My Barriers to Successful Teacher Leadership

I looked through the list of barriers, and though some seemed to fit me and my context, since I am moving into a specific new role next year, there are more pressing barriers that I see.  In the spirit of the assignment, I thought working through some of these barriers was more germane.

Barrier 1 – New position, same people

Next year I am moving from a more traditional “team leader” role into that of “Learning Community Leader.”  While on paper that seems merely a semantic shift, in reality it is much more than that.  The previous team leader position was, as it is in most places, an add-on, stipended position that was additional work on top of my classroom responsibilities.  The LCL position dramatically shifts my responsibilities, making my day 50% direct student contact and 50% leadership and coaching.  Much of the reason behind this shift is echoed by Lieberman and Miller (2004)as they discuss “Transforming the Social Realities of Teaching,” (end of chapter 1).  The barrier I perceive is two-fold.  First, although there will be at least one new team member next year, the majority of my Learning Community is stable and will return.  So I will be performing a new job with the same people.  Though in some ways this is an advantage (I know the people, the history, the struggles, and the successes), it is also a disadvantage because everyone already has a relationship with me built on a different playing field.  It is going to take a lot of work for me to alter the relationships while maintaining the friendships.  My job as team leader, while not simply secretarial, was more of an advocate on their behalf.  My new role will add coaching and mentoring.  While some in my community will readily accept this, others don’t see me this way.  I am going to have to work hard to check my ego and listen to my colleagues; to understand what they need and try to provide coaching for those needs (rather than any needs I may perceive).

Barrier 2 – Unclear understanding of the concept

This is going to be tough for our entire school.  The shift to LCLs is happening K12, not simply in elementary school.  There was a swift and dramatic push-back on the notion in the secondary school, who, due to their reaction is, for the moment, still retaining their traditional team leader and department chair roles along with the new LCLs.  As we move into this new realm of teacher leadership “closer to the ground” the definitions and roles of all the people involved have yet to be ironed out.  In one way, this makes perfect sense.  Each LC is different and the skills and passions of each LCL are different.  To simply create an ironclad job description that all six of us fulfill in dramatically different circumstances seems draconian and destined to fail (because it is top-down instead of grassroots).  Although the creation of these positions began with the director, we will each work to define our role around the specific needs of our LC (within some parameters, of course).  This makes the most sense to me, but it is confusing to those who know even less than the LCLs about what is going on.  When teachers get confused, they begin to talk amongst themselves and the sidewalk talk can potentially kill the effectiveness of these positions before we even begin.  Therefore we each have to create as much a sense of transparency as possible as we discuss with our teams what our visions are and what we know.  As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant and darkness grows mold.  If we (the LCLs) are perceived as having hidden knowledge we aren’t sharing, we will damage our credibility and ability to influence others.  Our positional power won’t mean much if this happens.  For my part, I am trying to answer all the questions I can and be forthcoming in my answers.  Additionally, I am already trying to talk less and listen more as people are describing their own thoughts about next year.  Hopefully this will begin to not only help with the uncertainty but also bridge any divides mentioned in barrier one.

Barrier 3 – Perceived lack of equity – egalitarian paradigm

One of the quotes from the Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) that stood out to me was in regards to the perceived, “egalitarian norms of school cultures,” which “suggest that all teachers should be equal,” (loc. 131).  The idea of equity has plagued our school with teachers creating negative cycles around the perceived favoritism.  To be fair to those who complain, the previous administration operated in the dark areas that the authors warn about – only deeming certain people eligible for leadership roles.  The lack of transparency has created a dark stain on the fabric of the faculty and the sunshine of the new administration hasn’t fully disinfected it yet.  But since it is still there, it will take its toll on those of us in these new positions.  Even though the positions were advertised and interviewed, there are still those who believe that those of us who were given this opportunity were only chosen because we are in the “right clique.” The strategy for overcoming this will be similar to above – a lot of listening and working with my teammates on what they are interested in and on their terms.  Taking my ego out of the equation is going to be hard, but is the only path to truly helping others grow into who they wish to be as teachers and learners.

