Chapter 4: Building Capacity for Organizational Improvement
How can we assess and build the capacities of our organization?
In this chapter:
Improving organizations and institutions is challenging. Why is it that even when we know what we want to be different, we have such difficulty bringing about the change we seek? We seem to be better at doing what we do than we are at improving what we do. Organizations need to engage in intentional ways to improve their ability to improve. Leaders and practitioners need to get better at getting better!
This chapter lays out a process for organization leaders to systematically look at their whole organization to see how they might improve it. This is a powerful process for leaders interested in building their own capacity for improving organizations. It may look intimidating, but you don’t have to tackle it all at once. You can explore these organizational capacities and questions at your own pace.
The “How to Assess Your Capacity and Make a Plan to Improve It” section below describes a process we’ve used with many outdoor science organizations and school systems to (1) assess their current capacity to support high-quality outdoor science teaching and learning, (2) identify priorities for building their capacity, and (3) develop an action plan to address those priorities. This is not intended to be a formal strategic or long-range planning process—it’s a process to create shorter-term action planning to improve your organization in cycles of six months to a year. The process is intended to uncover both where there is consensus and divergence among stakeholders with different vantage points within the organization. Understanding an organization from these multiple perspectives is critically important to a realistic organizational assessment and to decide on priorities and actions moving forward.
The Capacity Framework section outlines capacities that research indicates are essential to improve organizations (Kania, Kramer, & Senge, 2018). Some sections of this Guide focus on instructional improvement capacities, which are necessary but not sufficient for meaningful long-term organizational improvement. Following are capacities that organizations must continually grow to sustain improvement efforts:
equitable and just work environment and programming
a clear vision and evidence of the current reality
distributed leadership and a strong leadership team
policies that clearly support the organization’s priorities overall, a productive and inclusive work environment, and the organization’s vision for teaching and learning
an awareness of and ability to influence contextual conditions
ongoing systems for professional learning
high-quality curriculum/instructional materials
These capacities come from research about complex formal education systems that have successfully changed and improved their science programs. Inverness Research, a longtime partner of The Lawrence Hall of Science (for more information and to see their reports and publications, see http://inverness-research.org/), studied over many years the “improvement capacities” some school systems have that allow them to be more successful than others. the Lawrence Hall of Science has adapted the framing of the capacities for use with outdoor science organizations.
How to Assess Your Capacity and Make a Plan to Improve It
The first step is to assemble a Distributed Leadership Team that includes leaders from all levels (vertically distributed) and departments (horizontally distributed) of your organization (e.g., a board member, executive director, program or education coordinator, lead instructor, instructor, HR director, facilities manager, DEI lead). Choose individuals who understand or can help develop and achieve your organization’s vision.
Find a meeting time when you can all be together in the same room. You’ll need about three hours to get started. It is ideal to have a neutral facilitator for this meeting. The facilitator should do their best to acknowledge and mitigate the power dynamics in the room. The process is only useful if everyone participates fully and feels free to share their authentic and candid responses. We recommend establishing or revisiting group agreements at the beginning of these conversations. The facilitator should read through the Capacity Framework well in advance of the first meeting to prepare and decide what examples to use for various questions.
Provide each team member with a copy of the Capacity Reflection Tool. The PDF is printable, but if individuals prefer, they could fill the survey electronically instead. Give each person time to read the instructions at the top of the tool.
In each section, read through the capacity questions together, one at a time. The facilitator should read each question out loud and perhaps share an example from the Capacity Framework (which serves as the facilitator’s guide). After each question, pause and ask each member to record—based on their own unique perspective within the organization—a quick, informal, private rating of the organization’s current capacity in each area. These ratings are for the purpose of individual reflection and relative benchmarking and should remain private. A rating of 1 indicates that the person thinks your organization has little or no capacity or strength in this area; a rating of 5 indicates the person thinks your organization has very high, sufficient capacity in this area. In addition to the numerical rating, have each person jot down any notes they want to help them remember why they gave that rating.
Rate all the capacities before you have any discussion. This might take 40–60 minutes.
Give everyone about 10 minutes to develop their own “summary score” for each of the capacity categories (Vision and Reality, Distributed Leadership, etc.). Ask each participant to look at all their own scores for individual questions within each category. They shouldn’t calculate a mathematical average since they might not give all the questions the same weight. Rather, suggest that they squint their eyes and decide overall how strong they think your organization is in each capacity. Again, each person can jot down some notes about why they gave the rating they did.
Create a simple chart on chart paper or a whiteboard to visualize the summary scores. Write, “Capacity 1” with a graph underneath. Number the x-axis from 1 to 5, indicating the ratings, and number the y-axis from 1 to the total number of people in your group. The facilitator can ask people to hold up fingers representing their scores and build a simple bar graph. Repeat this for each capacity. (Alternatively, you can create a Google form or other survey to collect summary scores online.)
Systematically discuss, as a whole group, the different perceptions of your organization’s current status related to each capacity category (not each question). Is there general consensus or different viewpoints? Why? Are there specific questions within each category that were scored high or low or that had inconsistent scores? What would the immediate and long-term benefits and costs be of improving each particular capacity? Of not improving each? Try to arrive at some consensus about each capacity or note the lack of consensus. The group consensus for each capacity can be a number or just an informal evaluation (fairly high/fairly low). If you don’t have consensus, you might just want to note something such as, “No consensus: we’re fairly high in some areas of this capacity and very low in others, so an average isn’t relevant.” Or “No consensus: some managers and directors see this differently from some instructors.”
