to discern which is most prevalent. As an elementary building, we are quite large. Our student
enrollment annually hovers around 600 students. This size of our building makes uniformity in collaboration a
challenge. On average, we have four to five teachers in each grade level (K-5), and within these teams, there is
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 11
often a difference in culture. For example, in third grade there were often two teachers that planned together
looked at data, focused on interventions, etc. According to Blankstein (2013), these colleagues were truly
collaborative. However, we also had a third grade teacher that was very individualistic in that she perceived
her methodology as beyond adequate, and was disengaged in regards to collaboration. This is very common
across all grade levels in our building.
What I believe creates a sense of masked collaboration is the collegial nature of our building.
According to Blankstein, in this culture teachers appear to be collaborative (Blankstein, 2013. P. 147).
Generally, the staff gets along well, attends meetings, has lunch together, shares graphic organizers, etc.,
however, when it comes to traits truly encapsulated by a PLC such as analyzing data, reflecting on practices
that are (or arent working), and being honest about what we are doing with those children that arent
achieving, we have a long way to go. Considering the disconnect with our mission, values, and goals, this is not
surprising.
In relationship to MVVG, it makes sense that implementing a structure that utilizes teaching and
learning teams would be much easier if the MVVG were engrained in the culture of the school. As I read about
implementing these teams and putting in place systems that share workload, agree on commitments from
team members, establish goals and prioritize tasks, one word came to mind - TRUST. Without relational trust
(often rooted in MVVG), putting collaborative teams in place may be difficult, and sustaining them even more
difficult.
Lastly, it would seem that establishing a truly collaborative culture takes time. Much of the success of
this structure will be based on a leaders ability to forge meaningful relationships with staff members. To do
this, Covey would say go slow to go fast. Taking time for leadership and staff to recognize one anothers
similarities and differences (outside of school as well), celebrate successes, share in open and honest
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 12
conversations, and remain committed to the schools mission and values is the bedrock of the foundation for
building a collaborative culture.
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PRINCIPLE 3
To collectively revisit, redefine, and recreate a renewed mission, vision, values, and goals document
would serve Country Oaks well. Once these goals the MVVG are defined and engrained in the culture,
collaboration focused on teaching and learning becomes much easier. Building trust is paramount when
working to put collaborative systems in place. Focusing on relational trust, transparency in decision making,
and again, using a synergistic model for building initiatives will strengthen trust, and ultimately, build
collaborative bridges versus partitions or walls.
PRINCIPLE 4: DATA BASED DECISION MAKING FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
MAP, MEAP, ACT, MME, DRAs, and DIBELS; what do these acronyms all have in common? They are just
a few of the assessments used to measure aptitude, growth, college and career readiness, and proficiency of
students from elementary to high school. Said another way, in some way shape or form, these assessments
provide for us data in which should be used to monitor, evaluate, and adjust our pedagogical practices.
The past decade has seen an explosion of new ways to collect, sort, and distribute every type of data
imaginable to schools (Blankstein, 2013, p. 163). As educators have reassessed the way they deliver
instruction, a more progressive, curriculum standards movement, composed of subject matter experts,
educational experts, educational researchers, professional associations, and classroom teachers, has shone a
light in the importance of incorporating research based best practices authentic instruction and revamped
teaching methods - into our daily instruction. At the same time, an accountability standards movement made
up of politicians from both parties, stated and federal legislators, stated education departments, testing
companies, conservative think tanks, and some educators believe that schools will improve with tighter
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 13
controls, more regulation, and frequent high stakes standardized tests with tough consequences (Zemelman,
Daniels, Hyde, 2005, p.3). Unfortunately and too often, these scores are used to gauge the effectiveness of
individual teachers, buildings, schools districts, and public education as a whole. Even more troubling, the
interpretation of this external data is often used for political purposes such as moving forward an agenda
aimed at discrediting the good work of public schools and bolstering the efforts of educational profiteers
such as cyber schools, for-profit charter schools, and voucher programs to name a few. In Michigan, since
2011, we have seen a systematic approach to the way this data is released to the public. After massive per-
pupil funding cuts ($470 per-pupil to be exact), our state then tied a portion of this funding to financial best
practice dollars, returning a small portion of the cuts to those districts that have made available (to the
public) standardized test scores on a transparency dashboard. Add to this, recent changes to teacher
evaluations, seniority vs. effectiveness in layoff/recall, and tenure, and a seemingly nefarious picture begins to
emerge.
