The Open System Podcast: Recent Episodes
The Open System
A monthly series interviewing and lifting voices across the country who are committed to open systems in education.
An emergent and important term in education and social impact discourse, especially in family engagement spaces, are the ideas of “co-creation” and “co-production.” Some have even intoned that this work is the next generation of education work. It is the work “to do with” rather than “to do for” or “to do to", and integral to the Open System.
It’s a big idea, fraught with challenges yet called for in our current education history and moment. For too much of the past century of education improvement initiatives (catalogued by Jal Mehta in his book, The Allure of Order) the work of reform has been too often top-down or driven by technocrats inspired to impose a system upon others. While there are genuine exceptions to this rule (and sometimes examples folks claim lack of input are actually embedded deeply in community participation) co-production and co-creation of education systems has not been a priority over the past century.
The Open System rejects this course of action entirely. It values open public processes, democratic governance and the merging of perspectives and power as the way to guide the system toward a better end. Built into the Guiding Principles (indeed, it is listed as Principal 1!) of the Open System site is the idea “Co-Creation & Co-Production In All Things.” I’ve been encouraged as other education advocates have begun to speak about co-creation and co-production more often. This piece attempts to lay the theoretical and practical groundwork for the ideas and connect them directly to the work of education explicitly. This piece incorporates and synthesizes some thinking, including some exceptional and thought provoking research here, here and here).
Co-Creation Overview
In the private sector, Forbes magazine published an article recently that discussed co-creation as
...not a customer advisory board on steroids or a clever sales and marketing tactic. It’s about jointly creating value, for the vendor as well as customers. To most managers, the thought of openly and transparently engaging customers, sharing detailed data is downright scary. The rewards, however, should cause CEOs to pause and reconsider.
As discussed earlier, various start-ups and private organizations are taking on the idea of the Open System or Open Organization. It matters to realize that powerful concepts such as co-creation and co-production have currency in other fields. Private sector endeavors have also been long shielded from direct engagement with critical stakeholders. However, this blog and work is directly focused on public education, so we must consider how this is defined and considered within the public sector and education broadly.
In their research piece, A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey, the authors conclude with a striking thought on the relevance of these ideas in the public space:
Policy makers and politicians consider co-creation/co-production with citizens as a necessary condition to create innovative public services that actually meet the needs of citizens, given a number of societal challenges, like ageing and urban regeneration, and all of this within the context of austerity. Hence, co-creation/co-production seems to be considered as a cornerstone for social innovation in the public sector. (emphasis mine)
Across the country, more and more education system leaders are rightly attempting to lead from a space of co-creation/co-production. But if we intend to build or redesign systems that seeks to lay this “cornerstone” of social impact work, we must understand how it specifically is grounded within public sector initiatives broadly.
The Strategic Triangle
In graduate school, I had the unbelievable pleasure to learn from and teach for Dr. Mark Moore. Dr. Moore pioneered the idea of the Strategic Triangle, a concept fundamental to the understanding of public institutions and organizations.
The Strategic Triangle consists of three fundamental components:
* **Public Value.** The articulated rationale and benefits to the community of the initiative, department or, in our cases, a school or school district. *Example: A charter school’s public value proposition is that it guarantees all students attend college.*
- Organizational Capacity. The systems, structures and components of the organization that realize the public value proposition. Example: A charter network has a CEO, a Chief of Schools, and a significant human resources department investment to ensure it can recruit the talent and leadership to achieve its public value.
-
Legitimacy & Support. Exceptionally important in the public sphere and divergent from the private sector, public organizations and enterprises must constantly be building credibility and authorization from their community broadly. These could be those with the formal power to approve or pushback against the endeavor or those informal power who can reduce the credibility of the effort. This is truly the work of aligning values and actions with broad stakeholders, whether they are named or not. Example: A charter network has a Board of Directors, which received authorization from the local school district, which also has a Board. This charter network also must undergo an authorization process through a charter schools office inside the school district. Additionally, families must sign up to send their children to the school.