After you’ve discussed each capacity category, discuss what you all think is most important to start working on. You might prioritize something because it will only take a small investment to get from the current to the desired status, or because it has the largest gap between current and desired status, or because you believe it’s particularly important and will lead to other improvements. It’s important to balance “low-hanging fruit” or quick wins that build momentum and confidence with strategic actions that are critical but may take longer to carry out. It’s important to make some quick progress related to this process and also to move ahead in a somewhat systematic fashion.
Try to identify your top three priorities or desired outcomes to address over the next 6–12 months (1 priority/outcome is too narrow for this process, and 4 may be too unfocused or overwhelming).
Create a realistic and specific action plan, such as the one at the end of this chapter, with agreed upon actionable steps toward improvement related to each of your priorities.
Capacity Framework
School district and organization leaders working with The Lawrence Hall of Science use specific versions of this Capacity Framework to inventory and reflect on their current strengths, identify areas where growth is needed, and create action plans to develop their capacity to bring about systemic and durable improvement to their organizations. Below is the version designed specifically for outdoor science education organizations. It also serves as a facilitator guide for the framework with examples and additional context added to each capacity. The Capacity Reflection Tool is for individuals on the distributed leadership team to use to reflect—it includes a place to record a score for each question and record notes about why that score was selected.
Examples of capacity building in action.
In Chapter 6: Implementation Examples, “Tales from the Field” and other BEETLES publications are organized by these capacity categories, giving readers a window into how organization leaders have gone about building their organizational capacity.
The following capacities are included in this chapter:
I. Vision and Reality
II. Distributed Leadership
III. Organization Policies and Priorities
IV. Contextual Conditions
V. Professional Learning and Instructional Practices
VI. Learning Experiences and Instructional Materials
VII. Equity and Justice
Equity and Justice last again?
In this framework, the capacity for Equity and Justice is both a “row and a column.” It is embedded in each of the other capacities so that elements of equity and justice can be reflected on in context; it is also an independent capacity so it receives its own focused attention. As you read through each capacity, questions marked with an asterisk (*) indicate that that question is also part of the Equity and Justice capacity.
These capacities are interrelated and overlapping. Each includes a description of the capacity; the related questions that are in the Capacity Reflection Tool to reflect on and discuss; and, in some cases, examples of how BEETLES’ partner organizations have approached building that capacity.
Acknowledgement
This tool would look a lot different—and a lot worse!—if not for the contributions of many individuals in the outdoor and environmental education field. In particular, we want to acknowledge the significant contributions of BEETLES advisors (specifically on the Working Towards Racial Equity workshop series), Jody Donovan and Autumn Saxton-Ross, for their systematic review and comprehensive feedback. Additionally, we want to thank the staff at Justice Outside for countless hours of conversation and many call-ins that have uniquely shaped our understanding of equity and justice and how those concepts are represented here.
I. Vision and Reality
Nearly all organizations have a mission statement, and many have a vision, but making sure your vision is widely shared and understood—reflects and has broad buy-in from your stakeholders and that it’s actively used to guide decision making—is less common. A vision should be aspirational and inspirational. It should describe what high-quality teaching and learning looks like as well as describe a vision for your overall organization, including how you are achieving equity and justice. Such a vision can offer a common language that keeps staff focused on what’s important. Organizations also need systems for routinely gathering evidence about the current reality to understand how close or far you are from achieving the vision. Although your organization’s vision should address all aspects of your organization, we’ve explicitly called out two critical elements for your vision to address: (1) how your organization prioritizes equity and justice, and (2) teaching and learning.
Distinguishing between mission and vision.
Generally, your mission statement is a concise description of your organization’s reason for existence or purpose, and your vision describes what the world (and your organization) will be like when you achieve your mission. Mission statements are usually short and pithy; vision statements tend to be longer, more descriptive, and can describe many aspects within an organization (the work environment or programming) as well as those external to the organization (the field at large or the audiences engaged).
Questions and Select Examples
Vision. To what extent does our organization have a commonly understood, widely shared “big picture” programmatic or organizational vision? Does it describe the aspirational future we are trying to create and outline key organization structures, such as the curriculum, a professional learning system, work environment, and what we hope will result from them?
Some organizations include their vision statement in their staff manual, alongside BEETLES resources such as handouts about the Learning Cycle. This gives instructors a clear picture of how to translate the vision into their teaching. Some organizations make time during staff orientation or other professional learning days to discuss their vision and related expectations.
Equity and justice*. To what extent does our vision directly address equity and justice? Is it explicit about how we prioritize the needs and concerns of marginalized communities?
Many organizations have realized that their visions don’t mention equity, justice, inclusion, cultural relevance, or belonging. Some organizations have gone through involved processes with staff, community members, and former students to revise their visions.
Teaching and learning. To what extent does our organization have a widely shared, commonly understood vision for high-quality teaching and learning? Does it refer to best (or research-based) practices for instruction, emphasize underlying philosophies and guiding frameworks, and address the subject matter to be included?
One organization added information and questions during their interview process that emphasize their vision of good instruction and the related expectations of instructors.
Relevance to our community*. To what extent was the vision developed with authentic input from the community we engage or hope to engage? Is the vision of our organization relevant to the needs and concerns of the most marginalized communities we engage?
Some organizations realized that neither their mission nor vision had been updated for many years (or decades!), and they needed to go through a community-based visioning process to ensure that their vision reflects their current values and those of key audiences and partners.
Implementation plan. To what extent does our organization have a plan for implementing the vision? Are key priorities identified, including areas of strength to build from and more challenging areas to grow into? Do people in the organization believe and trust that the vision is attainable?
One leader told us, “We have a vision, but we don’t really have a vision for implementing the vision! That’s what we need next.”
