Chapter 8: Relationships as Infrastructure
Building the Internal and External Partnerships That Make Transformation Possible
Part II: WHAT -- The Model
The Chief Operations Officer of Innovation USD came from theater. Not educational theater -- professional stage production, the kind where you manage lighting rigs, union crews, and multimillion-dollar set builds under immovable opening-night deadlines. When the superintendent recruited him into public education, most people in the district could not understand the hire. What did a theater production manager know about school operations?
Everything, as it turned out. Within three years, this former stage manager had transformed the facilities department from a cost center into a revenue engine, generating $2 million per year in rental revenue and securing $24 million in joint-use agreements with the city. He redesigned school buildings with moveable walls, raised floors, indoor-outdoor learning spaces, flexible furniture, and maker spaces -- the physical infrastructure of inquiry-based learning. And when the district asked its community to invest nearly $700 million in two bond measures, both passed at 72% approval -- a figure that would make most superintendents weep with disbelief.
That 72% was not the product of a glossy mailer or a well-produced campaign video. It was the culmination of a decade of deliberate, patient, strategic relationship-building: Rotary clubs where the superintendent showed up not to ask but to listen. NAACP chapter meetings where district leaders sat in the back rows before they ever stood at the podium. Parent affinity groups that were not merely informed of the district's direction but trained in the pedagogy driving it. City council partnerships forged over joint-use negotiations that benefited both entities. Business mentorship programs where industry leaders walked into classrooms and saw, firsthand, students engaged in the kind of problem-solving their companies desperately needed.
When the bond measures finally appeared on the ballot, the community was not being asked to trust a promise. They were being asked to invest in something they had already seen working. The relationships came first. The ask came last.
This is the Employ phase of the Shared Vision Framework -- and it is the phase most often reduced, in other models, to logistics. In this chapter, I want to make the case that relationships are not a nice addition to transformation. They are the infrastructure of it. Without them, the vision remains a document. With them, the vision becomes a community's shared project.
The Superintendent as Thought Partner, Not Directive Leader
Every change management model acknowledges the importance of the leader. Kotter (2012) places the formation of a guiding coalition as his second step. Fullan (2011) insists that the leader must embody moral purpose while building collaborative cultures. Khalifa (2018) demands that culturally responsive school leaders practice critical self-awareness and become community advocates. None of this is wrong. But none of it captures what I observed at Innovation USD -- a relational posture that was less about leading and more about thinking alongside.
The superintendent of Innovation USD described his role not as the person with the answers but as the person with the questions. "You can never say that this is a top-down decision, right?" he told me during our interview. "How to do the work? All I ask for is the goals we need. That is non-negotiable. Then you are going to develop your plan for your site. You need to make it authentic" (Martin, 2022, p. 86). This was not delegation in the bureaucratic sense -- the passing of responsibility downward to reduce the leader's burden. This was a relational stance: I trust you enough to give you the hardest part of the work, and I will sit with you while you figure it out.
The distinction matters enormously, and the research confirms why. Liou and Daly (2019), in their longitudinal examination of influence through educational networks, identified the "lead igniter" -- the individual who sparks and sustains change through relational networks -- as the critical variable in how shared vision actually transfers through an organization. The lead igniter does not transfer vision by broadcasting it. The lead igniter transfers vision by being present in the network, by making connections visible, by showing up consistently in spaces where relationships form. The superintendent of Innovation USD was precisely this figure. He was in classrooms. He was at Rotary. He was at the NAACP meeting. He was sitting across from principals during quarterly SPSA reviews, not evaluating their performance but interrogating the data alongside them.
Senge (1990) argued decades ago that the leader in a learning organization must be simultaneously designer, steward, and teacher -- creating conditions for others to learn, holding the larger purpose in trust, and modeling the inquiry stance that the organization needs. What I observed was all three of these roles enacted through relationship rather than authority. The superintendent designed the non-negotiable goals. He stewarded the moral purpose. He taught by asking questions. But the mechanism through which all of this moved was not hierarchy. It was trust, built one conversation at a time, sustained over years.