In reality, the use of data to drive instruction, teacher evaluation systems used to nurture growth, and
making it less cumbersome and expensive to remove ineffective teachers are good changes. So one may ask,
why the current vitriolic nature of the relationship between educational leaders and those spearheading this
accountability standards movement? The answer: trust! Many of these decisions were seemingly made
overnight and unilaterally, by individuals far removed from the classroom or public school experience. In
regards to trust, this model of exclusivity vs. inclusivity is toxic. Peter Hill (2010) makes the link between
purpose and trust saying that openness, transparency, and frank discussions of any accountability program are
essential so that both declared and perceived purposes can be aligned. There needs to be a climate of trust
rather than misunderstanding and fear (p. 45).
In Huron Valley Schools, we recently adopted the NWEA MAP test. The district and the HVEA had
engaged in many discussions prior to the test being adopted and administered. Representatives from the
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 14
district and the union went from building to building, answering questions and explaining the why
component of the decision to adopt MAP. Again, understanding the current climate surrounding education
reform, teachers wanted to know if and how the test could be used to discredit them in an evaluation. It was
made clear by both sides that the NWEA is not intended and should not be used for teacher evaluations. It is
one measure of student growth, which could be used as a piece of a much larger puzzle of illustrating the
growth of a student. These open and frank discussions served to alleviate much of the fear and anxiety
associated with the evaluation connotation of the test. In fact, logistics of the taking the test put aside, many
of our teachers have actually embraced the test and find value in the data it provides!
Principle 4 also highlights the importance of the administration of diagnostic, formative, and
summative assessments and how we as educators use this data to improve student achievement. Personally,
this section resonated. Locally, we are beginning the process of determining how we will begin to use
assessments and data to show student growth. For this discussion, I believe the diagnostic and formative
elements are crucial. In the spirit of Covey, we must begin with the end in mind. Having a defined curriculum
as well as Common Core Standards helps define that destination, however, how and why we must get there is
the real challenge. Diagnostic tests will provide teachers insight into where their students are at when they get
them, and where they will need to focus their instruction. Along the way, formative assessments provide for
us the continual feedback needed to check the progress of our students. Weave into this paradigm of
assessment the importance of showing student growth. By continually monitoring and adjusting your
instruction (based on the data collected), student growth is no longer a variable left to chance. The greater
challenge here will be in teachers knowing what the right assessment is (diagnostic, formative, or summative)
and when to administer it. Here, collaboration amongst staff members is the answer. Teachers and
administrators must be able to have open honest conversations about what is working and what is not. Scores

BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 15
(data) should be the crux of this conversation, not to pit teachers against each other but to encourage growth
in student achievement. (Blankstein, 2013, p. 187). Once again, TRUST IS THE KEY!
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PRINCIPLE 4
More time must be spent collectively analyzing building data and using this data to drive instructional
decisions related to our SMART goals. It is crucial that teachers also be given the time and professional
support in analyzing their classroom data and how this data will drive pedagogical changes in their classroom.
Once this time and support is given, grade levels should then spend PLC time sharing and developing lessons
and assessments to meet the unique needs of their classrooms. Triangulation of data should be used to add
relevance to the impetus of monitoring and adjusting pedagogical practices to increase student achievement.
PRINCIPLE 5: GAINNG ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT FROM FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
In reading Chapter 9, I found myself often reflecting on my experiences regarding parent and
community involvement from one of three different lenses: a parent of a kindergartener, a teacher, and my
personal experience as a latch-key kid in an impoverished inner city school in downtown Flint, Michigan.
As a child, I attended Doyle-Ryder Elementary, a public school in downtown Flint. I was too young to
know what the numbers for free and reduced lunch were, other than the fact that I and most, if not all, of
my classmates were on it. Doyle-Ryder was my neighborhood school, where the government housing complex
in which I lived fed into. It was not uncommon for my classmates to come to school with books that were
charred from a house fire the night before. Pit-bull fighting in elementary was routine. Physical and verbal
altercations were the norm. This was indeed the school of hard knocks, but they still came to school!
Although my living conditions were far from middle-class, they were much better than many of my classmates
and lifelong friends. The main reason, in my opinion was love and support. Having been raised by a mom who
worked two jobs, many late night, to provide for her sons, I am able to empathize with students that come
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 16
from the same (or often times far worse) environments. Although my mom seldom worked or helped out in
my school, she always made it a point to support me the best she could, when she could. Understanding
poverty is much easier when youve been poor. Often times, teachers are unable to connect with students
from these backgrounds because they themselves cannot relate. As Blankstein (2103) states, the first step
toward building or repairing home-school relationships is to gain a common understanding, with empathy for
students families (p. 193). This step cannot be overlooked and must be taken into account when dealing with
issues of truancy, tardiness, and missing homework assignments to name a few.