Understanding current reality. To what extent does our organization have systems for gathering and using evidence to understand the current reality?
Many organizations regularly conduct surveys, gather instructional plans and instructor journals, and conduct observations of instructors, etc. These data about program implementation, the realities of instruction, and responses from learners are used for program improvement and for “making the case” for the program to external audiences. They make visible the distance between a vision and the current reality.
II. Distributed Leadership
Visionary and distributed leadership influences every aspect of an organization, including what is taught, the pedagogical approaches used, how power is shared, and all the structures that provide agency and voice for employees. Leadership begins with executive leadership but must be shared and expressed at all levels of an organization to be effective. An important quality of executive leadership is the ability to recognize and encourage leaders with different vantage points, perspectives, and identities throughout the organization. Each leader has a different sphere of influence, and all are collectively responsible for translating the organizational vision into practices, infrastructure, systems, processes for decision-making, and accountability measures.
Questions and Select Examples
Core leadership team. To what extent is there a committed and empowered core leadership team responsible for improving the well-being of our organization? Does this group represent (1) a distributed, vertical “slice” of our organization with varying responsibilities and spheres of influence from executive functions to program administration to instruction; (2) vantage points from different programs we operate; and (3) multiple lived experiences and identities representative of our entire staff?
Many organizations had an “executive team” but did not anticipate the important perspectives they gained by broadening decision-making beyond those all at the same “executive” level in the organization.
Staff composition. To what extent have we identified what the ideal composition of the staff and Board of Directors would be for our organization? Do we have mechanisms and processes for staff and board members to self-report their racial and gender identity in a way that affirms them?
When we asked some leaders about the demographic composition of their staff, they realized they didn’t know and began asking staff to voluntarily self-report their identities.
Representation of our staff*. To what extent is the diversity of the organization’s staff represented in the positional leadership of the organization, including the Board of Directors?
Representation of our community*. To what extent does the positional leadership of the organization, including the Board of Directors, reflect and represent the marginalized communities we currently engage and hope to engage?
One organization told us they actively recruit employees directly from the communities they serve.
Leadership for teaching and learning. To what extent has our organization identified and supported strong leaders who are responsible for improving teaching and learning? For larger organizations, are there instructional leaders identified at every site?
Many organizations have an Education Director and/or Lead Instructor who leads or co-leads professional learning, identifies outside professional learning opportunities and conferences, demonstrates and model-teaches with learners, and writes or revises curriculum.
Systems change. To what extent does our organization have leaders who recognize the need and have the skills to lead organizational change in response to changing conditions?
Understanding concerns about equity and justice*. Are there mechanisms/systems in place for the leadership team to collect and understand issues and concerns of staff and the community related to equity and justice?
One organization leader said that her team thought she was preaching to the choir and moving too slowly, until she had them read an article about “Brave Spaces” and do a reflection about their own power and privilege. That opened up a series of conversations about equity they had never had before.
Professional networks. To what extent are our positional leaders and staff involved with and connected to leaders in other organizations, professional associations, networks, and national projects involving outdoor education?
ChangeScale (Northern California), ELLMS (Environmental Living and Learning for Maine Students), and EarthSense Alliance (Minnesota) are examples of organization leaders who formed mutually beneficial regional collaboratives of like-minded organizations promoting their work, tackling challenges, raising funds, and finding solutions together. Some organizations now invite their professionals of color to attend affinity spaces such as the PGM ONE (People of the Global Majority in the Outdoors, Nature, and Environment) Conference or the Privilege Institute. Many organizations attend NAAEE (North American Association of Environmental Education), ANCA (Association of Nature Center Administrators), and other conferences.
Current research. To what extent do our organization’s leaders and staff stay current with and apply what they learn from relevant research; regional, state, and national initiatives; and best practices in the field?
External expertise*. To what extent does our organization actively bring diverse and marginalized perspectives from outside the organization (e.g., youth, community stakeholders, parents) to the Leadership Team, Board of Directors, and advisory groups? Do we have policies and a budget in place to compensate collaborators for sharing expertise?
Board of Directors*. To what extent is our Board of Directors knowledgeable about and supportive of (or even leading) our improvement efforts, specifically including advancing equity and justice?
One leader told us that he didn’t think his Board “was ready” to be involved in the organization’s equity initiative; but once he shared it with them, they helped him to recruit new board members with deep expertise and lived experiences that helped accelerate their organization’s progress.
Tale from the Field:
Using Regional Networks for Collaborative Fundraising
From a member of the EarthSense Alliance.
The EarthSense Alliance is a collaborative of six residential environmental education organizations in Minnesota. It was formed to open the door to larger funding opportunities based on our collective impact across the state of Minnesota. Since forming the collaborative, we have received funding for capital improvements, curriculum development, and scholarships in all six programs. The EarthSense Alliance convenes annual meetings (sometimes more) of the Directors and Education Directors. These meetings have allowed us to work together to solve problems we face and brainstorm about the direction of residential environmental education in the state.
Tale from the Field:
How We Are Cultivating a Professional Learning Community at Our Statewide Meeting of Administrators
From Celeste Royer, Director, Rancho El Chorro Outdoor School, San Luis Obispo, California, and State Chair of California Outdoor School Association (COSA).
COSA is a statewide association of outdoor school leaders from County Offices of Education and School Districts. We meet twice per year to discuss topics and issues specific to operating residential outdoor science schools. Each meeting takes place over two days with participants spending the night at one of the member sites. Most COSA members use BEETLES Project strategies in their outdoor school programs. The members share implementation successes and challenges and have invited guest speakers to deepen their own learning about constructivist, student-centered outdoor science education and wanted to spend more time building a Professional Learning Community within their group. Time away from site administration presents a challenge, and members did not want to add additional meetings. To make more time, we agreed to change the structure and length of each meeting to commence two hours earlier and end two hours later. Some of the added time will be dedicated to building a Professional Learning Community centered around focus topics such as implementing BEETLES strategies.
