If You're Not Going to Try...Please Leave My Profession

"Well using technology might sound good on paper...but how do you expect me to do it when I just got an overhead last week?"

 "How am I supposed to do anything?  They have to fund it before we can do anything!"

  After hearing these two statements from career teachers not too long ago, I had to remember what my elementary teachers emphasized...take a deep breath and count to ten.  So I took a moment for myself and counted to ten multiple times as I was framing my response to these two educators.  I don't remember what my exact words were.  I wish I could.  My mind had been taken over by these two laughable excuses for not trying new things in instruction.  I am sure that I was polite.  I probably even smiled and thanked the teachers as they left my classroom upon the end of the learning session...which they had talked through.

It was necessary for me to remember what I had learned about change in education.  It is never easy for everyone at the same time.  Each of us approaches change differently.  Many would rather chew off their own hand before having to change a particular habit.  I equate it to giving students new seating arrangements.
      "Do I have to sit here?"
      "Why am I always in the front?"
       "How long are we going to be in these seats?"
I think each of these questions can be easily translated in to teacher talk when discussing a change to any part of what we consider our normal existence.
      "Do I really have to use instructional strategies that work?"
      "Why am I having to try this new thing? My kids score fine on ITBS."
      "How long are we going to have to try this new math program?"
The approach by administrators and teacher colleagues to these resistant educators needs to come from understanding this resistance to change.  Hopefully we have built strong relationships with these educators through quality interaction and allowing faculty and staff the opportunity to have a voice in important policies and procedures.  Hopefully we have demonstrated to these individuals that we are committed to doing the right work for kids even though it isn't always fun and easy.  Hopefully we have been excellent communicators about the change initiative and its importance.

One of the easiest ways to make sure all educators are on the same page is to have had the important discussion surrounding mission, vision, values, and goals for the building/district.  When we have collaborated as an entire faculty/staff, rather than a select committee, on these four pillars: mission, vision, values, and goals...we can point to each one and explain how the proposed change falls in line with a commitment to our guiding philosophy for a strong instructional program as stated in each pillar.  Will this make the change easier?  Not always. However, it gives you a reference point and allows you to remind your colleague that they signed on to this commitment.

In regard to the complaint, "How am I supposed to do anything?  They have to fund it before we can do anything?"  Seriously?!  When has education ever been fully funded?  When have educators been given gold plated teacher's editions?  I understand that technology means different things for different people.  I teach students in a classroom where each kid has a laptop.  It is awesome!  It opens so many doors.  However, when I taught in a classroom with workbooks and a dry erase board, I would like to say that I was still effective.  It is a matter of doing what you know is right for kids in any situation and using the resources that, rough as it sometimes, come from your own contributions.  If we play the blame game and cite it as our chief reason for not using best practices, the only person left to blame will be ourselves.

So quite simply I have a request...If you aren't going to try, if you are not going to be a lifelong learner, if you aren't in it for the kids and helping them be more prepared and more successful when they leave your classroom, please consider leaving what I believe to be the most important profession.  Education is going to change.  It isn't going to be honey and roses all the time.  There might be setbacks and struggles.  However, if you are willing to try, if you are willing to acknowledge that we can learn from each other and be better, I will work with you every single day to reinforce each other in our commitment to doing what is right. After all, I'm not a complete jerk!

Coming up...first and second order change and the reasons we need to be on our game when it comes to leading such changes.           

What I've Learned About Merit Pay (insert disclaimer here)

The Push for Performance Pay

In today’s rapidly changing world, many organizations have had to review their traditional structures and adapt their practices in order to stay viable and relevant.  As we see this transformation take hold in our society, we cannot help but reevaluate the long held practices and traditions within education and consider what is working effectively, and thus worth keeping, and which practices and traditions could be allowed to be abandoned for a research-based better way.  In the ever-rising culture of school accountability and effectiveness one such structure that is being called in to question is the traditional pay matrix many schools have had in place for decades. 

            The American public school has, for the last few decades at least, seen increased government attention regarding the effectiveness of schools and the ability of the school to prepare a well-educated and knowledgeable citizenry. As Gratz notes, “Predictions of disaster based on low productivity have been sounded since A Nation at Risk in 1983, but American workers have actually been more productive since the 1990s than in any period in history” (2010).  Yet the push for education reform has continued in the manifestation of government-led programs like Goals 2000 and the No Child Left Behind legislation.  Even in Obama’s administration there has been a focus on education reform with Race To The Top rewarding a select few states that are able to meet the requirements for a shot at additional funds.  Administrators and teachers who have faced these changes have adopted a skeptical perspective on such reforms, mandates, and new initiatives.  These viewpoints aren’t without their merit.  Teachers who have seen reform after failed reform begin to adopt the perspective that such changes will not last any longer than a new fashion trend.  In the minds of these educators, the reform will be embraced for a short while but won’t be implemented with fidelity and thus, it will fall apart.  Therefore, the teacher can keep doing what she has done for her career and life will go on uninterrupted. 