For the Fourth Industrial Superintendent navigating AI adoption, this relational posture is not merely preferable -- it is necessary. A 2025 taxonomy of AI applications in educational leadership identifies stakeholder engagement as one of six key domains, noting that the most successful districts approach AI "with a clear vision, strong leadership, and commitment to responsible innovation, starting with a shared vision for why the district is using AI" (Panorama Education, 2025; Springer, 2025). That shared vision cannot be imposed. It must be co-constructed through the same kind of relational thinking that the Innovation USD superintendent modeled: here are the non-negotiable goals -- equity, inquiry, access to the future workforce. How we get there belongs to all of us.
Leading from the Middle: Teachers and Unions as Partners
The most powerful sentence the superintendent of Innovation USD spoke during our interviews was not about vision or equity or the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It was about teachers: "Remember the whole design of the middle? That's brought me more credibility than anything else, moving us farther than anything else" (Martin, 2022, p. 96).
Leading from the middle is a concept with deep roots in the distributed leadership literature (Harris, 2014; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012), but in practice, most districts implement it as a cosmetic adjustment -- teacher leadership teams that advise but do not decide, professional learning communities that discuss but do not design. At Innovation USD, leading from the middle was structural. Teachers were not consulted on the vision after it was formed; they were positioned as the architects of its implementation. The superintendent negotiated with the teachers' union to include teachers as paid professional learning community leaders and site-based initiative leaders -- not as an add-on to their contract but as a negotiated, compensated component of the district's change strategy (Martin, 2022).
This move was strategically brilliant and relationally profound. By compensating teachers for leadership, the superintendent accomplished three things simultaneously. First, he signaled that teacher expertise was not an afterthought but the engine of transformation. Second, he converted the union from a potential adversary into a structural ally -- the union had negotiated a benefit for its members, which meant union leadership had a stake in the initiative's success. Third, he created a distributed network of lead igniters at every school site, each one translating the superintendent's non-negotiable goals into context-specific implementation that reflected the unique needs, strengths, and demographics of their school community.
Martinaityte et al.'s (2020) research on collective psychological ownership provides the theoretical frame for understanding why this works. Individual buy-in -- the goal of most change communication strategies -- produces compliance. Collective ownership -- the shared conviction that this vision belongs to us, that we built it, that its success is our success -- produces commitment that sustains itself when the superintendent is not in the room. The Innovation USD superintendent did not ask teachers to buy in. He asked them to build. And because they built it, they owned it.
The implications for AI-era transformation are direct. Organizations that succeed with AI, as GovTech (2025) has argued, are led by people who understand that "this is fundamentally about organizational change, systems thinking, and the courage to abandon what's comfortable." But that courage cannot live in the superintendent alone. It must be distributed through the network. Teachers who are experimenting with AI tools in their classrooms -- who are discovering how generative AI can differentiate instruction, who are navigating the ethical complexities of AI-generated content with their students, who are finding that AI tutoring can produce learning gains equivalent to or exceeding traditional active learning (Kestin et al., 2025) -- these teachers are the lead igniters of the AI transformation. The Fourth Industrial Superintendent's job is not to mandate AI use. It is to build the relational infrastructure that allows teacher innovation to emerge, spread, and refine itself through the same leading-from-the-middle architecture that Innovation USD pioneered.
External Partnerships: The Community as Co-Investor
Internal relationships -- superintendent to cabinet, cabinet to principals, principals to teachers, teachers to union -- are the skeletal system of district transformation. But a skeleton without muscle cannot move. The external relationships that Innovation USD built were the muscle: the community organizations, business partnerships, city government collaborations, and civic institutions that gave the vision its forward motion and its political durability.
The superintendent did not approach community partnerships as a public relations strategy. He approached them as a learning strategy -- the same inquiry stance he brought to everything else. Before he asked the Rotary Club for support, he attended their meetings. Before he partnered with the NAACP, he listened at their chapter gatherings. Before he sought city council approval for joint-use agreements, he understood what the city needed from the district. This is the relational equivalent of the appreciative inquiry protocol I used in my dissertation research (Ludema et al., 2006; Stratton-Berkessel, 2010): you begin not with what you need but with what is already working, what is already valued, and what can be built together.