III. Organization Policies and Priorities
It’s critical to regularly reassess organization policies and budgets to make sure they reflect and support the priorities stated and implied in the organization’s vision and action plan. The improvements you focus on in the other capacities may need to be supported by policy changes, or you may forever feel like you are swimming upstream. The careful alignment of your policies with your priorities makes it clear how decisions and financial resources are used to translate your priorities into realities. The alignment of policies with priorities and values can send a powerful message that your organization walks its talk and believes in its own efficacy to make change happen. The following section is organized into three categories: policies that relate to the organization overall, policies that relate to work environment, and policies that relate to teaching and learning.
Questions and Select Examples
Policies Related to Organization Overall
Strategic plan. To what extent does our organization have a current and compelling strategic plan and a plan for updating our strategic plan in response to changing conditions?
Sustained improvement. To what extent does our organization have policies in place that make it easy to continually initiate and sustain improvement efforts?
One leader told us that low pay prevented their organization from retaining educators long enough to develop deep expertise, so they decided to hire fewer educators, pay them all a living wage with benefits, and increase the size of the groups they teach.
Systemic barriers. To what extent does our organization proactively and deliberately identify and remove systemic barriers and challenges that affect our ability to reach our vision? To what extent does our organization remove barriers to improvement-—or reframe barriers into assets?
Some leaders told us that continual turnover on their staff gets in the way of organizational improvement efforts. Others said the same about the lack of turnover! Some said that organization growth and new initiatives feed their improvement efforts; others said that those things distract from improvement efforts.
Financial resources*. To what extent does our organization have sufficient financial resources and the capacity to acquire and designate funding for current priorities? To what extent is our organization able to find or reassign resources to address new priorities when conditions change? To what extent has equity and justice been financially supported throughout our operating budget?
Some leaders reported that they feel their organization is continually operating with a scarcity mindset, never having enough resources, regardless of economic conditions; other leaders said their organization has tracking and decision-making systems in place to “right size” their initiatives according to the resources available. Is your organization characterized more by “We don’t have the resources to do that,” or “What can we do with the resources we have?”
Explicit commitment to equity and justice*. To what extent do our organization’s guiding documents (e.g., bylaws, board and organization policies, mission statement, organizational values, strategic plan, curriculum, budget) reflect an explicit commitment to equity and justice? Is this commitment clear in both external-facing and internal-facing documents?
One leader told us that their long-standing mission was related exclusively to protecting wildlife through education. When they were able to center the health and well-being of communities alongside the health and well-being of wildlife in a new mission statement, their equity and conservation work were both accelerated.
External communication*. To what extent does our organization have systems, policies, and practices supporting regular communication with our community (partners, funders, audience, etc.), including marginalized communities we engage or hope to engage? To what extent are our materials and communications accessible to the community, including participants’ families.
We heard many stories of organizations that translate program materials and host information nights for families.
Representation in external communication*. To what extent does our organization's website, brochures, annual reports, and learner materials reflect the communities we engage and want to engage? Do we routinely ensure that our communications use asset-based, not deficit-based, language? Do we have systems to ensure that we are not misrepresenting or tokenizing our staff or audience?
Hiring and job descriptions*. To what extent do our job announcements and descriptions, the places we advertise, our hiring committees, interview questions, and selection criteria demonstrate our commitment to equity and justice? Do job requirements accurately reflect what is essential versus what can be learned on the job? Is lived and professional experience related to equity and justice valued as comparable to other areas of expertise? Are qualified staff actively recruited and hired that represent the communities we engage, or wish to engage?
Some organizations charge their HR team to regularly update job announcements, job descriptions, and the interviewing process to find and hire instructors oriented toward open-mindedness, cultural curiosity, and improving practice.
Compensation*. To what extent do we have fair and adequate living wage compensation for employees, including benefits and/or room/board (if applicable)?
Policies Related to Work Environment
Internal communication*. To what extent does our organization have systems, policies, and practices for direct, transparent, two-way communication among all staff? To what extent do staff understand and contribute to the decisions being made within the organization?
Career advancement*. To what extent does our organization have the intention and capacity to provide ongoing leadership development for staff leading to pathways for career advancement within or beyond our organization? To what extent are these opportunities specifically available to and designed to support staff of color?
One organization changed its program schedule to allow for a few hours of professional learning, planning, and reflection every week instead of only frontloading that time at the beginning of each season. Some organizations gave veteran staff leadership roles, such as mentoring newer staff, revising curriculum, or building community partnerships.
Organizational climate and work environment*. To what extent does our organization understand and track the health of organizational climate and the inclusivity of our work environment? Have we developed indicators of the inclusive and welcoming organizational climate we want?
One organization has four formal structures for instructors to offer feedback and input about working conditions: one-on-one conversations with their supervisor, group discussions, a suggestion box, and anonymous surveys. Organization leaders regularly review this information and make adjustments.
Work environment improvement*. To what extent does our organization have active, widely known plans to improve organization climate and culture?
Formal Workplace Accountability Process*. To what extent are all staff (including administrators) trained how to manage incidents of inequity in the workplace? Is there a clear procedure to support staff who experience bias (microaggressions, tokenization, etc.) that focuses on care for individuals harmed, and accountability and learning for individuals who perpetrated the harm?