            However, when the discussion shifts to the topic of restructuring the method through which professionals are compensated, it becomes more personal for some than perhaps the restructuring of curriculum, expectations, or the daily business of the school.

The majority of school districts in the United States operate on a single salary schedule and have done so for decades.  In fact, “97% of all schools had adopted the single salary schedule by 1950. By the 1999-00 school year, nearly 100% of teachers were paid according to the single salary schedule” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  So what is wrong with this system if it was finally something that everyone in education could agree on?

 Some argue that “teachers are now paid according to criteria that researchers suggest have little connection to actual performance of teachers in the classroom” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  It is viewed as unfair that “The only way a teacher can earn more on this scale is to pursue additional education” (Johnson & Papay, 2010).  On the other side of the argument are those who make the case that “Enticing people into teaching who are primarily motivated by money may change the climate of education in unhealthy ways” (Hulleman & Barron, 2010).

            Regardless of where you may fall on the spectrum, it cannot be ignored that effective educators are vital to the success of the students to whom they are entrusted.  This focus on effectiveness has pushed some school districts to adopt the model that many businesses have established wherein compensation is based upon the measurable results that gauge the ability and impact of individuals upon the organization as a whole.  In a time when many districts and states are rearranging curriculum and reviewing the intended outcomes in education, the structure of pay should not go ignored. 

The Case for Performance Based Pay     

            A few school districts have taken the bold step toward implementing a performance based pay system.  One such district, Harrison District Two, a system with 11,000 students outside of Colorado Springs, “this fall will be among the first in the nation to replace the traditional salary schedule with a pay system based entirely on observations of teacher practice and student-achievement results” (Sawchuck, 2010).  Why break with tradition? Perhaps this desire for restructuring comes on the heels of the fact that “Harrison School District Two was under "academic watch" by the state four years ago. Its students scored 160th out of 178 districts on a state achievement measure” (Sawchuck, 2010). 

As a system that is in danger of being viewed as ineffective, irresponsible, and whose students are non-proficient, it would be necessary to look at current practices and identify what could be done differently to curb this trend. But how exactly are educators in this district to be judged? “Teachers receive eight to 16 "spot" observations annually by their principals or assistant principals of 10 to 15 minutes each, in addition to several formal, class-long ones” (Sawchuck, 2010). It is important to note that teachers in Harrison District Two are not alone in being paid based on performance.  “Accountability for principals in supporting the improvement of their teachers comes mainly in the form of twice-annual reviews conducted on-site by Mr. Miles,” the superintendent, “and a core team of district administrators. Teachers' perceptions are taken into account in the reviews, too” (Sawchuck, 2010).    

Harrison District Two is among a growing list of districts such as Denver, Austin, Nashville, and New York that are in the process of adopting or implementing some form of performance pay either in a reconfiguration of the salary structure or an incentive program.  Beyond the local level, “Florida, Minnesota, and Texas have allocated over $550 million to incentive pay programs that reward teacher performance… and the Obama Administration’s 2011 budget request designated an additional $950 million for a new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).

   Perhaps this is a sign that schools are attempting to adopt models that seem to be successful in the business world.  If performance pay is the objective, we must first consider how performance is defined and then how performance is measured.  Do we simply base performance on test scores?  In this writer’s opinion, absolutely not.  What other indicators could be significant?  Perhaps a focus is placed upon the implementation of effective instructional techniques.  What does a teacher do well in his classroom and how great is the impact on the students?  As Reeves points out, “The central question is not, "What were the test scores?" but rather, "Once you knew what the test scores were, how were your teaching strategies adjusted to meet the needs of students" (2010).

Other determining factors for pay could include, “those who transfer to hard-to-staff schools, teach subjects in which there are shortages, or work longer school days” (Johnson & Papay, 2010).  The root of the discussion comes down to teachers who desire to earn a livable wage and districts that would like to be able to better predict the expenditures for salaries based on a more focused scale than the single schedule allows currently. 

Standing Firm on the Single Salary Schedule

“Although schools have employees, budgets, and bottom lines, the product of education is not simply a good or service, but rather a quality of student that is difficult to measure and not universally agreed on” (Hulleman & Barron, 2010).  This perspective is important to note, especially when comparing education to business.  Attempts have been made over many years to identify common themes between practices in business and education and thus allow them to work more in unison, rather than as separate islands.  The problem with this is that these two are very different from each other.  A business, when shipped poor quality materials, can send them back to the producer of the materials and demand some of better quality or throw out the defective materials.  This isn’t possible in education.  Our job is to teach every child regardless of the baggage they may bring with them to school.  Our belief should be clear: that every child can learn and it is our job to make sure that learning happens.   

The single salary schedule first debuted in 1921 when “Denver, Colo., and Des Moines, Iowa, successfully negotiated and introduced the position-automatic or single salary schedule for teachers. In this system, a teacher’s salary was based on two criteria deemed most important: degree held and years of teaching experience” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  The creation of this pay system was necessary in order to level the playing field for educators.  Prior to this, educators were compensated quite differently based on gender and race.  Female teachers often lived with families of students and taught elementary grades, whereas male teachers received older students and earned at least double the salary of their female counterparts.  It was also common for African-American educators to earn substantially less than their Caucasian colleagues. 