The business partnerships were particularly instructive. Innovation USD did not pursue the transactional model that most districts default to -- businesses donate equipment, businesses sponsor events, businesses get their logo on a banner. Instead, the district built mentorship pipelines. Industry leaders came into classrooms not as donors but as thought partners, working alongside students on real problems, providing the kind of authentic audience that inquiry-based learning requires to move from academic exercise to meaningful work. When those business leaders later spoke at board meetings or community forums in support of the district's direction, they spoke not from philanthropic obligation but from firsthand experience. They had seen students thinking like their best employees. They had seen classrooms operating like the innovation teams their companies could never quite build. They were allies because they were witnesses.
Fullan et al. (2023), in their engagement with AI and school leadership, emphasize that stakeholder engagement must extend beyond traditional school-community relationships to include technology companies, universities, and policy organizations. This is correct, but it does not go far enough. For the Fourth Industrial Superintendent, external partnerships must also include the civic and community organizations that hold cultural authority in the communities the district serves. The NAACP chapter, the Latino business association, the faith community, the tribal council -- these are not "outreach targets." They are holders of knowledge, trust, and influence that no superintendent can replicate through institutional authority alone.
The research on community-school partnerships supports this. Henderson et al. (2007) demonstrated that family and community engagement focused on shared power and co-design -- rather than one-way communication from school to home -- produces measurable improvements in student achievement, attendance, and school climate. Ishimaru (2019) extended this work through the lens of equitable collaboration, arguing that authentic partnership requires districts to redistribute decision-making power toward historically marginalized families and communities. The Innovation USD superintendent's approach embodied both of these findings. He did not inform the community of his vision. He built the community into his vision.
Parent Affinity Groups: The "Sell, Don't Tell" Strategy
Of all the relational strategies I documented at Innovation USD, the parent affinity groups were among the most innovative and the most politically astute. The district established two key groups: an African American Parent Advisory Committee and a Latino Parent Alliance. These were not the traditional parent-teacher organizations that most districts maintain -- volunteer-run groups focused on fundraising and event planning. They were strategic instruments of vision transfer, specifically designed to educate parents on inquiry-based learning, build understanding of the district's equity-centered direction, and create a cadre of informed community allies who could speak authentically about the transformation at board meetings and in public forums.
The approach was captured in a phrase that the superintendent returned to repeatedly: "Sell, don't tell." The distinction is not merely rhetorical. "Telling" is the default communication mode of most school districts: we made a decision, here is what it means for your child, here is a FAQ document, here is a feedback form that we will file and forget. "Selling" is relational. It means bringing parents into classrooms to see inquiry-based learning in action -- not through a curated showcase but through an ordinary Tuesday, where their children are asking questions, collaborating with peers, building prototypes, presenting findings. It means training parents in the pedagogical language so they can recognize and name what they see. It means giving parents enough understanding that when a neighbor asks, "Why aren't the kids doing worksheets anymore?" the parent can answer with conviction rather than confusion.
This strategy is grounded in what Kotter (2012) identified as the critical importance of building a broad coalition of supporters before attempting to implement change. But it goes further. Kotter's coalition is primarily internal -- a guiding team of organizational leaders. The Innovation USD superintendent's coalition was deliberately external, and it was deliberately organized along the lines of racial and cultural affinity. This was not identity politics; it was structural wisdom. In a district where the achievement gap fell along racial lines, the parents most affected by the status quo -- African American and Latino families -- were also the parents whose voices carried the most moral authority in demanding change. By organizing parent groups along these lines, the superintendent created spaces where families could process the transformation through their own cultural lens, raise concerns without code-switching, and ultimately become advocates whose testimony at board meetings was unimpeachable precisely because it came from the community the changes were designed to serve.
Ishimaru (2019) has written extensively about the need to move beyond traditional models of parent engagement -- models that position families as supporters of the school's agenda -- toward equitable collaboration, where families are co-designers of educational experiences. The Innovation USD affinity groups occupied a middle ground that is instructive: parents were not yet co-designers of curriculum, but they were far more than passive recipients of information. They were trained interpreters of the vision, community-embedded advocates, and -- critically -- a feedback mechanism that kept the district honest. When the African American Parent Advisory Committee raised concerns, the superintendent listened, because the relationship had been built to sustain honesty.