Managing Relationships*. To what extent does our organization support staff to productively manage conflict, relationships, and communication amongst colleagues, particularly in instances when staff live together or in isolated communities?
One organization provided Non-Violent Communication workshops for their entire staff to help them address challenging equity issues.
Impact of oppression and racism*. To what extent does our organization understand and address the presence and impact of oppression and systemic racism on our work environment?
Policies Related to Teaching and Learning
Teaching and learning. To what extent has our organization made high-quality teaching and learning a priority that is reflected in policies, finances, and support systems?
Several leaders told us that teachers and parents were confused by more learner-centered instruction because they were expecting learners to memorize nature facts. They crafted explicit statements on their websites, brochures, and letters to schools. One used the tagline, “We teach what students can’t Google.” The statements often explain that learners will have authentic, Next Generation Science Standards-aligned learning experiences in a rich and engaging environment. One organization created a poster board explaining how BEETLES addresses NGSS. They use the poster to talk with teachers when they arrive. Another organization developed written observation protocols for teachers and chaperones that help them notice and appreciate more learner-centered teaching practices. Another organization created more time for learners to be learning outdoors, including longer and more learner-centered field experiences.
Evaluation and assessment. To what extent does our organization have in place formal evaluation, assessment, or other practices and policies designed to gather evidence of program effectiveness related to learning and inclusion? To what extent do we capture and highlight outlier perspectives versus focusing only on the majority or averages?
Support for marginalized groups*. To what extent does our organization actively prioritize, recruit, and raise funds to support learners from marginalized communities to participate in our programs? To what extent is our organization able to align our programming to the interests and concerns of our audience?
One leader told us she is actively trying to deliver a higher percentage of summer scholarship programs to learners in their local Latinx community. Her Board is pushing back, and she’s hearing that the community wants more input into the programs, not just scholarships. She is committed to persevering.
Health and safety of participants/risk management*. To what extent do policies, protocols, training, reporting, and response systems exist to ensure learner safety? Do our health and safety systems report and address incidents of exclusion and identity-based harm within a program? Do all staff receive training on how to prevent and interrupt microaggressions?
IV. Contextual Conditions
Political, economic, and cultural conditions within the local community, at the state level, and even related to federal policies can present obstacles or a wind at the back for organizations and the programs they deliver. Organizations with a high capacity in this category understand the conditions within which their organization is situated, understand the specific ways in which those conditions influence their organization, and are even poised (either alone or as part of a network of organizations) to influence their contexts to create more favorable conditions.
Questions and Select Examples
Understanding the audience*. To what extent does our organization understand the specific resources, strengths, environmental issues, and concerns within the most marginalized communities we engage or hope to engage? To what extent have we identified the marginalized communities we engage/would like to engage in our organization and have the infrastructure and processes to track the identities of our participants?
Some organizations explicitly prepare employees to (or hire employees who already) understand the cultural values and lived experiences of the community within which the organization resides.
Partnerships*. To what extent does our organization have mutually beneficial partnerships and collaborations with organizations within our community with similar missions (e.g., science and outdoor education) and with adjacent missions (e.g., environmental justice, social services, transportation, health)? To what extent is our organization seen as part of the community?
Relationships with local Indigenous groups*. To what extent does our organization acknowledge the Indigenous land we are on and have relationships and collaborations with local Indigenous groups? To what extent does our organization understand and publicly acknowledge the history of the land it owns, rents, or operates?
One organization reached out to the local Indigenous group whose land they occupy. They worked together over two years to establish how the organization would acknowledge and incorporate Indigenous values and ways of knowing into its programs.
Socio-Cultural awareness*. To what extent is our organization aware of and proactively addressing cultural and societal tensions in our community, region, state, nation? To what extent is our organization aware of and proactively addressing issues that disproportionately impact communities of color and other marginalized communities among our staff and learners?
One leader shared with us how a professional of color in her organization had told her how hard it was to come to work after an incident of racial violence had been in the news because no one on the staff was talking about it.
History of the field*. To what extent does our organization acknowledge the history of land acquisition, conservation, environmental education, and environmental justice in our community? To what extent does our organization understand how the history of racism and marginalization in the environmental movement has shaped the leadership and audience of current mainstream environmental organizations? To what extent does our organization share this information with our board, staff, and audiences?
Educational policies. To what extent is our organization aware of state and federal educational policies such as the curriculum standards, federal and state education funding, and how they support or obstruct our organization’s vision for high-quality learner experiences? Are we adapting our programs to intentionally align with or to counteract these policies?
California created a statewide environmental literacy plan in 2015, The Blueprint for Environmental Literacy. This plan provides key support for outdoor science programs and is used to make a case for the importance of integrating environmental literacy into K–12 education. A California organization leader learned about new Educator Effectiveness Funds distributed by the California Department of Education and worked with her county office of education to use those funds for “staff training days”. They based their justification for use of the funds on the existence of the Blueprint for Environmental Literacy.
Local, state, and federal conditions. To what extent is our organization aware of local, state, and federal political and financial conditions and how they influence our organization’s efforts to develop and deliver high-quality learner experiences? To what extent are we connected to and able to support strong external political leadership and advocacy for expanding outdoor learning opportunities, particularly for those from marginalized communities?
Oregon passed a law in 2016, the first of its kind in the United States, providing funds for every student in the state to attend residential outdoor school. In 2021, Washington state followed by also allocating support for outdoor school for every student. This has caused many organizations to adapt and scale their programming. Covid-19 Relief Funds in 2021 specifically mention environmental education and provide money for schools to partner with community organizations, including environmental education providers. Many organizations are exploring new ways for outdoor science programs to partner with schools and districts.