After ninety years, the single salary schedule is getting some pressure by those who want to see educators paid based on performance indicators.  The problem many find with performance pay is that it may attract individuals to the field of education who solely want to teach students who statistically test well, such as gifted and talented students, students enrolled in advanced placement courses, and students in college preparation courses.  Which leads one to wonder, who will sacrifice pay and be willing to teach special education students who may not score as well on standardized tests?  Hulleman & Barron assert, “This sorting effect… may also operate on personality characteristics and select teachers with motivations at odds with the overarching mission of education — to make money rather than to educate students” (2010).

            What makes the entire issue of performance pay increasingly difficult is the question of what can and should be measured. As Springer & Gardner identify, “Compared with other professionals, teacher performance is more difficult to measure in valid, reliable, and fair ways. For instance, a salesman can be measured by his total sales, and a doctor can bill according to her hours. But how do we measure student learning and attribute this learning to an individual teacher” (2010).  The constant refrain is that measureable results are provided to schools and communities via standardized test scores.  If scores are the incentive for teachers to teach better, what is the incentive for students?  Students surely aren’t paid on how well they perform, but they may have test data used to place the student in leveled classes or for some other purpose.  Colleges don’t (and shouldn’t) look solely at test scores to determine whether or not to admit a student to their institution.  Therefore, if a student knows that a teacher’s livelihood is linked to the student’s performance, couldn’t the student purposely perform poorly to impact a teacher they have negative feelings toward? 

            As Reeves observes,

“The worst result of any pay-for-performance program will be those consequences that are the opposite of what leaders intended. Rewards for test scores, for example, create financial incentives for excellent teachers to migrate to the least needy schools. Rewards for gains do not solve this problem, but they may create financial incentives for teachers to focus only on students who potentially can move from non-proficient to proficient status, disregarding transient students, those whose scores are so low that even great improvement will not lead to a proficient score, and high-scoring students who need extra challenges” (2010).

            Making districts and individual schools change how they do the work they are trusted to do, is a much larger task than rewriting curricular goals and standards.  It is important to remember, “that NCLB and Adequate Yearly Progress were also supposed to encourage districts to change. Just like NCLB and AYP, performance pay puts a premium on raising student test scores. That’s only a carrot of a different color” (J.R., 2010).

                Additionally, questions arise regarding content area teachers who teach subjects that aren’t measured by standardized tests. How will a district determine what a music, art, industrial technology, or physical education teacher is paid when these content areas are not measured by standardized tests?  In fact, “roughly 70% of educators don’t instruct a course or a grade covered by a standardized assessment” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  This is yet another area that needs to be addressed by researchers and school districts prior to adopting a change in salary structure.

What Could Performance Pay Look Like?

So let’s say your district is toying with the idea of changing the compensation structure from single salary schedule to a performance based system.  There are some key considerations to keep in mind as this process unfolds. 

Primarily, many teachers and administrators will be questioning the role of evaluations and the specifics of how performance will be measured.  Reeves recommends, “…evaluate teachers not on data alone, but also on their response to data. We cannot control the genes that influence our blood pressure readings when we are born. But we can influence our responses to blood pressure data” (2010).  When reviewing data, it is critical to keep in mind that the information provided is a limited scope on student ability.  We need to consider that what is represented by the data can help us identify areas that need more concentration in our daily teaching.  For example, if the data that suggests that students have a difficult time making inferences, we can respond by instructing students on what an inference is and how to infer based on information provided.  Additionally, as districts address how performance will be measured, “there needs to be a continued push for more accurate and reliable tools for assessing individual and team performance... far more happens in a classroom than can be measured on a standardized assessment” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).

Secondly, teachers, administrators, and community members will wonder what the pay structure will look like.  Johnson & Papay recommend a tiered system.

“The tiered pay-and-career structure we envision is designed to attract strong candidates to teaching, support their development, and offer substantially higher pay to those who perform well and take on responsibility for improving instruction beyond their classroom. The structure would reward teachers for effective instruction, ongoing learning, successful leadership, and continual commitment — all behaviors that advance the interests of students” (2010). 

            Whether your district considers a tiered structure or some other form of performance pay such as incentives, fellowships, or scholarships, it is necessary to keep in mind that “Compensation reform is just one element…alongside reforms that retool resource allocation and deployment norms; teacher hiring, tenure, and dismissal practices; and the standards and assessments systems, among other areas” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  It becomes evident that restructuring pay systems is not a standalone issue.  Curriculum, policies, procedures, and other practices held by district must also be reshaped as part of a systemic overhaul. 

Remember the Unions

No matter the direction a district chooses, it is important to remember that a overwhelming number of teachers belong to unions at the local, state, and national level and these groups should be included in any discussion regarding a shift in compensation structures because, “Teacher unions play a critical role here. They can shape teachers’ views about new forms of compensation…unions can serve as crucial partners in designing and implementing new pay programs, or they can apply the brakes and stop plans from moving from paper to practice” (Koppich, 2010).  This is an important consideration for districts with high union membership who are considering a break with traditional practices in compensation.