Reflections on Teacher Leadership, Module 3

I was a little confused by the journal assignments this week, as they appear to be simply a place to take notes as we are reading.  Since I read all of my material electronically (either using PDFNotes [an app on the iPad] or Kindle), all of my notes and questions are housed within the applications and it seemed unnecessarily cumbersome to continuously switch back and forth between those apps and a Word document to keep track of my thinking.  However, in the spirit of the assignment, after having finished all of the reading, I decided to go back through my notes in the applications and reflect on the big ideas that noticed.  So, here we go…

Definition

Teacher Leadership is when a teacher is willing and able to take on roles outside of the classroom.  Because these roles are so varied and specific to the individual school, it is impossible to characterize them all.  However, they tend to take on one of two forms: positional (i.e. the teacher has a position that denotes leadership), or personal (the teacher possesses attributes that others value that give them influence).  Additionally, these roles may either happen in conjunction with a full-time classroom position (team leader, committee chair, etc.) or the teacher may have a position that incorporates time during the day for the leadership opportunities (TOSA, reading coach, etc.).

Why Teacher Leadership?

The idea that the teachers within the school should take on more leadership roles is not new, however there has been a growing trend toward more and more teacher leadership in the past twenty years.  One reason is that the amount of jobs schools are asked to do in the 21^st century is too vast for one or two people to keep track of and monitor.  The bottom line is, principals need help in ensuring that their schools are healthy and functioning.  Many leadership opportunities arise from these needs.  However, it is essential that principals view this leadership as something that all teachers can achieve and that everyone should participate.  While in some ways these seems to negate “leadership” (is anyone a leader if we are all leaders?), in other very real ways, limited leadership opportunities can create a situation where those who are chosen are seen as the “favorites”.  Such situations can breed animosity and resentment and propel the school away from the collegiality and group-ownership that is advocated by all the authors we have read thus far in the course.

Another reason for teacher leadership is to create a sense of professionalism.  Teachers are the ones who are actually on the front lines of education.  They are interacting with our kids for 6-7 hours a day.  And yet the way most school systems and State DOEs are organized, we treat teachers as if they are merely cogs in a machine being run by people who are not only smarter than them, but know more about how to teach than they do.  “Teacher proof” curriculums tell teachers that they aren’t capable of making the most basic decisions that affect their students – despite having at least a Bachelor’s degree and often a Master’s degree or higher.  As Sarason (1990) noted, “teachers cannot create a sustain the conditions for the productive development of children if those conditions do not exist for teachers,” (p. xiv).

Questions I have…

·      How do you really create teacher leadership within a school?

o   What about those teachers who really don’t want to be leaders or interact with other teachers?

o   How do you help develop those with true leadership potential without creating the sense of favoritism?

o   If everyone is a leader, are we really changing?

o   How do you get people to own the students outside their own immediate control? For that matter, how do you get teachers to own their own students’ work rather than leaving the locus of control with the students only?

o   How do you get people past just giving most of this lip-service with no real back-up in their practice?

7th Heaven...hopefully

Journal Entry Number 3: 

A reflection on Michael Fullan’s Change Theory: A force for school improvement.

Fullan posits, "seven core premises that underpin our use of change knowledge," (p. 8). Here is a summary of those premises.