V. Professional Learning and Instructional Practices
To ensure consistent, uniformly high-quality instruction, organizations need ongoing systems of support for instructors—including opportunities for workshops, coaching, mentoring, peer-sharing, and structured self-reflection—in addition to attending conferences and professional networks. Professional learning, as a capacity, includes having a vision for the role of professional learning in the growth and evolution of your organization and ensuring that your organization’s system for professional learning supports your organization’s vision for teaching and learning, career advancement, and your work environment.
Read the “Building a Reflective Learning Culture” section in Chapter 2.
This section of Chapter 2 in this Guide offers an in-depth description of a robust professional learning system.
Questions and Select Examples
Expectations. To what extent does our organization have well-defined and shared expectations of what is to be taught and how it is to be taught?
Professional learning leaders. To what extent does our organization have people with the expertise, position, time, and interest to develop, shape, and refine our professional learning program? Do we have people with expertise to design and offer workshops, coaching, learning communities, and other supports that contribute to career advancement and aid educators in using instructional materials and continuously improving their practice?
Professional learning opportunities*. To what extent does our organization have professional learning that supports professional growth, networking, and job satisfaction for all staff, particularly for professionals of color (e.g., affinity spaces, leadership development, opportunities to attend conferences)?
Variety of pedagogy-based professional learning offerings. To what extent does our organization offer professional learning opportunities on
assessment practices?
nature-centered teaching practices?
learner-centered teaching practices?
discussion-based teaching practices?
the Learning Cycle?
curriculum-implementation support?
Variety of equity-based professional learning offerings*. To what extent does our organization offer the professional learning opportunities on
systemic, institutional bias, and prejudice?
power and privilege?
unconscious bias?
environmental justice?
multiple ways of knowing (e.g., traditional ecological knowledge)?
English language development?
Variety of science content–based professional learning offerings. To what extent does our organization offer professional learning opportunities on
federal and/or state standards?
science and environmental content knowledge?
local place-based natural history?
VI. Learning Experiences and Instructional Materials
To have high-quality instructional materials, it’s important to have clear and commonly understood expectations for what high-quality learning experiences are like and a clear vision for how instructional materials are used. This involves understanding recent research about how people learn best. High-quality instructional materials embed these research-based understandings about teaching and learning into practical strategies—for example, using broad questions, the Learning Cycle, and opportunities for learners to share and learn from one another. This capacity includes the ability to continually collect feedback on learning experiences and instructional materials and have a process for improving them.
Read Chapter 3: Supporting High-Quality Learning Experiences.
Chapter 3 of this Guide lays out a vision for how outdoor science teaching and learning experiences can promote deep learning. It includes suggestions for how to use BEETLES activities and how to create or revise existing activities and curricula in alignment with that vision.
Questions and Select Examples
Instructional materials. To what extent does our organization’s instructional materials support the vision and goals of our organization?
One leader told us that her organization had a vision for what learning should look like but also encouraged instructors to “be creative” and develop their own curriculum. They discovered that this resulted in many interpretations of the vision and inconsistent learner experiences. They decided to move toward a common learner-centered and nature-centered curriculum that instructors can make creative adjustments to over time.
Feedback from the community*. To what extent do the communities we engage or hope to engage, including marginalized communities, provide feedback, input, and advice about the relevance of our organization’s existing and future programs?
Curriculum improvements. To what extent does our organization have people with the expertise, position, time, and interest to continually plan, shape, and improve our curriculum?
Informed by research. To what extent does our organization’s curriculum and instructional materials represent best practices and up-to-date research on how people learn? Do they interweave science practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts; use research-based approaches (e.g., the Learning Cycle) to design; and use iterative design processes that include cycles of peer or expert review, testing with learners, and revision?
Learner-centered practices*. To what extent does our organization’s instructional materials and resources explicitly promote the use of learner-centered practices that create opportunities to learn with and from participants, create opportunities for participants to share issues that are important or concerning to them, address the particular needs and priorities of the communities we engage, include assets-based language (and not deficits-based language) about learners, provide opportunities for learners to communicate in their home languages, and affirm learners’ gender identities?
Some organizations have combed through materials to ensure that there are representations of people of all genders in science and the environment, that materials are free of gender stereotypes and gender bias, and that language referencing gender is inclusive and non-binary.
Nature-centered practices. To what extent does our organization’s instructional materials and resources explicitly provide opportunities for learners to engage with standards-based science content, place-based local phenomena, and science practices that promote firsthand observation and investigation of nature?
Several leaders told us that the hardest shift they had to make was from having students learn mostly from what instructors told them to having students learn mostly from one another and from their own firsthand observations of nature.
Curriculum standards. To what extent has our organization reviewed and evaluated the philosophical alignment of state education standards with our programs? To what extent has our organization made principled decisions about revising instructional expectations and curriculum to better support high-quality education?
VII. Equity and Justice
Organizations with a high capacity for equity and justice understand how equity and justice are essential to all aspects of their organizations and consistently make decisions that prioritize equity and justice for their audience, community, employees, and the field at large. This capacity is embedded in each of the other capacities listed previously (specific questions related to equity and justice are noted with asterisks), and it is also specified here as its own capacity, with each equity-focused question from the other capacities repeated, plus a few additional questions. The reason for this “row and column” approach is two-fold: (1) so discussions of each capacity can include a discussion of equity and justice in context, and (2) so leadership teams can accurately self-assess their organization’s overall capacity for equity and justice as a distinct capacity.
Questions and Select Examples
Field-wide accountability. To what extent do we challenge and hold accountable our peers in the field to prioritize equity and justice?
