One sure way to spot the self-renewing school is by listening to the professional talk in hallways, faculty lounges, and at faculty meetings. In schools where teachers are active learners, excitement and curiosity contribute to a rich learning environment for children. The issue for those of us who want to transform schools from rigid, professionally constraining institutions to inviting places that anticipate and adjust to new challenges and changing times is: how can one stimulate meaningful, invigorating professional inquiry as a vital aspect of school life?
Some Basic Premises
- High professional standards. School staff continuously examine all practices to determine whether they support the needs of the clientele. Service to students is the raison d'être for self-renewing schools.
- Collegiality. In self-renewing schools, teachers/learners are not isolated. Faculties seem to intuitively understand that two (or more) heads are invariably better than one.
- Questioning and experimenting. These schools understand that all that needs to be known can never be known; therefore, the search for “a better mousetrap” is constant.
While these norms have long been recognized as important (see Little 1982), confusion still reigns about how best to encourage them. Although many authors contend that the route is through schoolwide initiatives (Calhoun 1994, Glickman 1993, Joyce et al. 1993), such an approach has the potential for producing unanticipated, as well as unwelcome, consequences. Forcing schoolwide approaches can result in what Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) call “contrived collegiality.” In our experience, the greatest costs of contrived collegiality are the compromise of passion and the creation of a false impression that consensus exists on essential instructional matters.
For example, I vividly recall the experience of a truly outstanding elementary school engaged in a nationally recognized effective schools project. The structure of that program (much like many current site-based management systems) required the faculty to select one approach to collaboratively focus upon. While the individual members of this faculty had numerous consuming professional interests (for example, encouraging student creativity, enhancing student efficacy, and building conflict resolution skills), the one area that could garner universal support was improving discipline. It was also, however, an area that generated little passion (Less than 3 percent of the students posed repeated discipline problems).
Just think of the creative energy that was siphoned away from potentially enthusiastic pursuits. Instead, the faculty's energy was channeled into an area of albeit common, but not pressing, concern. Not only would this not enhance the goal of school renewal, but conceivably it could also make matters worse.
Potentially more harmful than the lost opportunity of contrived collegiality is the long-term emotional price of living with the disparity between appearance and reality. A certain degree of stress and dissatisfaction is not only a fact of life, but in some ways is also beneficial to professionals who hold high standards. It is the nature of dedicated teachers to want to excel in response to the issues and objectives that matter most to them. In their classic study of Michigan schools, Brookover and Lezotte (1979) even found an inverse relationship between teacher satisfaction and school effectiveness.
Schools that participate in procedurally based effective schooling or school renewal projects are often engaged in the creation of a public perception of a faculty essentially in agreement. Unfortunately, that image often is at odds with what individuals (or subgroups of the faculty) believe is most critical. Consistently reading or hearing about your faculty's “focus” and knowing that this priority isn't your passion can prove demoralizing.
To avoid the pitfalls of contrived collegiality, self-renewing schools should follow three basic principles. But before elaborating on them, let's look at two truly self-renewing schools that are producing outstanding levels of student performance.
Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary School
Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary is an attendance-zoned school in Vancouver, Washington. While its facilities are state of the art, Roosevelt is serving an urban district's most disadvantaged and challenging student population. Over three-fourths of Roosevelt's students qualify for free/reduced price lunches, 21 different primary languages are spoken in Roosevelt homes, and the number of students on IEPs well exceeds the district's average.
In spite of this complexity, when Principal Linda McGeachy opened the school three years ago, she had a clear idea of the kind of faculty she wanted to assemble. Beyond a commitment to developmental principles, McGeachy wanted teachers who were interested in pursuing nongradedness, a variety of cooperative learning structures, interdisciplinary instruction, alternative forms of assessment, and maximum inclusion of diverse youngsters in heterogeneous classes. Her interview process was deliberately designed to screen teachers based upon their interest in collaborative work as well as in active experimentation.
The faculty that opened the school together possessed enough energy to light a small city! Their strong personalities (which occasionally put them at odds) were as powerful as the beliefs they held in common. Rather than seeing this diversity as a problem, however, McGeachy viewed it as an asset. After all, there was so much to be done in service of Roosevelt's students that the more the faculty had to give, the better!
Teachers were assigned to wings (by student age cohort), and within each wing teachers grouped themselves into pairs, threesomes, and foursomes as their personalities and skills meshed. Most had learned about action research methodology (Sagor 1992), and others took advantage of training offered by Roosevelt's university partner, Washington State University. Later, as the faculty proceeded to implement its vision of a developmentally appropriate elementary school, each person was free to focus on professional issues of individual or team concern.
Figure 1 lists the focuses of some of the action research projects. Although the topics are diverse, Roosevelt teachers did not undertake them in pursuit of isolated professional goals. In reality, several were deliberate collegial responses to concerns raised by many teachers. Two particular studies come to mind.
Figure 1. Examples of Action Research Conducted at Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary School
Using multiple intelligences theory to identify the gifted.
The educational experience of an included child with cerebral palsy.
Improving students' problem-solving skills in math.
Assessing the costs and benefits of a teacher-developed curriculum.
The efficacy of the school's new parent reporting system.
The most efficacious program model for serving handicapped kindergarten students.
