Every month during the school year, I get to play Jenga with students celebrating birthdays. We gather around the coffee table in the main lobby outside the theater, and we play. Depending on the age group and depending on the month, the group might be large, or it might be as small as a single student. Before the game commences, everyone gets a popsicle — a popsicle in hand is a great way to ensure one can only use one hand to remove their Jenga piece.
The concept of Jenga is deceptively simple. We start by making a tower of blocks stacked three by three in alternating directions, and the goal is for each player, in turn, to pull one block out of the stack, and add it to the top without collapsing the tower. The goal for most gatherings is to stack it as high as we can without it falling down — occasionally, there is a player (or a few) who take delight in making the task harder by removing a block to make it extra wiggly.
There is, of course, a simple and safe way to do this: at each level, the players, in turn, pull the middle block from the center of each set of three, and the tower builds in much the way a stack of Lincoln Logs rises from the ground – two by two, with a hollow center. But played that way, the height of the Jenga tower quickly maxes out. There are only so many center blocks to pull. But what if, instead, you could remove two out of the three blocks from a layer? Strategically placed layers of single blocks would double the number of blocks that can be added to the top. But it’s risky. You have to carefully consider the overall stability of the tower, how it balances, and where pieces can be removed without compromising the structure.
Experimentation and risk-taking, structure and stability: all are necessary for growth. So much of the work we do at Park depends on that combination of experimentation and stability, and even more so on the collaborative, supportive engagement of all members of the community
Watching Park students work together in these games is a source of particular joy for me, as I see the students exemplifying not just what’s wonderful about Jenga but also what’s best about Park. Recently, I played with a group of Grade 1 and 2 students, and as they supported and cheered each other, they epitomized The Park Portrait ideal of Joyful Learners, Compassionate Collaborators, Creative Problem Solvers, Mindful Leaders, and Practiced Advocates. Their collective engagement was exciting, as was the tremendous focus — followed by palpable relief when the tower didn’t tumble — evident on the face of each student in their turn.
Experimentation and risk-taking, structure and stability: all are necessary for growth. So much of the work we do at Park depends on that combination of experimentation and stability, and even more so on the collaborative, supportive engagement of all members of the community.
The year-long PreK-8 curriculum review process taken on by Park’s faculty this year is a great example of this, and the outcomes reveal a deliberate and thoughtful process that, like Jenga, balances structure and outcome. Every faculty member engaged in the process as a member of one of six committees — math, writing, school-to-home communication, the use of data, mapping and curricular change, and professional growth. They researched best practices at peer schools. They conducted surveys. They analyzed the strengths and growth opportunities of Park’s current programs. And finally, each committee put forth recommendations in the form of the five next steps they believe will advance their area of focus within Park’s program most effectively. Next steps from where we are right now – forward movement building on clear foundations, firmly grounded in current “best practices” research and the current reality @ Park.
Often, schools set out to advance change by brainstorming aspirational possibilities and advancing proposals aimed at sweeping transformation. A process like this can be exciting and can signal bold action; however, more often than not, the proposals these efforts yield have no connection to the current reality of the school and end up on the shelf rather than in practice. Because they aren’t grounded in the current reality, implementation falls flat (if it even gets to that point). The result is demoralizing, and often, it is destructive, undermining existing programmatic strengths rather than building on them.
What’s exciting about the work happening at Park now is how structurally sound it is. This work is moving the school forward, building on the expertise in the building focused on institutional improvement and student growth. Based on the work accomplished this year and on the thoughtful recommendations the review committees drafted, plans are in place to:
- Hire a Kindergarten-Grade 2 Math Specialist for the 2023-24 school year.
- Clarify and define writing expectations at each grade level setting common writing terminology and language to foster greater writing continuity PreK through Grade 8.
- Establish a Data Advisory Committee composed of faculty and administrators charged with setting norms for data use and building whole school systems, routines, and practices for utilizing, sharing, and communicating student data in the areas of academic, social emotional, and DEI data.
- Develop a unified philosophy for student feedback that can guide both Lower Division and Upper Division student feedback practices.
- Redesign Park’s professional growth system for faculty and staff that is personalized and includes both short and long term growth-oriented and measurable goals.
And, these are just a few examples of the nearly 30 recommendations that came out of this year’s review process, facilitated by faculty and led by the Program Leadership Team (PLT) of Ken Rogers, Tina Fox, Alile Eldridge, and Pamela Penna — a process marrying structure and outcome grounded in research, reality, collaboration, and progress.
I think of the Jenga tower and the careful yet inventive step-by-step process by which it grows. At Park, we are building our tower together, thoughtfully, intentionally, carefully, and boldly.
