Thanks for this series of posts. It seems that quite often, speakers are hired based on the popularity of a written piece or because they have been hired by so many others. Being popular shouldn’t be enough.

Those in the position of hiring a speaker have a responsibility to take the time to really look at a person’s previous work and think critically about it. Those who hear the speaker have a responsibility to think critically about what they are hearing vs. taking it at face value. Those who speak have responsibility too. I think the NSA guidelines are very good.

What I would add is that IMHO, this should apply to all speakers–big names hired for big events to everyday presenters speaking in a small training session. Critical thinking/evaluation is key, but too often neglected.

The consultant-as-the-expert, as the sage on this stage, is often revered by the audience. Later, he or she is spoken about with great fervor around the water fountain with comments like, “Wasn’t she or he amazing?” The consultant as the facilitator allows participants to walk along side and then in front of him or her. The workplace atmosphere, in this case, becomes, “Aren’t WE amazing?”

The consultant-as-the-expert might be remembered in years to come as a good speaker, motivating, etc., but his or her specific content may easily be forgotten. The consultant-as-a-facilitator may be easily forgotten but his or her messages, strategies, and skills live on through the day-to-day practices and operations.

I strongly agree with your four points for consultants. I would expand to also suggest that organizations need to develop operational guidelines when using professional consulting services. In no particular order:

1. Balance. Has the organization adequately researched the topic to understand the variety of perspectives associated with a specific topic? Sometimes school districts can become enamored with a certain consultant and their ideological and/or philosophical perspective. It is important to seek out information on the same topic that is slightly or significantly different.

2. Situation. Has the organization adequately researched what makes their organization unique from others? A school district needs to identify the uniqueness of their own situation to determine the validity of a consultant’s recommendations. I believe strongly that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to making significant change in a school district. We are sometimes too quick to adopt an entire list of recommendations without recognizing the local presence of the parameters that are necessary for a successful implementation.

3. Capacity: Has the organization adequately assessed their capacity to implement the recommendations? Considering change without a clear picture of the organizational capacity as it relates to the implementation is silly. There are areas in every school district that are weak and/or stressed, so implementing recommendations that rely on weak and/or stressed areas may become difficult to successfully accomplish.

4. Alignment: Has the organization adequately developed strategic and/or tactical plans that focus on specific organizational outcomes? To avoid constantly “jumping on the bandwagon” with the latest fad, school districts should have a clear picture of what they are trying to accomplish. The whole language versus phonics debate comes to mind. Figure out what you believe in, find a consultant that can help, and then make sure the recommendations are aligned to the strategic outcomes of the district.

That is a pretty quick list and I am sure there are others. Thanks for your thoughtful work on this topic!

Darin

For my own use, I do find listening to consultants like Payne and Daggett as mentally refreshing. It helps to hear well articulated views. But consultants don’t wield school improvement silver bullets and they won’t do the education leadership heavy lifting that Blanchard and Muchnick talk about (integrity, partnership, affirmation).

Just as a point of clarification you said, “A number of folks in the educational technology community serve as speakers and/or consultants. Will Richardson, David Warlick, and Angela Maiers, for example, do this as their primary vocation. Others such as myself, Doug Johnson, Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach, Miguel Guhlin, Dean Shareski, Sylvia Martinez, and Wesley Fryer occasionally do this on the side in addition to our regular employment.”

Just as an FYI- I work at Powerful Learning Practice, LLC as Co-founder and CEO (http://plpnetwork.com) and 21st Century Collaborative, LLC as President (http://21stcenturycollaborative.com) both are PD consulting companies and serve as my primary vocation. My adjunct work at William and Mary is on the side.

Geared around ‘corporate’ america, but as schools turn to leaders outside of education for larger schools and schools try to be the ‘innovative’/'early adopter’… very relevant

Seeing these recent posts only whets my appetite.

I’m about as old as Sputnik, so my brain still gets jolted when I run into mythological on-line creatures. Kind of like running into Sonny Fox when I was still a kid.