Uplift BIPOC leadership. To what extent do we shine a light on the work of current and historic leaders in our field who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color?
Responding to injustices. To what extent do we consistently address current local, national, and/or global issues of racism and injustice? To what extent do we uphold, uplift, and listen to the voices of people who have been harmed and most directly impacted (e.g., creating healing spaces for groups whose communities experience public acts of violence, offering paid time off for processing of traumatic events, and releasing internal and external position statements to condemn acts of hate and/or violence)?
Land sovereignty. To what extent do we actively participate in and support land justice movements and land sovereignty of Indigenous people?
Embedded within Vision and Reality
Equity and justice*. To what extent does our vision directly address equity and justice? Is it explicit about how we prioritize the needs and concerns of marginalized communities?
Many organizations have realized that their visions don’t mention equity, justice, inclusion, cultural relevance, or belonging. Some organizations have gone through involved processes with staff, community members, and former students to revise their visions.
Relevance to our community*. To what extent was the vision developed with authentic input from the community we engage or hope to engage? Is the vision of our organization relevant to the needs and concerns of the most marginalized communities we engage?
Some organizations realized that neither their mission nor vision had been updated for many years (or decades!), and they needed to go through a community-based visioning process to ensure that their vision reflects their current values and those of key audiences and partners.
Embedded within Distributed Leadership
Representation of our staff*. To what extent is the diversity of the organization’s staff represented in the positional leadership of the organization, including the Board of Directors?
Representation of our community*. To what extent does the positional leadership of the organization, including the Board of Directors, reflect and represent the marginalized communities we currently engage and hope to engage?
One organization told us they actively recruit employees directly from the communities they serve.
Understanding concerns about equity and justice*. Are there mechanisms/systems in place for the leadership team to collect and understand issues and concerns of staff and the community related to equity and justice?
One organization leader said that her team thought she was preaching to the choir and moving too slowly, until she had them read an article about “Brave Spaces” and do a reflection about their own power and privilege. That opened up a series of conversations about equity they had never had before.
External expertise*. To what extent does our organization actively bring diverse and marginalized perspectives from outside the organization (e.g., youth, community stakeholders, parents) to the Leadership Team, Board of Directors, and advisory groups? Do we have policies and a budget in place to compensate collaborators for sharing expertise?
Board of Directors*. To what extent is our Board of Directors knowledgeable about and supportive of (or even leading) our improvement efforts, specifically including advancing equity and justice?
One leader told us that he didn’t think his Board “was ready” to be involved in the organization’s equity initiative; but once he shared it with them, they helped him to recruit new board members with deep expertise and lived experiences that helped accelerate their organization’s progress.
Embedded within Organization Policies and Priorities
Policies Related to Organization Overall
Financial resources*. To what extent does our organization have sufficient financial resources and the capacity to acquire and designate funding for current priorities? To what extent is our organization able to find or reassign resources to address new priorities when conditions change? To what extent has equity and justice been financially supported throughout our operating budget?
Some leaders reported that they feel their organization is continually operating with a scarcity mindset, never having enough resources, regardless of economic conditions; other leaders said their organization has tracking and decision-making systems in place to “right size” their initiatives according to the resources available. Is your organization characterized more by “We don’t have the resources to do that,” or “What can we do with the resources we have?”
Explicit commitment to equity and justice*. To what extent do our organization’s guiding documents (e.g., bylaws, board and organization policies, mission statement, organizational values, strategic plan, curriculum, budget) reflect an explicit commitment to equity and justice? Is this commitment clear in both external-facing and internal-facing documents?
One leader told us that their long-standing mission was related exclusively to protecting wildlife through education. When they were able to center the health and well-being of communities alongside the health and well-being of wildlife in a new mission statement, their equity and conservation work were both accelerated.
External communication*. To what extent does our organization have systems, policies, and practices supporting regular communication with our community (partners, funders, audience, etc.), including marginalized communities we engage or hope to engage? To what extent are our materials and communications accessible to the community, including participants’ families.
We heard many stories of organizations that translate program materials and host information nights for families.
Representation in external communication*. To what extent does our organization's website, brochures, annual reports, and learner materials reflect the communities we engage and want to engage? Do we routinely ensure that our communications use asset-based, not deficit-based, language? Do we have systems to ensure that we are not misrepresenting or tokenizing our staff or audience?
Hiring and job descriptions*. To what extent do our job announcements and descriptions, the places we advertise, our hiring committees, interview questions, and selection criteria demonstrate our commitment to equity and justice? Do job requirements accurately reflect what is essential versus what can be learned on the job? Is lived and professional experience related to equity and justice valued as comparable to other areas of expertise? Are qualified staff actively recruited and hired that represent the communities we engage, or wish to engage?
Some organizations charge their HR team to regularly update job announcements, job descriptions, and the interviewing process to find and hire instructors oriented toward open-mindedness, cultural curiosity, and improving practice.
Compensation*. To what extent do we have fair and adequate living wage compensation for employees, including benefits and/or room/board (if applicable)?
Policies Related to Work Environment
Internal communication*. To what extent does our organization have systems, policies, and practices for direct, transparent, two-way communication among all staff? To what extent do staff understand and contribute to the decisions being made within the organization?
Career advancement*. To what extent does our organization have the intention and capacity to provide ongoing leadership development for staff leading to pathways for career advancement within or beyond our organization? To what extent are these opportunities specifically available to and designed to support staff of color?
One organization changed its program schedule to allow for a few hours of professional learning, planning, and reflection every week instead of only frontloading that time at the beginning of each season. Some organizations gave veteran staff leadership roles, such as mentoring newer staff, revising curriculum, or building community partnerships.
