A lesson from Hollywood on how to run schools (No, really)

What can educators learns from Hollywood? Reading this interview with director Steven Soderburgh (via Andrew Sullivan), I picked up on some themes:

One thing I do know from making art is that ideology is the enemy of problem-solving. Nobody sits on a film set and says, “No, you can’t use green-screen VFX to solve that because I’m Catholic.” There’s no place for that, and that’s why I’ve stopped being embarrassed about being in the entertainment industry, because I’m surrounded by intelligent people who solve problems quickly and efficiently, primarily because issues of ideology don’t enter into the conversation.

Soderburgh is comparing filmmaking with Congress, but the same point can be made about how we run schools. Compare the ideology and dogmatism infusing many policy discussions versus the ruthless pragmatism exercised by the best teachers. 

I'm of the camp that thinks gifted educators are, at heart, artists who use technical skills and collaboration to create something that is, at best, only partially defined by numbers. Filmmaking is in some ways similar, which is why it's fascinating to read Soderbergh's take on the real assets of competent moviemakers:

And these people excel at problem-solving—that’s 99 percent of the job. I look at Hurricane Katrina, and I think if four days before landfall you gave a movie studio autonomy and a 100th of the billions the government spent on that disaster, and told them, “Lock this place down and get everyone taken care of,” we wouldn’t be using that disaster as an example of what not to do. A big movie involves clothing, feeding, and moving thousands of people around the world on a tight schedule. Problems are solved creatively and efficiently within a budget, or your ass is out of work. 

(Emphasis mine)

Soderbergh exaggerates in regards to prepping for Hurricane Katrina, but his overall point holds up: execution trumps everything. In both making movies and running schools, there's a tight schedule with lots of stuff happening at once. There's a budget. There's a deadline. 

Results are both measured with numbers and also judged as something better described than quantified. Filmmakers value box office, but know it shouldn't be the sole judge of a great movie. (The Shawshank Redemption is one example of this.) Educators know test scores matter and we also want students who will become thoughtful, informed, and kind citizens (note the work schools like KIPP and YES are doing with character education). 

I've worked in district and charter schools and have been asked what's the big difference? From my perspective as teacher, there is a difference, but it has little to do with different types of school governance. Rather, the difference is how diligent the adults are about problem solving. Some school environments facilitate solutions, others build barriers. The best charter and district schools find ways to create the former. Poorly run schools of both stripes do the latter.

This is why some charter schools succeed, some are mediocre, and others are worse than district schools. The governance model simply allows for more experimentation in solving the puzzle of how best to teach children. It doesn't guarantee anything about the abilities of the adults running the school.

All schools -- district and charter -- can learn something from successful filmmakers. Just like a movie, each school tells a story. The process of telling that story will involve numerous problems to be solved. The story will either be told well or poorly. The governance model of the school won't decide that. The adults who are solving the problems will.