1. A focus on motivation
• Everything hinges on motivation.  Something new for me was Fullan’s assertion that motivation is really a function of long-term success not short-term desires.  As success is achieved, capacity is built, and support is present teachers’ motivation will continue to increase.  Success breeds success.  This is reminiscent of Schmoker (2004) when he asserts that, “the key is for professionals to achieve and celebrate a continuous succession of quick victories in vital areas,” (p. 427).  While initially this seems to be the antithesis of Fullan’s argument, Schmoker is advocating the continuous build-up of these short-term successes which will eventually lead to the motivation that Fullan is seeking.
• All of the other six premises are about achieving motivation.
2. Capacity building; with a focus on results
• In order for real change to take place, teachers must build capacity to affect whatever change is needed.  That sounds circular, but the point is, if teachers don’t know what they are trying to do and/or don’t have the means and support to do it, they can’t do it.  In order to do this, they must build the capacity to do so.
• Additionally, there must be accountability on the change being initiated.  But this accountability should be grounded in results - and this should be something the teachers are seeking for themselves and their colleagues, as opposed to the outside judgment of officials.
3. Learning in context
• As teachers are building this capacity, their experiences and learning must be within their own context.  Just as with anything, if the learning is superficial or not applicable to their present situation, it will be short-lived and/or be dead on arrival. Teachers must work together to improve their practice - everyone’s practice and thereby changing the culture of their context, school, and district.  A series of “small victories” throughout a system will result in a changed system.  Fullan quotes Elmore (2004) as saying, “cultures do no change by mandate; they change by the specific displacement of existing norms, structures, and processes by others...” (p. 9).
4. Changing context
• I covered this in my reflection of number 3.  Essentially as groups of teachers work seemingly autonomously with their colleagues to make positive changes within their contexts, changes also happen on the macro-level.  But the changes should be deliberately sought rather than coincidental.
5. A bias for reflective action
• I think this idea is best encapsulated by Fullan’s discussion of Dewey: “it is not that we learn by doing but that we learn by thinking about what we are doing,” (p.10).  Reflection is everything - and this is backed up by research.  Simply doing something is not enough, we have to think about it and reflect on our learning - were we close? Were we way off? How does what we learned fit within our previous schema? What parts of our schema need to grow or change?  All of these processes have to happen for learning to really be deep.  And this is true for teachers and adults as we learn to work in a new and changed paradigm just as much as it is for students learning new content in a school setting.
6. Tri-level engagement
• Change has to take place on all levels and have support at all levels: individual, team, school, district, and state (which is five levels, not three).  If the district and state don’t support change, it doesn’t matter how great it is at a school or team-level, it will be short-lived.
7. Persistence and flexibility in staying the course
• One of the most noted issues with PD and “reform” in that it is going to fly-over and be gone soon.  Often teachers lament this because they know that effective change will be lost.  But just as often teachers use this knowledge to feel comfortable “ducking” the reforms they don’t want to participate in.  For lasting change to happen it has to continue with applied pressure and support from all levels to keep it going.  Flexibility is important because without it, many measure would seem draconian and break under their own brittleness.

As I read through all of this, I was left to wonder whether these seven things could actually result in lasting change.  On paper they all make sense, but have they truly lead to system-wide culture shifts? Fullan argues they have in the examples he cites, but most of these are still in the beginning stages.  Do these seven things actually work, or are they one more utopian vision?

References

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Centre for Strategic Education, Seminar Series Paper No. 157.

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan. pp. 424-432.

The Schmoking Gun

Journal Entry 2: 

Reflecting on Tipping Point: From Feckless Reform to Substantive Instructional Improvement by Mike Schmoker

1. Why does strategic planning fail?

Strategic planning fails for a lot of different reasons.  According to Schmoker, the biggest is that, in general, strategic plans are too broad and all-encompassing rather than focused on small, achievable goals.  Additionally, the plans rarely focus on teaching practice and are generally not very flexible.  Instead of creating a situation where teachers can follow their students' understanding and readiness, they find themselves following the prescriptions of outsiders according to a schedule set up by someone who doesn't know them or their students.  Even worse, the schedule is set up according to some master plan before the year even begins with little or no regard to what students might need from their teacher.  Something else that Schmoker touches on but doesn't fully explore is the simple fact that in general strategic plans are "someone else's" plans.  As the proverb says, "He who does the work does the learning."  Some committee of well-meaning bureaucrats works really hard on the plan and feels a tremendous amount of investment in it.  But the teachers who are expected to enact the plan have it thrust upon them with little or no input.  Naturally they feel no ownership and therefore don't work to achieve it to any great extent.  This is human nature, I find it curious why we don't recognize this reality when making these plans.

2. What strategies might actually WORK?

According to Schmoker, Professional Learning Communities focused on small, achievable goals in a cyclical format of planning, implementation, and reflection.  Each PLC within a school could work on a problem that is real for them, regardless of what others may be working on.  This decentralization allows teachers to control their practice which in turn heightens engagement and liklihood that any reforms will be successful.

3. Why do some well-meaning reforms fail?

As stated before, lack of teacher ownership will almost always lead to failure.  It is troubling to me that we know this when it comes to student ownership but we don't see it when it comeas to teachers.  And even worse is when teachers recognize this in terms of their own reluctance and lack of engagement, but don't give their students autonomy in their work (but that is another topic for another entry).