The two major unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, have their own perspectives on performance pay. “The NEA favors compensation for increased teacher knowledge and skill, for teaching in hard-to-staff schools, and for assuming added professional responsibilities, such as mentoring. The organization opposes pay for teaching in hard-to-staff subjects and for using student test scores in any form to set teacher pay” (Koppich, 2010).  Because both unions are concerned with the best for students and teachers, it is not surprising that they agree on many points.  However, the two groups disagree on some key areas as “The AFT supports teacher pay based on teaching in hard-to-staff subjects, as well as group pay for school-wide improvement, including improvement as measured by student test scores…the AFT opposes calculating individual teacher pay on the basis of student test scores” (Koppich, 2010).  Keep the communication lines open with members of the community, faculty, staff, and unions.  In developing these positive school-community relations, it may help the district and community find common ground in a time when many are questioning the practices being implemented.

The Reality

While much of the research is still being conducted in regard to merit pay or performance pay, there are good indications that such structures may be a reality for many districts sooner than many educators would have assumed.  However it is necessary to remember, “Organizational change is a deep and complex process” (J.,R., 2010).  Any change worth doing is worth doing correctly.  It would behoove school districts to carefully review any possible change being made to salary structure and weigh the intended and unintended outcomes for such a change.  It is necessary to consider that “Teacher pay alone will not improve the quality of teaching and, by extension, improve levels of student learning” (Springer & Gardner, 2010).  No matter what takes place in the next five to twenty years as school district debate this issue, it is key to be cognizant that “Pay for performance programs aren’t about rearranging current dollars on the existing salary schedule. New pay programs require new dollars. They also require sufficient dollars to meet their obligations. Nothing will kill a pay program faster than running out of money before all teachers who earned the money are paid” (Koppich, 2010).

The discussions surrounding performance pay may go in a number of directions, but one thing is essential to keep our focus on…student achievement.  But there exits some confusion on what this means.  As identified by Gratz, “as long as policy makers and the press confuse student achievement with standardized test scores, we won’t improve the education of our children — even if test scores rise…when we engage parents, citizens, and educators in shaping the visions and strategies in their own districts, there is the possibility of real improvement” (2010).  If we are going to get serious about achievement, let’s do it with all the research proven best practices and models that are successful beyond comparison.  Let’s involve the broader community—parents, business leaders, volunteers, and those who no longer have students in school but still care about education.  However, I fear that when we begin only talking about one way to fix the problem, such as teacher pay, we have already put a nail in the coffin of potential growth and effective change.     

Educators enter the profession for a variety of reasons but I suspect that no one enters teaching with the expectation of becoming a millionaire. It is my hope that “…employees who enter the education field are likely doing so for reasons quite different from those in sales-related sectors. As a result, teachers may be less motivated by money and more motivated by the students they teach” (Hulleman & Barron, 2010).  Any teacher who has been in the career for any length of time would hopefully identify that the moment when a child understands a concept, or looks to you as a role model is far more rewarding than a huge bonus for what you should be doing all along: effective teaching.  If money is your only motivator…reconsider your choice of profession.  I only want to work alongside those who are here solely for the betterment of each child. 

References

Gratz, D. (2010). Looming Questions in Performance Pay. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 16-21. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Hulleman, C., & Barron, K. (2010). Separating Myth from Reality. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 27-31. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

J., R. (2010). A Carrot of a Different Color. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 4. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Johnson, S., & Papay, J. (2010). Merit Pay for a New Generation. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 48-52. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Koppich, J. (2010). Teacher Unions and New Forms of Teacher Compensation. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 22-26. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Reeves, D. (2010). Paying for Performance. American School Board Journal, 197(5), 48-49. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Sawchuk, S. (2010). Colo. District Scraps Traditional Teacher-Pay Schedule. Education Week, 29(31), 8-10. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database.

Springer, M., & Gardner, C. (2010). Teacher Pay for Performance. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 8-15. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Effective Leadership in a PLC: Order

  The final leadership responsibility that enables a successful PLC again is defined by Marzano (2005) who sees the responsibility of creating Order as the principal who “Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines” (p. 43). 

Order and Focus seem to go hand-in-hand.  In line with the tenets of a PLC, the concept of order ties in with the development of the shared mission, vision, values, and goals.  These statements, along with establishing a focus, provide for the administrators, faculty, staff, and students a clear operating procedure and the point on the horizon to work toward. As Cranston (2009) references, “These principals regarded professional learning communities as a continuous commitment to support the activities of staff as they grow as community, as learners and as professionals” (p. 9).  Through establishing this commitment for continuous learning, the operating procedure is one of success and constant growth.  Through exhibiting this leadership responsibility, the principal has accepted the role of keeping the staff focused on using best practices to enhance the work being done.  As Liebman (2005) notes, “The leadership of the principal has a tremendous impact on the viability and success of the school” (p. 25).   Being a focused and procedurally oriented leader allows the principal to establish the foundation upon which the PLC can be built.  