For the Fourth Industrial Superintendent, parent affinity groups must now navigate the intense anxieties surrounding AI in education. The Center for Democracy and Technology (2025) found that 50% of students feel less connected to teachers when AI is present in the classroom, and 36% of students reported deepfake incidents at their school. Education Week surveys from 2025 and 2026 document growing public skepticism about AI in schools, with Americans increasingly uncertain about whether AI does more good or harm in educational settings (Education Week, 2025). These anxieties are real, they are legitimate, and they will not be resolved through district newsletters or FAQ pages. They will be resolved through the same relational infrastructure the Innovation USD superintendent built: bring parents in. Show them. Let them ask questions. Give them enough understanding to become partners in navigating the complexity, rather than opponents reacting to the unknown.
Facilities as Transformation: The Physical Infrastructure of Possibility
I include facilities in a chapter about relationships because that is where the Innovation USD story insists they belong. The physical transformation of school buildings was not a separate initiative from the relational work. It was an expression of it -- the most visible, most tangible, most walkable proof that the district meant what it said.
The Chief Operations Officer -- the theater production manager the superintendent had recruited into education -- understood something that most facilities departments do not: physical space communicates values. A classroom with thirty desks bolted in rows facing a whiteboard communicates one set of values. A classroom with moveable furniture, writable walls, a maker station, and an indoor-outdoor threshold communicates another. The buildings of Innovation USD were redesigned not merely for aesthetic improvement but for pedagogical alignment: flexible spaces that could accommodate collaboration, inquiry, presentation, and reflection in the same room, on the same day (Martin, 2022).
The financial architecture was equally relational. The $2 million per year in rental revenue came from positioning school facilities as community assets -- spaces that served the public after school hours, generating income that was reinvested in the learning environment. The $24 million in joint-use agreements came from negotiations with the city that benefited both entities: the district gained access to municipal resources, the city gained access to school facilities, and the community saw -- literally saw -- their tax dollars working in spaces they used every day (Martin, 2022). This is relationship-building through shared infrastructure, the kind of material partnership that transforms abstract support into lived experience.
The research on learning environments confirms the importance of physical space in educational transformation. Barrett et al. (2015) found that physical classroom features -- naturalness, individualization, and stimulation -- account for 16% of the variance in student learning progress, a finding that challenges the common assumption that pedagogy alone drives outcomes. Oblinger (2006) argued that learning spaces should be designed to support the pedagogies we aspire to rather than the pedagogies we inherited. The Innovation USD facilities transformation embodied this principle: the buildings were redesigned not for the factory model but for the inquiry model, and the community's willingness to fund that redesign through bond measures was itself evidence that the relational infrastructure had worked.
For the Fourth Industrial Superintendent, facilities design must now account for AI-integrated learning environments: spaces with robust digital infrastructure, collaborative zones for human-AI interaction, quiet areas for focused AI-assisted individual work, and maker spaces where students can prototype solutions to real-world problems using both physical and digital tools. But the relational principle remains the same: the community must see the space, use the space, and understand why the space looks different from the schools they remember. The bond measure will not pass because the architect's renderings are beautiful. It will pass because the relationships are strong enough to hold the weight of a community's investment.
The Bond Measure Playbook: $700 Million in Community Trust
I want to dwell on the bond measures for a moment, because $700 million at 72% approval is not a statistic. It is a story about what becomes possible when relationships precede requests.
Most districts approach bond measures as campaigns. They hire consultants, produce communications materials, identify key messages, and target likely supporters. There is nothing wrong with this -- it is competent public management. But competent public management produces 55% approval, maybe 60%. It does not produce 72%.