Organizational climate and work environment*. To what extent does our organization understand and track the health of organizational climate and the inclusivity of our work environment? Have we developed indicators of the inclusive and welcoming organizational climate we want?
One organization has four formal structures for instructors to offer feedback and input about working conditions: one-on-one conversations with their supervisor, group discussions, a suggestion box, and anonymous surveys. Organization leaders regularly review this information and make adjustments.
Work environment improvement*. To what extent does our organization have active, widely known plans to improve organization climate and culture?
Formal Workplace Accountability Process*. To what extent are all staff (including administrators) trained how to manage incidents of inequity in the workplace? Is there a clear procedure to support staff who experience bias (microaggressions, tokenization, etc.) that focuses on care for individuals harmed, and accountability and learning for individuals who perpetrated the harm?
Managing Relationships*. To what extent does our organization support staff to productively manage conflict, relationships, and communication amongst colleagues, particularly in instances when staff live together or in isolated communities?
One organization provided Non-Violent Communication workshops for their entire staff to help them address challenging equity issues.
Impact of oppression and racism*. To what extent does our organization understand and address the presence and impact of oppression and systemic racism on our work environment?
Policies Related to Teaching and Learning
Support for marginalized groups*. To what extent does our organization actively prioritize, recruit, and raise funds to support learners from marginalized communities to participate in our programs? To what extent is our organization able to align our programming to the interests and concerns of our audience?
One leader told us she is actively trying to deliver a higher percentage of summer scholarship programs to learners in their local Latinx community. Her Board is pushing back, and she’s hearing that the community wants more input into the programs, not just scholarships. She is committed to persevering.
Health and safety of participants/risk management*. To what extent do policies, protocols, training, reporting, and response systems exist to ensure learner safety? Do our health and safety systems report and address incidents of exclusion and identity-based harm within a program? Do all staff receive training on how to prevent and interrupt microaggressions?
Embedded within Contextual Conditions
Understanding the audience*. To what extent does our organization understand the specific resources, strengths, environmental issues, and concerns within the most marginalized communities we engage or hope to engage? To what extent have we identified the marginalized communities we engage/would like to engage in our organization and have the infrastructure and processes to track the identities of our participants?
Some organizations explicitly prepare employees to (or hire employees who already) understand the cultural values and lived experiences of the community within which the organization resides.
Partnerships*. To what extent does our organization have mutually beneficial partnerships and collaborations with organizations within our community with similar missions (e.g., science and outdoor education) and with adjacent missions (e.g., environmental justice, social services, transportation, health)? To what extent is our organization seen as part of the community?
Relationships with local Indigenous groups*. To what extent does our organization acknowledge the Indigenous land we are on and have relationships and collaborations with local Indigenous groups? To what extent does our organization understand and publicly acknowledge the history of the land it owns, rents, or operates?
One organization reached out to the local Indigenous group whose land they occupy. They worked together over two years to establish how the organization would acknowledge and incorporate Indigenous values and ways of knowing into its programs.
Socio-Cultural awareness*. To what extent is our organization aware of and proactively addressing cultural and societal tensions in our community, region, state, nation? To what extent is our organization aware of and proactively addressing issues that disproportionately impact communities of color and other marginalized communities among our staff and learners?
One leader shared with us how a professional of color in her organization had told her how hard it was to come to work after an incident of racial violence had been in the news because no one on the staff was talking about it.
History of the field*. To what extent does our organization acknowledge the history of land acquisition, conservation, environmental education, and environmental justice in our community? To what extent does our organization understand how the history of racism and marginalization in the environmental movement has shaped the leadership and audience of current mainstream environmental organizations? To what extent does our organization share this information with our board, staff, and audiences?
Embedded within Professional Learning and Instructional Practices
Professional learning opportunities*. To what extent does our organization have professional learning that supports professional growth, networking, and job satisfaction for all staff, particularly for professionals of color (e.g., affinity spaces, leadership development, opportunities to attend conferences)?
Variety of equity-based professional learning offerings*. To what extent does our organization offer the professional learning opportunities on
systemic, institutional bias, and prejudice?
power and privilege?
unconscious bias?
environmental justice?
multiple ways of knowing (e.g., traditional ecological knowledge)?
English language development?
Embedded within Learning Experiences and Instructional Materials
Feedback from the community*. To what extent do the communities we engage or hope to engage, including marginalized communities, provide feedback, input, and advice about the relevance of our organization’s existing and future programs?
Learner-centered practices*. To what extent does our organization’s instructional materials and resources explicitly promote the use of learner-centered practices that create opportunities to learn with and from participants, create opportunities for participants to share issues that are important or concerning to them, address the particular needs and priorities of the communities we engage, include assets-based language (and not deficits-based language) about learners, provide opportunities for learners to communicate in their home languages, and affirm learners’ gender identities?
Some organizations have combed through materials to ensure that there are representations of people of all genders in science and the environment, that materials are free of gender stereotypes and gender bias, and that language referencing gender is inclusive and non-binary.
Sample Action Plan Process
Following is an example action-plan process to support an organization in identifying concrete action steps.
Select a capacity (or two) that your team wants to focus on, based on discussions of all the responses to the Capacity Framework questions.
Identify some outcomes that would lead to strengthening that capacity.
After you brainstorm strategies, make sense of them by categorizing, lumping, separating, and prioritizing.
Considering an approximately 6–12 month time line, decide on no more than 6 strategies to prioritize per outcome. For each prioritized strategy, complete the table below:
Understanding the Waters of Systems Change.
If you’re interested in taking a more thorough systems-based approach to action planning, the Waters of Systems Change offers some valuable insights and exercises. Available here.