I want to share that I believe that the importance of relationships cannot be ignored.  The last line about being a procedurally oriented leader is not to say that process is more important than people...that would be foolish.  Nevertheless, it is a trap in to which some do fall.  In regard to establishing a professional learning community, there needs to be expectations and routines for the meetings of the PLC.  I placed the principal in charge of this but this could be a leadership team decision as well.  Brainstorming and creating procedures and routines for the daily operation of the school and the function of the PLC may be some good use of the leadership team's time once a thorough examination of the mission, vision, values, and goals of the building is completed and worked through with the entire faculty/staff. 

You may notice this is not a fast shift.  Not by a long shot.  This is a re-culturing of a school.  I don't know that you would want it to be a fast shift.  People need time to work through the change process.  This is big time second order change.  There will be resisters, there will be those who say...."It's just another fad and this too shall pass."  It is easy to understand why that is the mentality of some educators.  Reform gets shoved down our throats sometimes with little or no follow through.  All the more important to have a stellar leadership team and a principal who understand some of these key responsibilities in relation to developing a PLC.  I mentioned earlier second order change.  That will be the focus for some posts later on today...how do we keep our heads above water when everything else around us seems to be sinking?  

References

Blankenship, S., & Ruona, W. (2007). Professional learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models, literature review. Online Submission, Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes from research on principals' perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (90), 1-22. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K. (2010). Continuous inquiry meets continued critique: The professional learning community in practice and the resistance of (un)willing participants. Online Submission, Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. (cover story). School Administrator, 63(10), 10-14. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Knutson, K., Miranda, A., & Washell, C. (2005). The connection between school culture and leadership social interest in learning organizations. Journal of Individual Psychology, 61(1), 25-36. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from Academic Search Elite database.

Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C., & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban, public middle school. Online Submission, Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mullen, C., & Hutinger, J. (2008). The principal's role in fostering collaborative learning communities through faculty study group development. Theory Into Practice, 47(4), 276-285. doi:10.1080/00405840802329136.

Rooney, J. (2008). Taking hold of learning. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 82-83. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Thompson, S., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a   school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (74), 1-17. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

"I care about learning, I don't care about school."

These words were said a few weeks back at a forum I attended that focused upon 21st Century Skills and what we can do as community members and educators to prepare students for success beyond graduation.  The young man who made this statement was being honest, a quality I appreciate.  This short statement though sent a message to the educators in the room...our students see the difference between what learning is and what school is.  I believe many of us left wondering if we as individuals or our colleagues knew the difference.

Breaking the traditional role of teacher is hard for many of us.  Above all, it takes courage to try something new whether it is an attempt to increase cooperative learning experiences or trying to teach for learner differences as much as possible.  I have heard teachers who say teaching to the middle, while they know it is wrong, probably helps more kids than it hurts.  Really?  When I go to a restaurant and order a steak, there is a certain expectation.  If the steak is bland and the service is only fair...I'm most likely not going to eat there again.  So when we serve up flavorless lessons that plateau with the first bite...why are we surprised when our students stop coming to the table.  Don't hold back on your seasoning.  Try something new.  Get the kids out of their seats, use technology that they use, give them the opportunity to create something that demonstrates understanding beyond filling in bubbles on a test sheet, push them...all of them...to soar. I never claimed to have revolutionary ideas...but I might at some point.

Tomorrow...continuation of previous posts on Effective Leadership in Professional Learning Communities.  These are from my literature review for an educational research course I completed for my MA in Education Administration.  Let's get to collaborating. 

Duffy's Classroom: Effective Leadership in a PLC: Input

Duffy's Classroom: Effective Leadership in a PLC: Input: "As noted by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), Input is “The extent to which the principal…Involves teachers in the design and implementat..."

Effective Leadership in a PLC: Input

As noted by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), Input is “The extent to which the principal…Involves teachers in the design and implementation of important decisions and policies” (p. 42).

As Thompson (2004) notes in the review of interviews with principals, he identifies one principal in particular who values the responsibility of Input,

Principal U6 mentioned team learning six times during her interview. She said, “Everyone in the building has an opportunity to provide input into our decisions that we feel are best for kids. We also have established a Critical Friends group and teachers are just sharing so much more with each other. I provide staff with ideas I have received from other principals. I also expect our faculty to share with others about what they are learning. Much of this is done through our team time, but I feel the teachers can learn so much from each other… (p. 9)

This principal understands the need to have staff members provide input toward the policies that face the school.  Establishing a PLC requires shared leadership in which the principal asks the teachers to be engaged in the professional learning process. 