What produces 72% is a community that already knows what its schools are doing, already believes in the direction, and already sees its own children benefiting. The Innovation USD community voted yes at 72% because by the time the bond measure appeared on the ballot, the relational infrastructure had been in place for years. Business partners had walked through classrooms. Parents had been trained in IBL. The NAACP chapter had been consulted. The Rotary Club had listened to the superintendent not once but dozens of times. City council members had seen the joint-use agreements deliver mutual benefit. The 72% was not a vote of faith. It was a vote of knowledge.
Balfanz et al. (2014) documented the relationship between community engagement and school improvement, finding that sustained, authentic engagement -- not episodic outreach -- is the variable that distinguishes districts that achieve lasting change from those that cycle through reforms. Bryk and Schneider (2002), in their landmark study of relational trust in Chicago schools, demonstrated that trust between schools and communities is not a byproduct of successful reform but a precondition for it. The Innovation USD bond measures are a case study in Bryk and Schneider's thesis: the trust was built first, over years, through consistent presence, honest communication, and visible results. The money followed.
The Fourth Industrial Superintendent who needs community investment in AI infrastructure -- new devices, upgraded networks, AI platforms, redesigned spaces, professional development at scale -- would do well to study this sequence. The instinct is to lead with the ask: we need $50 million for an AI transformation. The wisdom is to lead with the relationship: come see what our students are doing. Come ask questions. Come be part of this. The ask will come later, and when it does, the community will already know why they should say yes.
Navigating the Political Reality: School Boards, Activists, and AI Anxiety
I have saved the most uncomfortable section for last, because it is the section that no other book on educational leadership wants to write. The Fourth Industrial Superintendent operates in a political environment, and pretending otherwise is a disservice to every leader reading this book.
School boards are elected bodies. Their members respond to constituencies that may or may not share the superintendent's vision for equity-centered, inquiry-based, AI-integrated education. In the current national landscape, superintendents who center racial equity face organized opposition that uses the language of parental rights, taxpayer accountability, and traditional values to resist exactly the kind of transformation this book advocates. Superintendents who adopt AI face a different but overlapping set of anxieties: parents who fear their children are being replaced by machines, teachers who fear their jobs are being automated, community members who associate AI with surveillance, bias, and the erosion of human connection (Education Week, 2025; Center for Democracy & Technology, 2025).
The Innovation USD superintendent navigated this terrain with a combination of strategic patience and moral clarity that I found remarkable. He did not avoid the politics. He did not pretend that equity work was apolitical. He simply built so many relationships, across so many community sectors, that the political opposition could never coalesce into a majority. When a concerned parent spoke at a board meeting, three parents from the affinity groups spoke after them. When a board member questioned the direction, the superintendent had data -- not aggregate data that could be spun, but disaggregated data that named specific student populations and specific outcomes. When skeptics demanded evidence, the superintendent pointed to classrooms they could visit, teachers they could observe, and students they could talk to. The evidence was not in a report. It was in the building down the street.
This is not a naive strategy. It is a deeply sophisticated one, grounded in what Heifetz et al. (2009) call adaptive leadership -- the capacity to mobilize people to tackle tough challenges while managing the political dynamics that inevitably accompany change. Heifetz distinguishes between technical problems (where the solution is known and can be implemented through authority) and adaptive challenges (where the problem itself is contested and the solution requires changes in values, beliefs, and behaviors). AI adoption in schools is an adaptive challenge. Equity-centered transformation is an adaptive challenge. The superintendent who treats either as a technical problem -- a policy to adopt, a platform to purchase, a training to deliver -- will find the political ground shifting beneath them.
The Innovation USD superintendent treated the politics as relational work, not as opposition to be defeated. He understood that the parent expressing concern about technology was often expressing something deeper: fear of change, distrust of institutions, grief for a familiar world that was disappearing. Meeting that concern with data alone would not resolve it. Meeting it with relationship -- with presence, with invitation, with the patience to let people see and ask and process -- could. Fullan (2011) calls this "the messy middle" of change leadership, the period where anxiety is highest, resistance is most vocal, and the temptation to either retreat or force compliance is strongest. What holds you in the messy middle, Fullan argues, is relationships. Not strategy. Not data. Relationships.