Professionally, I can remember receiving my class list prior to beginning my first year as a third grade
teacher. I recall looking over the list of names and phone numbers and making the decision to call each one of
them and introduce myself to the parents, many of whom were shocked that a teacher actually took time to
do this. I, on the other hand, thought it was standard practice. I soon learned that for many teachers, reaching
out to parents and including them in the educational process was seen as more of a pain, than a pleasure. Not
surprisingly, these same teachers were the ones with an overwhelming amount of parent issues. I quickly
learned that continual communication and being open to including parents in the learning process made for a
much smoother year than not. As insecure as I may have been in my instructional practices as a beginning
teacher, I knew there was one quality that would resonate with parents I genuinely cared for and loved their
children! I found that in allowing parents in to see first-hand this genuine care for their children was key in
building and sustaining relationships with whole families (not just the student for which I taught). It was
important that parents understood that they were there to support learning in the classroom, not detract
from it. For this reason, I made it a point during Curriculum Night to speak to expectations for when parents
came in. Beyond that, I would have a check-in area in the classroom where parents would receive an
explanation of what support they would be given, as well as the supplies needed to provide this support. In
short, being visibly organized for parent helpers, projects an image (and reputation) of being organized in
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 17
teaching as well. I was pleased to see that Blankstein did highlight the fact that this parent involvement be
meaningful and offered in a variety of school activities (Blankstein, 2013, p. 192).
In regards to the importance parent/teacher relationships, the most eye-opening experience begun for
me this year, when my daughter, Josalyn, entered kindergarten. Watching her walk into her classroom and
meet her teacher for the first time was overwhelming. As emotions flooded through my body, one dominated
the desire for my daughter to be cared for and loved by her teacher. Josalyn can be very particular, and is
quite unique in her dress and sense of style. She is her own person and, as a parent, I want her individuality to
be celebrated, not stifled. Immediately, I began connecting my demeanor as a teacher to my feelings as a
parent. I now found it much easier to empathize with those helicopter parents that so often drove me crazy.
They too just want whats best for their most prized possession! Even more, now having to find time to
complete homework assignments (yes, homework in kindergarten) after a long day of work, dinner, and play is
a challenge and both my wife and I are teachers! This gives credence to Blanksteins suggestions to consider
for engaging parents in genuine partnerships.
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PRINCIPLE 5
Engaging parents and the community is an essential part of increasing student achievement. Being able to
listen empathically and make decisions that consider and value the differences in living situations, cultures,
and socioeconomic status of our schools demographics is imperative. By including parents and community in
the decision making process and empowering them to help find solutions to increasing student achievement,
we are maximizing our potential for success. Country Oaks Elementary has a very involved parent contingent.
Unfortunately, they have also become so powerful that they have moved from being embraced by teachers to
being feared. School leadership should spend time at PTA meetings sharing with them the mission and value
of the schools and ask they consider this when building relationships. Again, in order for relationships to reach
their optimum level, trust must be established, nurtured, and sustained.
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 18
PRINCIPLE 6: BUILDING SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP CAPACITY
Experience and research clearly support the notion of teachers as leaders. The reality is that many
teachers are reluctant to play that role (Blankstein, 2013, p.211). Over the years, the leadership of Huron
Valley has worked hard to implement a teacher leader model of Professional Development. In the past, the
district operated autocratically in making decisions regarding PD. Often times this would lead to vendors
coming in to the district to tour their latest basal series, or principals being asked to plan a full day that often
lacked continuity and relevance. In turn, Professional Development was often met with passive resistance
(from staff). PD days would be often be viewed as a waste of time, or dog and pony shows. Beginning in
2006, the union and the district developed a cohort-based model of Professional Development. Teacher
leaders from grade level in elementary, and subject area in high school, were plucked as HVEA Cohort
Facilitators. In the beginning, their role was to echo the PD wants and needs of their cohort back to the
district, which the district would then consider when planning. At his early stage, the cohort facilitator was a
mere conduit of information from the teachers to the Central office. As years progressed, it became glaringly
obvious that our cohort groups lacked one important resource time together! From there we began
developing a system that allowed cohorts and their facilitators more freedom in deciding how they believed
their PD time would be best spent. We provided facilitators release time to plan their PD days. In other words,
we recognized that these folks are experts in their fields, and should be given the professional freedom and
latitude to plan for activities (within district parameters) that best meet the needs of their cohort groups, and
more importantly, the students. As a district, we were building our leadership capacity.