            An important note for principals is that leading this change is not something to be done alone.  Input couples with Marzano’s (2005) responsibility of Culture when, as Mullen (2008) identifies the need for principals, “To promote community, principals can incorporate a distributed leadership (DL) model that delegates responsibilities for professional development activity related to study groups” (p. 2).  Input becomes invaluable as ideas are exchanged and administrators open leadership opportunities to staff who have the capacity to lead and are interested in contributing to the betterment of the school and the professional community.  As Liebman (2005) concurs, “…the professional learning community model is based on discovering and identifying talented people and placing them in positions where their talents can be fully developed. She identified these key people as the instructional leaders of the school who have a shared vision for excellent teaching” (p. 14).  Liebman (2005) and Mullen (2008) identify key leadership behaviors of principals in PLC’s when the principal solicits input from professional colleagues and therefore builds a team of leaders who are concerned with the effectiveness of all.
      The principal cannot do it alone.  Why would you want to?  Yes, there are certain tasks that are specific to management that may fall under the umbrella of a principal's responsibilities.  In some cases there is information that cannot and should not be shared among leadership team or colleagues.  But my main argument will be that the principal's role is that of instructional leader.  It has to be.  What are we doing here otherwise?  As an effective instructional leader, it becomes vital for you to listening to your staff, your leadership team, and your shareholders in the community.  This practice helps you hear the voices of those who are impacted by decisions related to educating the thinkers and leaders of the future. 
      Some decisions are beyond your control as a principal, teacher, or parent.  The action of the state legislature may be taken without first soliciting ideas and responses from you.  This is where the changing role of educator as advocate arises.  Whether you are a principal, food service worker, teacher, coach, janitor, counselor, or a concerned citizen, if your focus and passion is upon the best possible learning environment (not just facilities but funding, standards, best practices, and curriculum, too) and you understand that education needs to prepare every student for those unrealized problems of the future, it is imperative that you use your voice to keep education on the main stage.  
     Okay, this last little part has deviated from my main topic of input.  Or has it?  Our next related topic...Focus.     

References

Blankenship, S., & Ruona, W. (2007). Professional learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models, literature review. Online Submission, Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes from research on principals' perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (90), 1-22. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K. (2010). Continuous inquiry meets continued critique: The professional learning community in practice and the resistance of (un)willing participants. Online Submission, Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. (cover story). School Administrator, 63(10), 10-14. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Knutson, K., Miranda, A., & Washell, C. (2005). The connection between school culture and leadership social interest in learning organizations. Journal of Individual Psychology, 61(1), 25-36. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from Academic Search Elite database.

Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C., & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban, public middle school. Online Submission, Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mullen, C., & Hutinger, J. (2008). The principal's role in fostering collaborative learning communities through faculty study group development. Theory Into Practice, 47(4), 276-285. doi:10.1080/00405840802329136.

Rooney, J. (2008). Taking hold of learning. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 82-83. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Thompson, S., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (74), 1-17. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

Effective Leadership in a PLC: Resources

 Resources

The PLC concept started as a result of collaboration among a few faculty members. Several teachers began to plan assessments, ask strategic questions, and analyze student data together. In this way, the PLC developed without a strong structure and without external parameters. However, when the school principal realized that the teachers were collaborating, he decided to lend his support by scheduling a common hour during which the teachers could meet during the school day, providing resources and materials to help the teachers understand the theoretical basis for learning communities, and encouraging teachers to participate” (Elbousty, 2010, p. 1)

            The principal realized the important work these educators were doing and allocated time and other resources that would enable the educators to do their best possible work.  Rooney (2008) makes a key observation:

Good principals provide multiple opportunities for teacher learning because we believe that having skilled teachers correlates with strong student learning. But how often do we rely on information we recall from distant coursework, superficial mandated workshops, or district presentations? (p. 82)

  With attention paid to the leadership responsibilities identified by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) the responsibility of Resources is defined as “The extent to which the principal…Provides teachers with materials and professional development necessary for the successful execution of their jobs” (p. 43). The organizational structure of our schools provides an opportunity for administrators to allocate daily time as well as professional development time toward research, collaboration, and review of instructional practices.  As Liebman (2005) notes, “Altering the structure of schools translates into providing teachers with time to talk and meet, improving communication structures, and increasing interdependent teaching roles” (p. 7).

            Focusing on Marzano’s definition of Resources, materials can include the element of time along with space and supplemental pay for involvement as a facilitator of a PLC.   

            There is also a need for the principal to be an actively engaged participant in the PLC.  This requires a new approach to leadership as noted by Thompson (2004):

If principals are to become the “lead teacher and lead learner” they must move beyond traditional leadership styles to create professional learning communities where the goal is to develop people, including oneself. Developing people, each with their own mental models and beliefs about schooling and learning, cannot be accomplished in an organization that does not value the lived experiences of all stakeholders (p. 5).

            With principals serving in the capacity of instructional leader rather than manager, the daily focus and interactions shift and the principal can no longer avoid quality interactions on a daily basis as he or she monitors the instructional environment for all students. As Cranston (2009) observes about evaluations:

While the participants suggested teacher evaluation might possibly provide a means to improve the collective quality of teaching, the examples of how evaluation might be used to channel the collective energy of the staff that could lead to improved student achievement school-wide generally focused on whole-school professional development initiatives (p. 15)

Administrators are evolving in unison with teachers so what you have is not isolated moments of learning but a continuous process of improvement, collaboration, and relationship development that benefits all who come in contact with the learning environment.  The purpose of evaluations will continue to hold educators accountable but also focus on what strengths or weaknesses are evident building wide so that professional development can be adapted to benefit all.

