I am not a fan of those who lean into a dictionary definition to define a word before talking about the word. That ages-old technique is boring, traditional and all things an L+Doer really is not. Yet, here I go anyway...

 

It matters what definition of conservation one is using when it is applied to educational process and decision-making. A quick look at Merriam-Webster reminds us that conservation has two different meanings. I am opting to talk about the second meaning: "the preservation of a physical quantity during transformations or reactions." (I will leave it to a test of your curiosity to go check out the first meaning.)

 

At Forest Ridge School of the Sacred Heart, where I popped in for a year to pull folks into a creative zone, it turned out that the most unconventional thing we did was to put the practice of conservation to best use.  As we reimagined the advisory system, the curriculum, the full time load of the faculty, the student leadership structure, and the administrative structure in a year of stunning transformation, we intentionally preserved and conserved the most critical element of any good independent school: the mission.

 

 Over the years Forest Ridge had done what most schools have do ne in the heat of competitive battle, continuing to add quality programming in a wide array of arenas, engaging talented faculty to create, lead and implement all manner of sexy options to the core curriculum. New language options? Of course. More outdoor education opportunities? Certainly. B etter technology with more software and new possibilities? Absolutely. Exchange programs for global engagement? Definitely. Critical note here: none of these programmatic additions were bad, wrong, or of poor quality. That is rarely the issue when talented, passionate educators lead from their heart and breathe life into innovative programs. We know this. Yet, how is it then that such well-intentioned energy creates a near frenetic pace of adding, building, and creating something new, exciting, different, better than the co mpetitor? It happens as we get distracted in our creativity by zest and thrill.

 

Very early on in the change process at Forest Ridge, we entered into an "I wond er" phase by pointing to goals elegantly written long decades ago, as we listed separately the alphabet soup of acronyms that sto o d for newish programs added over the past several years. Th e mission goals  were simple but lofty, calling us to create a rigorous program that fostered both intellectual curiosity and the passion for service and community building that could only come from in tentional character education. Our g rand "conservation" process would require that we preserved and examined the mission language, holding it up as the lens through which all programs on the edges and fringes could be assessed. We would preserve the mission as we transformed the school, conserving resources of time, talent, money and wisdom in the process.

 

This wasn't easy going. Conservation efforts rarely are. Faculty fall in love with specific programs for specific reasons. Student and parent dreams and wishes don't make this any easier. A squeaky wheel occasionally needs oiling. Yet, defending a program using mission language, pointing to specific outcomes addressed in the mission statement, and offering metrics/stories/details to quantify success is empowering for all involved. Better yet, it is contagious. Once the practice is institutionalized, it becomes a healthy habit.

 

Conserving by preserving, when done well, results in doing less better, with more intentionality. Also, there is the added benefit of providing clarity as to what the school does, what it stands for, and what it produces in a crowded landscape where many independent school vie for distinction.

 

Yes, at Forest Ridge we created much that was new this year, and our secret? We jettisoned much that was no longer working as well as we had hoped or intended when we piled it on. We have a mission that has served us well for over two hundred years. We discovered along that way that like having a house with good bones and a great foundation, restoration is often more rewarding than renovation!

 

 

1. How bought in is your team? There is no better assessment tool for the worth of a resource than the people who use it. Talk to your team. When and how do they use the resource, if at all? When does it work for them? When does it frustrate them?

 

2. Why is it there in the first place? I can't tell you how many clients I've worked with who, when pressed to explain why they use a certain tool or pursue a certain idea, finally arrive it "because someone said we should." Resources should be used because they work for you, not because some consultant (self-referential humor) or boss from long ago decided it was a good idea. If you don't know why you use it, get rid of it.

 3. How does it help you reach your organization's goals? There should be a clear link between what the resource does for you, and how that service gets you closer to your strategic goals. How do you know it's working? How do you measure its success? How will its use measurably move you towards that end goal? If you can't answer these questions, consider revamping or replacing what you've got.

 4. Does it map to a priority goal?

This one is simple: if not, de-prioritize it.

 5.  Is it relevant to your community? What works for one school, will not necessarily work for yours. Each community is unique in its assets, needs, and resources. Whom do you serve? Does this resource serve them?