For the Fourth Industrial Superintendent in 2026 and beyond, the political landscape around AI is especially volatile. The U.S. Surgeon General has issued advisories about social media and youth mental health that have been translated into cellphone bans in 31 states and the District of Columbia (Center for American Progress, 2025; KFF, 2025). These bans, while focused on phones, reflect a broader public anxiety about technology in children's lives -- an anxiety that bleeds directly into AI adoption debates. Americans are growing more skeptical of AI in schools, with surveys documenting what Education Week (2025) has termed "skeptical optimism" -- a willingness to acknowledge AI's potential coupled with deep uncertainty about its risks. The Surgeon General's advisory, the cellphone bans, the deepfake incidents, the cheating scandals -- these are the political headwinds that the Fourth Industrial Superintendent must navigate.
The navigation strategy is the same one the Innovation USD superintendent modeled: build the relationships before you need them. Cultivate allies in the community who have seen the work and can speak to it authentically. Organize parents not as supporters of the district's agenda but as informed partners in a shared project. Ensure that when the board meeting becomes contentious -- and it will -- the room is not filled only with the anxious and the angry but also with the engaged and the hopeful. Create the conditions in which skepticism can be heard, honored, and addressed through evidence and invitation rather than dismissed through authority.
The political reality is not an obstacle to the work. It is part of the work. And the only infrastructure strong enough to hold it is relationships.
From Theory to Practice: The AI-Era Relationship Imperative
Everything I have described in this chapter -- the internal partnerships, the community organizations, the parent affinity groups, the facilities transformation, the bond measure strategy, the political navigation -- was built before AI entered classrooms. Innovation USD was constructing the relational infrastructure for inquiry-based learning, not for artificial intelligence. But the infrastructure transfers.
The Fourth Industrial Superintendent who builds the kind of relational web I have documented in this chapter will find that AI adoption becomes not a separate initiative requiring separate relationships but an extension of the work already underway. The teachers who led from the middle on IBL implementation are the same teachers who will lead from the middle on AI integration. The parent affinity groups that were trained to understand inquiry-based learning are the same groups that can be trained to understand -- and interrogate -- AI tools. The business partners who sent mentors into classrooms to support student inquiry are the same partners who can provide industry perspectives on how AI is transforming their fields. The community that invested $700 million in physical infrastructure is the same community that, if the relationships remain strong, will invest in digital infrastructure.
The Employ phase of the Shared Vision Framework is, in the end, a reminder that transformation is not something a superintendent does to a community. It is something a superintendent does with a community. And the only way to do it with a community is to build the relationships that make "with" possible -- before the vision is articulated, before the bond measure is proposed, before the AI platform is purchased, before the board meeting becomes a battleground.
The superintendent of Innovation USD knew this intuitively, lived it biographically, and executed it strategically. The relationships came first. Everything else followed.
Discussion Questions
Practitioner Tool: The Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement Planner
Page 1: The Stakeholder Influence-Support Grid
Map every key stakeholder group in your district ecosystem onto the following 2x2 grid based on two dimensions: their influence (ability to advance or block transformation) and their current support for your district's equity-centered, AI-integrated direction.
[FIGURE 8.4: Stakeholder Influence-Support Grid -- 2x2 matrix with four quadrants:
- High Influence / High Support = CHAMPIONS (top right): Leverage these allies. Give them platforms to speak. Ensure they have current information and direct experience with the work.
- High Influence / Low Support = SKEPTICS (top left): Prioritize relationship-building. Invite to classrooms. Listen before persuading. Understand the source of their concern.
- Low Influence / High Support = SUPPORTERS (bottom right): Activate and amplify. Connect them with Champions. Build their capacity to advocate.
- Low Influence / Low Support = DISENGAGED (bottom left): Monitor and invite. Create low-barrier entry points to see the work. Do not ignore -- today's disengaged stakeholder is tomorrow's vocal opponent if a crisis emerges.]