            It is important to expand upon Marzano’s (2005) definition of Resources, to include the concept of time and structure within the definition of necessary materials.  As Servage (2008) identifies, “Administrators, teacher leaders and professional development specialists can, I believe, enhance the sustainability and long-term effectiveness of a professional learning community by providing opportunities within its structure to for teachers to hold open-ended conversations oriented to communicative learning”  (p. 74).  If principals desire effectual staff members and professional development, the allocation of time and other resources is incumbent upon the administrator.  

            In this same manner, the principal sets the expectation for collaboration and knowledge sharing.  Leadership within a PLC requires the administrator to set this expectation and hold accountable the work of the PLC.  As Servage (2008) states:

The professional learning community (PLC) is one model within a constellation of models and theories characterized by a number of core beliefs: (1) that staff professional development is critical to improved student learning; (2) that this professional development is most effective when it is collaborative and collegial; and (3) that this collaborative work should involve inquiry and problem solving in authentic contexts of daily teaching practices (p. 63).

However, simply setting the time aside is not enough to guarantee success in a PLC.  It is also essential for the administrator to, as Mullen (2008) states, protect the vital time of the group “Protecting time allotted to study groups is essential. Prioritizing the effort of staff to focus on student learning above competing school needs communicates the resolve that teacher growth and student learning is nonnegotiable” (p. 6). 

            Providing necessary resources to the staff not only sets the tone of high expectation but also communicates to the staff respect for their professional lives and the desire for all to be a successful community.  In this way, the responsibility of culture and resources as defined by Marzano (2005) are closely related.  Mullen (2008) effectively provides a rationale for establishing the necessary time for staff to engage in professional learning: “When provided this time to collaborate, teachers can develop (or improve upon) instructional strategies, design effective lessons, focus on student achievement, expand their understanding of subject-area content and benchmarks, and address teaching problems (Hirsh, 2003)” (p. 6).
        Are we using our time in the best possible way? If not, what can we do?  If so, what can we do better?  I am reminded of a great little saying by one of my graduate school professors, "If you are satisfied with the lollipop of mediocrity, you'll always suck."  
       Tomorrow morning, the next installment...the importance of faculty and staff input in the decision making and leadership process.

References

Blankenship, S., & Ruona, W. (2007). Professional learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models, literature review. Online Submission, Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes from research on principals' perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (90), 1-22. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K. (2010). Continuous inquiry meets continued critique: The professional learning community in practice and the resistance of (un)willing participants. Online Submission, Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. (cover story). School Administrator, 63(10), 10-14. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Knutson, K., Miranda, A., & Washell, C. (2005). The connection between school culture and leadership social interest in learning organizations. Journal of Individual Psychology, 61(1), 25-36. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from Academic Search Elite database.

Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C., & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban, public middle school. Online Submission, Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mullen, C., & Hutinger, J. (2008). The principal's role in fostering collaborative learning communities through faculty study group development. Theory Into Practice, 47(4), 276-285. doi:10.1080/00405840802329136.

Rooney, J. (2008). Taking hold of learning. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 82-83. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Thompson, S., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (74), 1-17. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

Effective Leadership in a PLC: Culture

Every school has a culture.  When one walks through the corridors and in to the classrooms, the values of the school become evident.  A school that has blank walls, is void of color, and lacks smiles upon the faces of students and staff sends a vastly different message than a school that is filled with student work, provides a colorful and stimulating environment, and in which the noise of learning is hard to escape.

It has been said that the only interaction some teaching colleagues have with their peers is in a common parking lot.  Unfortunately, the culture of some schools is centered in isolation and limited teacher freedom.  The need for culture change is clear as Mullen (2008) notes, “By developing environments committed to the professionalization of teachers, principals confront the isolation that many classroom teachers experience, thereby countering teacher attrition while enabling policies and practices to be influenced (Gusky & Huberman, 1995)” (p. 2).  Through treating our faculty and staff as professionals and breaking down the walls of isolation, teachers are able to come together for a common good. 

As identified previously, the development and implementation of a PLC is not a reform but rather a cultural shift out of isolation and in to collaboration with shared mission, vision, values, and goals.  As stated by Blankenship (2007), “The Dufour and Eaker model of professional learning communities is a framework from which a school faculty can begin to shift the culture of their school in order to build capacity for implementing and sustaining change” (p. 2). 

            In their investigation of leadership, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) hypothesize that the responsibility of culture is developed by “The extent to which the principal…Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation” (p. 42).  As stated previously, creating a PLC is a cultural shift, and therefore it is vital as an administrator, to be sure that your culture is one in which the central ideals of a PLC can thrive. “Numerous researchers (Crow, Hausman & Scribner, 2002; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour. 2005; Hord, 1997, 2004; Toole & Louis, 2002)  argue that nurturing a culture that supports staff in becoming a professional learning community is the most promising avenue for sustained, substantial school improvement” (Cranston, 2009, p. 1).

