My brain often fleets to other thoughts after
a mere 10 minutes — while others around
me may have greater or lesser capacity to stay
engaged. Often, the presenter has a book
or a reading they encourage participants to
take or buy after a session. My shelves are
full of these books. While useful as refer-
ences, rarely have I fully read or re-engaged
with the ideas they represent. Worse than
those sessions is the growing prevalence of
full-on infomercial keynote or break out
sessions that are essentially product pitches
in disguise, which many of us are subjected
to even at a conference that we have already
paid for.
These less-than-effective learning expe-
riences have persistently “haunted” me as I
consider my own learning. Several years ago,
over a meal, I shared some of these thoughts
with Gay Hoagland, Director of Leadership
Programs at Stanford University’s Graduate
School of Education. Together we wondered
if it could be different. Can adult learning,
and specifically executive learning for su-
perintendents, look and feel different than
what we experience and, in many ways, un-
wittingly replicate and promote? If so, how?
I continued these conversations with fellow
superintendent colleagues in San Mateo
County and after about two years, decided
it might be worth designing a different ex-
perience that would support Superintendent
Learning in a way that promises deeper,
system-changing and perspective-shifting
outcomes.
Together with fellow Superintendent col-
leagues in San Mateo County, we asked the
following guiding questions to design our
new learning experiences:
• What if, rather than receiving the book
at the end of a session, we f lip traditional
professional learning experiences and we
engage with the content prior to the session?
Would superintendents take their learning
seriously enough to prepare for sessions?
• What if, instead of answering pre-deter-
mined questions, we engage with the con-
tent deeply enough that we generate our own
questions and wonderings?
• What if, instead of having five minutes
to interact with colleagues on a question, we
design a session with a significant amount of
time devoted to discuss and process content,
The lecture model is
the default mode of
instruction for many
learners across age-
levels and settings,
despite its drawbacks
and demonstrated
ineffectiveness at
reaching desired
learning outcomes,
and unfortunately this
is especially true for
adult learning
developing our own questions and our won-
derings with two or three other colleagues
before participating in a larger group discus-
sion?
• What if, rather than inviting a guest
scholar to come and present from a slide pre-
sentation, we design an interactive conver-
sation with the guest scholar based on the
questions developed by the learners, honor
the scholar’s work and knowledge by being
prepared beforehand with the goal to also to
push everyone’s thinking forward?
• What if, after a learning session and
identification of key learnings, we do not just
shelve these learnings but take these new
learnings and revisit them in another setting
to discuss what we are doing on a practical
level to implement them in our districts?
In the spring of 2017, a group of six su-
perintendents from San Mateo County
developed a prototype of a professional
development series titled Superintendent
Learning Group, using the five guiding
questions, in partnership with Gay Hoa-
gland. Gay Hoagland also graciously ar-
ranged a meeting room on the Stanford
University campus (minimizing any travel
barriers or time constraints for our po-
tential guest scholars) and contacted and
scheduled sessions with our guests. The
costs for this experience were borne by the
participating superintendents. Lacking
funds for a typical honorarium speaking
fee, we offered the guest scholar the oppor-
tunity to meet with area superintendents
for lunch and conversation to learn how
their research and ideas currently impact
the field of education and how their find-
ings can have an even greater impact.
The superintendents, individually or in
pairs, took turns planning and facilitating
each session by selecting and disseminating
critical readings, and developing a “learning
guide” to support learners to summarize,
synthesize and ref lect on the work of the
guest scholar. The learning guide moved
learners through different ways of inter-
acting with the material by reviewing and
clarifying main ideas, terms and concepts
presented by the guest scholar’s work. At
the start of each session, learners utilized
personal learning time to move through
the learning guide and engage with a new
piece of research or relevant article. After
the personal time, participating superinten-
dents engaged with one another in groups
of two or three, reflecting on their thoughts
from the personal time, posing their ques-
tions and discussing the ramifications with
colleagues, and ultimately collaboratively
November | December 2018
29