4. What does Schmoker see as the solution to lasting improvement in schools? Explain.

Schmoker is advocating Professional Learning Communities.  His quote of Judith Little says it best, "school improvement is most surely and thoroughly achieved when teachers engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practice...adequate to the complexities of teaching and capable of distinguishing between one practice and its virtue from another," (p. 430).  As explained above, teachers have to have autonomy.  But beyond that, there does have to be accountability around having significant conversations around practice.  Without a PLC format, this type of conversation happens intermittedly and generally without focus or preparation.  With a formal PLC protocol, teachers are belng deliberate in their practice and in their reflection of that practice.  Put that together with ownership and autonomy and you have a recipe for successful school change.  Unfortunately for politicians, it is not really scalable; it can't just be packaged and sold to everyone to repeat verbatim in every context.  It must be real. It must be gritty. It must be honest. And it must matter to the professionals involved.

Main ideas or quotes I liked

"The most productive combinations of thought and action occur in team-based, short-term experimental cycles. Even the implementation of truly “proven practice” remains highly dependent on emergent personal, social, and practical factors.  Actual practice must adjust and respond to ground-level complexities that can’t be precisely anticipated at the beginning of the year; it must adapt to the results of specific strategies that cannot be conceived in advance." (p. 427)

"The key is for teams of professionals to achieve and celebrate a continuous succession of small, quick victories in vital areas," (p. 427).

"...we’ll need structures that are less apt to prohibit collective, creative thought and adjustment by practitioners, for the engagement of practitioners  in continuous  research and experimentation is the hallmark of a profession," (p. 429).

"...the answer is no mystery. It’s as simple as this: I cannot improve my craft in isolation from others. To improve, I must have formats, structures, and plans for reflecting on, changing, and assessing my practice [which] . . . must be continually tested and upgraded with my colleagues."  (quoting Glickman, p. 431)

My final thoughts. 

For me it is clear: to achieve real and lasting change we must move the leadership as close to the students as possible.  Professional Learning Communities seem to be one answer to that need. But even with PLCs, systemically we must move past this notion that change can be controlled from the top down.

Reference

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan. pp. 424-432.

The times...they are a-changin'

Reflect on your role in a previous successful or un-successful change effort. If you don't feel that you were close enough to a school change effort specifically, use a personal change -- but do think about your role in that change.

As I stated in my first entry on the discussion board, we have recently moved into a new building at PK Yonge.  This building has required multiple changes on a lot of levels.  The setup is really hard to describe, but can be gleaned from watching the video I posted. If you haven't watched it, here it is:

Beyond simply moving into the building and changing our way of work, we are also changing our leadership structure. Starting next year, we are going to have teacher leadership that is much closer to the teachers that are working with the students. Each learning community will have a leader who is not in a “classroom” position. As the Learning Community Leader for the fourth and fifth grade learning community, my job will be 50% direct student contact time and 50% coaching and leading. I am really excited about this new job, but I am also very nervous. The job is still in flux and the specifics around each learning community leader’s position is still to be determined. Each of us have different strengths, different passions, and operate and very different learning communities. Since this is the beginning of these positions we are in a situation that we are setting precedence with every decision and move we make.

What I am most excited about, is working with the teachers to better support them in making things happen for students. Specifically I'm really excited about working with Holly Wall (who is also in this class) as she is working to better utilize blended learning in her classroom. This will be the perfect opportunity for me to operate and both parts of my new role. Holly and I are both passionate about educational technology, blended learning, and self regulated learning. I am really excited about the direct services with students that I will have in her environment as I am working with gifted and also ESE students in her classroom. Helping her design and implement the blended learning pieces for these students is really what I'm passionate about (if not for the new LCL position, we would be working on this same idea collaboratively as two classroom teachers). On top of that having the opportunity to work with a colleague who is passionate about the same things I am is really exciting.

Of course, there are other teachers who have other passions and needs.  One of the interesting things about a job like this is being able to help different people accomplish different goals within the same community.  There will be six “classroom” teachers, two interns, and myself in the LC.  So it is a really small unit giving me time to work with each teacher in the manner they wish to work.  This variety in intriguing to me.  However, it also tasks me with ensuring continuity across the community.  Having lived in the community this year, I know how important this continuity is.  It is really almost scary how perfectly timed this class is for me and my personal journey as a teacher and educator.