- Authorizing Environment. An essential element to the work of building legitimacy and support is understanding “who” is in your authorizing environment. Building legitimacy and support from broad stakeholders is good, but unless you build legitimacy and support from those most critically invested in your work (see example above) than your project will likely fail. Critiquing the traditional sense of power here will be essential and the subject of the next piece.
These three components represent the fundamentals of public sector work. Every public endeavor must “round the bases” at all times, in all of the work. Deep alignment between all three ensure the success and impact of any social initiative. Many public endeavors fail because they fail to hold all three of these critical functions together at all times.
Anchoring the Triangle: Co-Creation, Co-Production
In this class, I once asked a question of Professor Moore about the authorizing environment. This is the universe of folks in public work that you must build legitimacy and support from, seek approval and continually engage. I asked him what happens when you merge the authorizing environment with other parts of the triangle? With either the public value creation or the on-going work? What if the legitimacy & support for your public value was not a separate component, but rather a fundamental force in the other components?
He smiled and with a twinkle in his eye spoke clearly: “That’s called co-production...or co-creation”
I remember that moment because I looked around at many of the other folks in my class. I caught few of their glances with my wide eyes. Professor Moore had put into one term something I had been struggling with for years.
My whole career in education had made this point so clear, yet so obscure from simple terms and a clear understanding of why the failure existed. Indeed, I remember in that moment realizing that co-production and co-creation were where I was proud of my work and the places where I hadn’t I was ashamed of my leadership.
A fair critique of previous reform eras, highlighted in many other articles and places, helps understand the failure through the strategic triangle. In too many places reform work had failed to close the deep structural divide between “organizational capacity” and “legitimacy & support.” Many reformers had articulated a public value, found others who’d agreed with them, built capacity and THEN, only then, asked for support and legitimacy. However, too often they had sought a narrow vision for what broad-based legitimacy and support looks like, usually from those who both agreed and looked like them. In many place, teachers and grassroots groups across the country backlashed as they saw top-down implementation wrapped in a thin veneer of authorization (usually from people from the same affinity group). In other places and times, co-creation from reformers was well intentioned and structured but then dissipated over time and initial wins. This is an important reflection point - co-creation needs co-production.
These public values might be well-intentioned policies, great schools or amazing initiatives but because they lacked co-creation and co-production, they were not only hindered from the start but lacked on-going sustainability. Sometimes miracles could happen: they could press “restart” on the idea or build a new coalition to support the work. But too often, the lack of co-creation/co-production led to a long slog of reduced legitimacy and support, and sometimes failure of the policy overall. In some cases, it led to the splintering of the coalitions advancing public education. In other states and communities, wisdom prevailed. There was a realization that co-production and co-creation were essential elements, indeed necessary for the work. These charter networks, districts and national initiatives have thrived because they realized that co-production/co-creation were essential.
Defining Our Terms
Now that we understand the strategic triangle, the basic concept and how it connects back to education, let’s get a little clearer on these terms. Co-production and co-creation are often used interchangeably, so this is an opportunity to be more discrete and sharp with language. In fact, in their survey of hundreds of articles, the authors of this piece of research came to the conclusion that the terms were used too interchangeably. They conclude the following definitions ought to be used, for the sake of clarity and consistency:
* **Co-Creation.** In the genesis of assembling a public value proposition, members of the authorizing environment are given the ability to shape the design and final product to what they believe is needed.
Example: A community design team is formed to guide a turnaround process. This design team gets to name the school, the type of program involved and builds the blueprint with the school leader.
* **Co-Production**. In the ongoing work of producing public value, members of the authorizing environment help and are involved in the organization directly. This can range across from deeply involved in running the operation directly, or to more lightly in having a deep oversight and steering responsibilities.
Example: The school district appoints a citizen oversight council which helps place new schools, guide the chartering of new options and advises the Board and Superintendent on critical issues.