Page 2: The Engagement Strategy Template
For each stakeholder group identified in Page 1, complete the following:
| Stakeholder Group | Quadrant | Current Relationship | Engagement Action (Next 90 Days) | Owner | Success Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Example: Latino Parent Alliance | Champions | Monthly meetings, IBL training completed | AI literacy workshop; invite to observe AI-integrated classroom | Director of Family Engagement | 5+ parents attend board meeting to speak on AI direction |
| Example: Teachers' Union Leadership | Skeptics | Contractual only; no informal relationship | Superintendent lunch with union president; discuss AI workload concerns | Superintendent | Union agrees to joint AI exploration committee |
Complete one row for each stakeholder group. Review and update quarterly. The tool is only as useful as the honesty you bring to the "Current Relationship" column.
Chapter 8 Figures
[FIGURE 8.3: The AI Anxiety Navigator -- Decision tree for superintendents. When parents, board members, or community members raise AI concerns, the flowchart maps five common objections to evidence-based responses and engagement strategies:
- Safety/Privacy --> Explain data governance; invite to policy review session; share district AI use policy
- Cheating/Academic Integrity --> Show how AI is used as learning tool, not shortcut; invite to observe AI-integrated lesson
- Job Replacement --> Share workforce data (WEF 2025: 78M net new jobs); connect to IBL preparation for human skills
- Screen Time/Mental Health --> Acknowledge Surgeon General advisory; distinguish between passive consumption and active creation; share district screen time guidelines
- Equity/Access --> Share district's equity framework; present disaggregated access data; invite to affinity group discussion]
References
Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2014). Sent home and put off-track: The antecedents, disproportionalities, and consequences of being suspended in the ninth grade. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 5(2), Article 13.
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015). Clever classrooms: Summary report of the HEAD project. University of Salford Manchester.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
Center for American Progress. (2025). 10 policy recommendations to address cellphone use in schools. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-policy-recommendations-to-address-cellphone-use-in-schools/
Center for Democracy & Technology. (2025, October). Hand in hand: Schools' embrace of AI connected to increased risks to students. https://cdt.org/insights/hand-in-hand-schools-embrace-of-ai-connected-to-increased-risks-to-students/
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), Article 8.
Education Week. (2025). Skeptical optimism: Where Americans stand on AI in schools. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org
Fullan, M. (2011). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence making. School Administrator, 73(4), 30-34.
Fullan, M., Quinn, J., Drummy, M., & Gardner, M. (2023). The taking action guide to building coherence in schools, districts, and systems. Corwin Press.
GovTech. (2025). Opinion: AI in K-12 schools -- 5 moves only leaders can make. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/opinion-ai-in-k-12-schools-5-moves-only-leaders-can-make
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Corwin Press.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. The New Press.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
Kantabutra, S. (2008). What do we know about vision? Journal of Applied Business Research, 24(2), 29-42.
Kantabutra, S. (2010). Vision effects: A critical gap in educational leadership research. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(5), 376-390.
Kestin, G., Miller, K., McCarty, L. S., Callaghan, K., & Deslauriers, L. (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports, 15, 17458. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97652-6
KFF. (2025). Surgeon General advisory on social media and youth mental health. https://www.kff.org
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Liou, Y., & Daly, A. J. (2019). The lead igniter: A longitudinal examination of influence through networks. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 383-416.
Ludema, J. D., Cooperrider, D. L., & Barrett, F. J. (2006). Appreciative inquiry: The power of the unconditional positive question. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 155-165). Sage.
Martin, M. G. (2022). The Fourth Industrial Superintendent: A case study of the transfer of shared vision [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California]. USC Digital Library.
Martinaityte, I., Sacramento, C., & Aryee, S. (2020). Delighting the customer: Creativity-oriented high-performance work systems, frontline employee creative performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1126-1151.
Oblinger, D. G. (Ed.). (2006). Learning spaces. EDUCAUSE.
Panorama Education. (2025). AI in education: The ultimate guide for K-12 district leaders. https://www.panoramaed.com/blog/ai-in-education-the-ultimate-guide
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
Springer. (2025). Artificial intelligence in educational leadership: A comprehensive taxonomy and future directions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41239-025-00517-1
Stratton-Berkessel, R. (2010). Appreciative inquiry for collaborative solutions: 21 strength-based workshops. Pfeiffer.
World Economic Forum. (2025, January). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/