Ironically, this model has recently been met with greater resistance than it had in the beginning. As
Balnkstein (2013) suggests, teachers are not quite comfortable with their role as a leader. They have not
been trained in this realm, therefore, often lack the confidence to lead. I then find leaders falling back to the
old school mindset of just tell me exactly what you want me to do and I will do it. To quell this, the district
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 19
and the union have spent more time explaining the why behind this model. More time is spent helping them
understand the importance of the positive role they play in increasing student achievement. What I am finding
is that those cohort leaders that once saw their role as merely a conduit of information are bowing out of their
role (as facilitator), and those that have a deeper desire to hone their leadership skills and take an active role
in moving their cohorts forward are stepping in. I am quite proud of the work the EA and the district have
done in developing a teacher leader model for PD.
In regard to sustainability, my position as HVEA President allows me the unique opportunity to observe
the inner workings of all the buildings in our district. In doing so, I have been able to gauge the climate of the
buildings year after year. What I found most eye opening is how leadership and changes in leadership impact
the overall culture and morale of our buildings. Sustainable educational leadership and improvement
preserves and develops deep learning for all that spreads and lasts, in ways that do no harm to and indeed
create positive benefits for others around us (Blankstein, 2013, p. 219). What I have observed are systems that
are often well intentioned, but prematurely put in place, in turn damaging a principals ability to sustain
leadership and improve learning for all. For example, in 2011 we had a principal come up with a great idea for
monitoring student growth. She would provide a spreadsheet for her staff to work on during staff meetings.
This sheet captured nearly every assessment, local and standardized, and involved each teacher inputting their
students scores throughout the year. This seemed like a great idea, but in the wake of teachers evaluations
being tied to student growth, the staff at this building freaked out. My phone and email lit up with concerns
from this school. Why? TRUST! As Blankstein (2013) writes, knowledge of and presence in the school by all
stakeholders to provide support and build trust and communication is more important that numerical data
that eventually appear on spread sheets. This principal was new to the building, was coming from a middle-
school administration position to elementary principal, and had not begun to take time to develop trust and
build relationships with her staff. In fact, her efforts to reform the culture of the building were so direct,
BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 20
immediate, and often times so expansive, that her staff actually feared her intentions. After she and I spoke
(about the spreadsheet), and I explained to her the connection the teachers were making with student growth
and evaluations, she completely understood their reticence to adhere to the initiative. She went back to her
staff, communicated open and honestly about her intentions and the staff let down their guard and embraced
the spreadsheet. Again, leadership and sustainability of leadership is greatly impacted by relational trust.
In closing, a common theme seems to have permeated throughout every chapter of this book the
importance of relationships in moving a school and ultimately, student achievement forward. Appropriately,
beginning with mission, vision, values, and goals as a foundation, building a system where failure is not an
option relies heavily on the ability of leadership to develop authentic relationships with all stakeholders.
Communication, trust, empathy, and competence are all layers of this foundation. Beyond that, all leadership
is learned (Blankstein, 2013, p. 236), and understanding that learning can often times be messy, again
underscores the importance of building and sustaining trusting relationships amongst all stakeholders in
student achievement.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO PRINCIPLE 6
As has been mentioned before, relational trust is at the forefront of Principle 6. The following
recommendation is made assuming that relational trust is high and the staff is well versed in the buildings
mission, vision, value and goals. To build and sustain leadership capacity, successes must be shared and
celebrated often! Book studies are powerful in recruiting teacher leaders and moving initiatives forward.
Allowing time for peer observations and classroom labs can work as a contagion, increasing enthusiasm and
instructional aptitude. Most important, is that teachers and teacher leaders are encouraged to professionally
develop and grow in a non-evaluatory fashion.

BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 1





Blankstein: Failure is Not an Option
Joshua Gignac
EA 740










BLANKSTEIN: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION 21
REFERENCES
Blankstein, Alan M. (2013). Failure is not an option: 6 principles that advance student achievement in highly
effective schools. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Hill, P. W. (2010). Using assessment data to lead teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Zimmerman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best Practice (3
rd
ed.). Todays standards for teaching &
learning in Americas schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.