Reflection Questions:
- Where have you seen strong aspects of co-creation?
- Where have you seen co-creation go off the rails?
- What are the big challenges of co-production?
- How have you aspired or struggled to bring these concepts to life?
Happy Holidays to everyone in The Open System universe. This month, I’m bringing you a special podcast on a critical and essential topic of interrupting bias and racism in our schools through restoring dignity to students.
Our guest this month is Dr. Blake Noel, who recently completed his doctorate at the University of Michigan. We work in similar circles and we’ve spoken at length about the subject of his dissertation and how it connects to the open system concept. I asked Blake to sit down and walk us through his argument and contribution to the field, which I think is extensive.
This podcast is a great opportunity to reconsider some prime and fundamental issues at play in our schools. It’s an exploration of the link between race, teacher moves and student dignity. And most consequentially, he offers a powerful way to adjust these dynamics and restore dignity and respect to students.
Enjoy!
In our current education discourse, there is major debate and challenges around the ideas of “choice” and “access.” I’m very interested in the intersection between school systems that embark on choice and access initiatives and the relationship they have to creating an open system.
I invited my former colleague at Denver Public Schools, Brian Eschbacher, to join the September podcast for a conversation on these ideas:
-
What is a public space in education? What obligation do we have to meet unique needs?
-
How does the market analogy apply in education? How does it not?
-
How does planning and choice walk hand in hand in an open system?
-
We discuss how a choice and access system create opportunities for Exit, Voice and Loyalty - actions families can take to have power and agency in an open system.
-
What is the work of family engagement and open systems in creating real choices?
-
How does choice challenge old notions of community and create the potential for new forms of community?
-
What is the future of choice systems?
Hey everyone. I hope you had an amazing summer and are getting ready for a great school year.
While I recorded this podcast before the end of the school year, life events conspired to get in the way. But that's how things work and I'm super excited for it to come out now in August.
Wisdom is a great leader in the space. Since our podcast was recorded, his school was approved. He is an incredible speaker and thinker in working with families and bringing new people into new visions for education.
Happy April!
I'm excited for our April Open System podcast starring two great leaders from Massachusetts: Glennys Sanchez and Ann Walsh.
1647 is a leading family engagement organization in MA, focused on ensuring that schools have the tools and resources they need to be working with parents and families. In the podcast, we hear from Glennys and Anne about how the organization got it's name, the origins of why this work matters to them and how they are pivoting to ensure greater buy-in from schools.
This podcast is a must listen if you're interested in the efforts of leaders who are thinking about identity and organizational impact as they pursue open systems.
Enjoy!
A discussion with Reilly Pharo Carter, an amazing ed leader in Colorado who leads from an open system mentality and practice.
Welcome to the second Open System podcast! Thanks everyone for your great feedback and comments on the first podcast.
For the second podcast, I had the chance to sit down with a longtime friend and colleague, Dr. Ivan Duran. Dr. Duran is the Superintendent of Bellevue Public Schools in Washington state.
I've know Dr. Duran from our time together in Denver Public Schools, where I knew him as a champion of family engagement as a major priority while he was in charge of all elementary schools in the district.
In the podcast, we discuss why he got involved in education, why he cares about family engagement, the outcomes of best practice open system work and how he thinks about ensuring the entire system prioritizes the work.
A podcast interview with powerhouse and Kansas City School Board member, Natalie Lewis.
Yesterday, Peter Cunningham, editor-in-chief of Education Post, posted an article entitled: "Education Reform in 2018 Is Going to Need a Parent Seal of Approval."
It's a great piece that combines two very important ideas in education these days. First, he rightly notes the important shift in the education reform space to diversify across all lines of difference and also share power with community voices. Second, he makes a strong and clear case for parent voice & parent work in the education community. The first is an important observation and the second is an clarion call for education advocates going forward.
Welcome to 2018!
Here at the Open System, we are celebrating 2018 with a few resolutions.