A critical component of establishing a PLC is the development of shared mission, vision, values, and goals.  As the administrator partners with the faculty and staff to develop these guiding ideas, it is crucial to remember the importance of the role of the administrator. “Both Hord (2004) and Dufour and Eaker (1998) place strong emphasis on the role of the principal in establishing supportive conditions for team learning to take place, as well as their role in developing and implementing a shared vision and values” (Blankenship, 2007, p. 5). The responsibility to create a culture in which teachers feel safe to take risks and grow professionally rests upon the administrator. “Scribner et al. (2003) point to school leadership as being instrumental in fostering a sense of trust and a shared sense of purpose” (Blankenship, 2007, p. 5).

Prior to promoting the concept of operating within a PLC, the principal, in order to operate within a culture of success, needs to become familiar with the central tenets of PLC design.  As identified by Elbousty (2010) earlier research identifies the attributes of a successful PLC:

Hord (1997) identifies five attributes of professional learning communities. These attributes are: 1) supportive and shared leadership, sometimes called distributive leadership, in which teachers and administrators collaborate in decision making; 2) shared values and vision centering upon students’ learning; 3) collective learning and application of learning, as teachers collaborate and learn from each other on a quotidian basis; 4) supportive conditions, as the school environment plays a role in community development; 5) shared personal practice, as teachers discuss their teaching practices with specific students and any emerging challenges (p. 2). 

            Two essential components that run through a majority of the literature about the cultural transformation led by principals include the development of trust within the culture as well as a culture of community and collaboration.  In regard to developing a culture of trust, the principal takes it upon himself to develop relationships between faculty members and administrators.  In Cranston’s (2009) examination of leadership it is identified that:

When asked about the factors that favour or limit their involvement in developing their schools as professional learning communities, the principals expressed their beliefs that trust relationships between themselves and their respective staffs had a profound impact on their abilities to nurture their staffs as professional learning communities (p. 10-11).

Through developing trusting relationships, a principal fulfills the sense of community that is so essential to Marzano’s (2005) definition of culture. 

            The second area of importance both in Marzano’s (2005) definition of culture and in the literature reviewed was that of collaboration amongst teachers. “In addition to every principal talking about shared vision, team learning was also mentioned by all of the principals. It was mentioned five times by one principal, six times by one principal and 10 times by one principal” (Elbousty, 2010, p. 9).  We are social creatures by nature.  In a profession that holds such importance in developing a better world, teachers need to be provided the opportunity to collaborate and engage in thoughtful discussion of teaching practices.  The principal becomes essential in scheduling this time for collaboration and providing building wide expectations for staff to be involved in such discussions.  “The principal frequently repeated the importance of developing an organization where people can interact, learn, and value their work. She further discussed the importance of developing structure that is conducive to interaction, growth, learning, reflection, and experimentation” (Liebman, 2005, p. 17).

            With the concept of culture, the sense of community and collaboration creates new opportunities for all staff to learn and grow in multiple ways. As Fullan (2006) concludes,

            Professional learning communities are in fact about establishing lasting new collaborative cultures.        Collaborative cultures are ones that focus on building the capacity for continuous improvement and are intended to be a new way of working and learning. They are meant to be enduring capacities, not just another program innovation (p. 11).

Reculturing schools to operate as professional learning communities is a second order change that will undoubtedly be met with some anxiety by staff.  It is a bit frightening to consider breaking with tradition and doing something new.  A change of this magnitude should not be taken lightly.  Implementing with fidelity and constantly monitoring and evaluating the successes and challenges of the change process are imperative to making a meaningful change.

Later...the second leadership skill...Resources.  

Blankenship, S., & Ruona, W. (2007). Professional learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models, literature review. Online Submission, Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes from research on principals' perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (90), 1-22. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Elbousty, Y., & Bratt, K. (2010). Continuous inquiry meets continued critique: The professional learning community in practice and the resistance of (un)willing participants. Online Submission, Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. (cover story). School Administrator, 63(10), 10-14. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Knutson, K., Miranda, A., & Washell, C. (2005). The connection between school culture and leadership social interest in learning organizations. Journal of Individual Psychology, 61(1), 25-36. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from Academic Search Elite database.

Liebman, H., Maldonado, N., Lacey, C., & Thompson, S. (2005). An investigation of leadership in a professional learning community: A case study of a large, suburban, public middle school. Online Submission, Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mullen, C., & Hutinger, J. (2008). The principal's role in fostering collaborative learning communities through faculty study group development. Theory Into Practice, 47(4), 276-285. doi:10.1080/00405840802329136.

Rooney, J. (2008). Taking hold of learning. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 82-83. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from Professional Development Collection database.

Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from ERIC database.

Thompson, S., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1), 1-15. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from ERIC database.

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (74), 1-17. Retrieved September 28, 2010 from ERIC database.