For example, one teacher's dilemma was shared by many of his peers. Reluctant to use the district's math curriculum, with its scope and sequence predicated upon separate grade levels, a teacher of a cross-age class of 7- to 9-year-olds designed his own multi-age math program. Then he wondered if all the time and effort invested was worth it. Would his students have done just as well if he had simply regrouped them (by grade level) for math instruction? Although he conducted this inquiry by himself (with peer assistance from a “critical friend” at the university), the entire faculty was deeply curious about his findings. When his data revealed that his students were prospering in the teacher-developed curriculum, not only did he realize that his efforts had been worthwhile, but his colleagues were also inspired to adopt some of his multi-age techniques.
In a second example, some Roosevelt teachers were pondering the best way to serve kindergarten students on IEPs. Was full-day kindergarten the answer? Or would the children do just as well in half-day programs? Was full inclusion the answer, or would partial placement in a resource room be superior?
Using a multiple case study approach, a kindergarten/special education teacher explored this issue. After a year studying the experiences of four children, each with a different placement, she came up with an interesting conclusion: even though each child experienced a different program, each prospered. Was it perhaps because each of the placements was “just right” for that child, she wondered. Ultimately, she told her colleagues that there appeared to be no one correct program model. She argued, therefore, that Roosevelt should continue its flexible policy of constructing programs based upon individual students' needs. Her peers enthusiastically backed her recommendation, as it was substantiated with convincing data. Compare this to the acrimony often experienced in schools that approach inclusion with a philosophy that one size must fit all.
Willamette Primary School
Across the Columbia River in the mostly fashionable suburb of West Linn, Oregon, is Willamette Primary School. This neighborhood school—once a middle school stigmatized for being the lowest performing in the district—is now among the district's highest performing elementary schools. How did this school turn itself around? In short, the answer is self-renewal.
When Jane Stickney was told her first principalship would come at the helm of Willamette, the perspective she brought was that of an experienced, professional teacher. Like her counterpart at Roosevelt, Stickney had the opportunity to assemble a staff. But, unlike McGeachy, she didn't interview prospective teachers about their program ideas; rather, she inquired into their basic beliefs about children, teaching, and learning. She asked each candidate, “Are you committed to a developmental philosophy of learning, and do you hold in your heart the ethic of action research?”
After assembling a group of educators who shared her beliefs and were also instinctively interested in conducting disciplined inquiries into their practice—Stickney arranged a series of preschool retreats. The first order of business was to reach agreement on some guiding principles for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Next, the group took on the more complex task of deciding how to organize the school. Lo and behold, this high-powered group couldn't agree! It was at that point that the truly radical aspect of Willamette's approach to school renewal began. They didn't even try to reach consensus; they didn't need to. Instead, they decided to do it all.
Many teachers elected to teach multi-aged classes; others didn't. Some chose to work in two-member teams; others in groups of four. Some worked alone. Each decision was deemed acceptable. Some teachers wanted to conduct short thematic units; others wanted to fully integrate the curriculum. Did this array of approaches produce anarchy? Not in the least. Because all Willamette teachers held what Stickney calls the “ethic of action research” in their hearts, these different approaches did not work as opposing biases but, rather, as competing theories on the best way to deliver developmentally appropriate education. As a consequence, while each teacher/researcher strongly believed in his or her preferred intervention, all were equally interested in what their colleagues were learning.
More often than not, faculty meetings at Willamette are dominated by action research presentations. As a consequence, instructional practice is continually being informed by what teachers are collectively learning.
The Three Key Principles
- Core values/shared vision. Both faculties are bound by core values. When teachers at either of these schools are asked to close their eyes and envision a successful student, they see the same picture. However, what neither school has, nor wants, is to find the one silver-bullet prescription to realize its vision. This is where both schools depart from the linear mechanical practices that many schools have implemented under the guise of strategic planning.
- Shared view of professional behavior. While the faculty members at these schools engage in different practices, often in pursuit of different theoretical assumptions, all Willamette and Roosevelt teachers share a view that true professionals engage in disciplined inquiry: they test their theories, share their results, and consequently learn from one another. Peter Senge (1990) calls this the discipline of “team learning.” When an organization wants to engage in what Deming labeled the “ongoing process of continuous improvement,” it does so not by forcing a consensus on a single direction for the entire organization, but by empowering individual work groups to seek out better ways. This practice of using natural collaborations to form short-term limited partnerships is the essence of professional behavior in a community of learners.
- A focus on the client. Again borrowing a page from Deming, teachers at Willamette and Roosevelt have no question about who the customer is. At these and other self-renewing schools, the bottom line is always the difference that a practice makes for kids. Instead of relying on biased or majority-rule decision making, these schools employ data-based, deliberative decision making. They have found that professional learning and student learning go hand in hand.
Overcoming the “It” Syndrome
While visiting with some teachers from Willamette, I asked why they thought so many schools were failing. They told me it was the pursuit of “it.” When I inquired further, they told me that in most schools the faculty is in a feverish pursuit to figure out how to do “it.” The notion is that once “it” is figured out, then “it” can be kept just the way “it” is. In education, however, the sheer complexity of the issues we face and the changing nature of our clients ensures that today's “it” won't be tomorrow's. Willamette has gone so far as to adopt an informal school symbol: the international stop sign with the word it in the center.
Embedded in the story of these two marvelous schools, one urban and one suburban, is the essence of self-renewal. These schools have avoided contrived collegiality and have fostered natural collaboration around issues of mutual concern. At Willamette and Roosevelt, the redesign of professional practice is not recognized as the result of a search for a single strategy that the majority will accept. Rather, they are seeking to create places that encourage a continuing professional dialogue about what might be the best professional practices for students.