“Authorizing” is the set of processes by which new schools are evaluated according to standardized criteria and eventually approved or denied by the Board of Education. (The specifics vary a bit from state to state and authorizer to authorizer, but the process is essentially the same.) In DPS, the same criteria and evaluation process is used for both charter and district-run schools.
I oversaw this process for three years until June 2017. Our work was based mostly on a publicly available rubric to establish a standard “Quality Bar”— if an applicant can meet or exceed the quality bar, the theory goes, it will be most likely be a high quality school.
One benefit to having a centrally-determined rubric and rigorous review process for determining school quality, authorizers can be relatively confident that new schools will be high quality options for families once they open.
However, far from creating an Open System, our strategies to engage with community members to see first hand what individuals directly impacted by new schools wanted, often regrettably served a compliance function rather than lead to any shared power.
After this first experience, the thought stirred in others and me - what if we could do this better? It wasn't a new idea at all - school conversations about performance are old hat. But there was something different about this in an era of common data systems, district wide choice and transparent conversations about school performance. Ideas for improvement percolated. What about even more family friendly documents? What about even more prioritized support from the central office? Better coordination around external advocacy partners. The result could be a whole new dynamic between families and our schools. We could be establishing a new beachhead in engagement system - the regular and clear public accountability commitment of schools and their leaders to the community.
The power also seemed electric from a social change perspective. You could imagine thousands of parents, all across the city during the same window in time having conversations with other parents about performance: an open network of parents exercising their right to know. Powerful.
When my parents separated, I was eight years old and with the end of their marriage came a new neighborhood and school. I really liked the students at my school; the teacher and I, however, did not hit it off. She generally looked scared of us, she always looked like she just rolled out of bed, and she didn’t seem prepared for what she was teaching. Naturally, the behavior in the class quickly deteriorated and one day, I shared that until she started teaching, I’d be reading my book in the corner (I know, I know).
She didn’t say anything in that moment but later demoted my reading group. I had been in the advanced group where we read chapter books. Now, I was told to go and join a new group. I was surprised, and hadn’t noticed before, that most of the kids in this group were Black and Latino. The advanced group was all White and Asian and…me.
I’d like to make the (not so radical) argument that we’ve reached a serious, deep inflection point leading towards openness, from global to local systems. From the World Trade Organization to the local library, the systems that form our society’s foundation were built for another time and place —not the moment of “transparency, authenticity, access” that Dell describes. And while it may feel that the wall builders and closed system cheerleaders are winning; I’d argue there is another truth. That more and more people are thinking in a global construct of openness. That we are implementing more and more open policies that push us toward a freer exchange of ideas and power. But as the world moves toward openess, supporters of the closed system status will push back harder than ever. To break through this resistance, we must push even farther, opening elements across all of our system. And I believe the most important place to do this work in is education, right now.
I’ve always found it ironic that those of us in the family and community engagement space are often lonely people. Not by choice (because usually we’re extroverts) but because of the way systems usually think about family and community engagement.
You see, within our districts, schools, and organizations, we are usually the only ones charged with the responsibility of working with families and parents. School systems typically have a handful of folks charged with this responsibility. Very rarely do they have budgets, and even more rarely do they have missions and purposes focused on the broader opening work.
How wild is it then, that the very people often charged with “building community” or working with “the people” find themselves alone in the system, fighting major battles against decades of system dispositions? Changing a system to think about openness is no small matter and it’s really the responsibility of everyone—not just one person.
This story begins in 1920s Mexico. My grandmother’s parents were living in Zacatecas right after the Mexican Revolution. My great-grandfather found himself embroiled in a tumultuous situation when he was accused of stealing. A noose was put around his neck and he was ready to die. At the very last minute, a local man ran up and told everyone that my great-grandfather wasn’t the thief; the crime was committed by a recently-apprehended criminal.
After that, my great-grandfather decided to flee Mexico and move his family to Colorado.