Creating and sustaining a collaborative culture: Lee Richmond School improved instruction by creating a culture where it is good to question instructional practices and commit to finding answers together.

When I read about how in-classroom professional development is more effective than professional training that occurs in a one- or two-day workshop setting, I get the "can do" itch. I think, "I can do that!"

But in-classroom professional development is more than something that can be "done." It is not an objective to list in the school plan and check off at the end of the year, reassuring that we "did" in-classroom professional development. Creating and sustaining a collaborative culture takes work, effort and focus. If professional development delivered in the classrooms is to be successful, the focus and practice must become part of the school culture (Danielson, 2002).

Providing in-classroom professional development has been the key to instructional reform at Lee Richmond Elementary School in Hanford. The school was identified as an underperforming school by the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. In response to the designation, the entire school team worked to create a collaborative learning culture.

Because of this effort, Lee Richmond has a culture where it is good to question instructional practices and commit ourselves to finding answers together. The staff accomplished this by focusing our intent on our desired outcomes. As a staff, we knew what we wanted our instruction and classrooms to look and feel like. We visualized ourselves making the changes necessary, and then we supported each other to transform our instruction and culture (Akhavan, 2004).

Teachers need to work in a school culture where they can express what they have learned, and can express what they still need to learn. Then, teachers should be afforded opportunities to have someone stand by their side and support their efforts to change instruction.

At Lee Richmond school the effort to change instruction through coaching and site-based professional development was targeted to improving reading and writing for the first three years. During the fourth year the staff focused on the integration of social studies and science across the curriculum.

Why the narrow focus? The school team wanted to set a goal that was attainable. By expecting too much too quickly, the team knew that the effort to sustain a learning community through site-based professional development would not become reality. What has occurred from this narrow focus is a culture where teachers and administrators work together to improve the instructional program.

What does in-classroom professional development look like?

Coaching is hard; being coached is equally difficult. Accepting someone into your room to demonstrate, teach and reflect alongside you opens doors for teachers--doors that teachers often prefer to keep shut. While toiling away with a roomful of children at various levels of need, the last thing that may sound appealing is to trust someone enough to show him your teaching.

Now, this may sound odd to someone not in education, but all of us who have taught for any length of time understand how uncomfortable yet exhilarating a collaborative culture can be.

Learning from failure

Alison was waiting for me on a hot September afternoon. The clock read 12:46, the lunch bell rang only six minutes ago, but I knew that in four minutes, Alison's third grade students would be sitting on the floor waiting for me. Their reading workshop was beginning, and I was teaching the mini-lesson. I gathered my materials quickly and in minutes I was transferred into a classroom where the children, teacher and principal learn together.

After teaching the mini-lesson, I sat to confer with Christian on his reading. Alison stood nearby listening to my conference with Christian, then she moved away to confer with a different student. When I finished my conference I pulled up a small chair to listen to her conference with Jessica.

The atmosphere was relaxed. Alison pointed to part of Jessica's work and whispered, "Well, I didn't expect her to write that!" I checked Jessica's work and laughed. Jessica missed the whole point of my lesson on making inferences about the author's intent. I had not effectively taught my lesson. Jessica did not learn from my teaching.

"Well, I can see I missed the mark with that lesson!" I exclaimed to Alison when we stepped aside to chat. "I really need to examine the writing of the other children to see what they wrote. I might have to re-teach that mini-lesson in a different way." Alison and I agreed to meet and look at the student work together.

Three important things occurred in Alison's classroom. First, I provided professional development by teaching her students in an area she identified. Second, I made mistakes that we both learned from. Third, I helped Alison transform her philosophy and practice, espousing different goals and understandings of how children learn.

I was not there to teach a group of struggling children. I was there to help Alison change her instruction. Several weeks later, she continued the instructional change on her own and sustained her learning by talking with colleagues, delving into professional texts, and reflecting on her successes and failures just as we did together.

Building a culture of meaningful learning

As a school team, we developed trust. Administrators, teachers and support personnel at Lee Richmond openly share mistakes and admit failure, just as I did with Alison. We also seek answers together. By admitting our mistakes and seeking answers collaboratively, a school team can build a culture of collegiality (Marzano, 2003).

This is important because teachers usually spend long hours in the classroom and do not share regularly with peers or administrators what is going right or wrong with instruction. Sometimes, the only glimpse into student learning is the once-a-year standardized test given each spring; however, overall standardized tests are a poor indicator of day-to-day student learning (Calkins, Montgomery & Santman, 1998).

At Lee Richmond we focus our intent and resources on building a culture of meaningful learning for adults as well as children. We use existing resources to achieve our dream. We don't have special positions carved out to provide staff development. Instead, we use existing positions to provide in-classroom professional development: the principal, the learning director (a position similar to a vice-principal) and the literacy coach.

Many educators may think, "Well, I can never get to classrooms to provide in-classroom professional development! I have too much work to do." It isn't that I have less work, or that my team has less work to do than other school teams. We find the time because we have aligned our values and goals with our actions. We have reframed our positions and how we carry out our work. Our work is only about instruction.

Reflecting on instruction

The learning director and literacy coach do provide professional development in staff meetings and have reflective meetings after school with teachers, but the bulk of the adult learning occurs in the classrooms. In-classroom coaching, co-teaching and reflection is delivered in six-week cycles. The literacy coach or learning director meets with the teacher and helps the teacher identify specifically what he or she wants to improve. Then the coach and teacher decide how the teacher would like to be supported and how often. Most often the coach is in the classroom two to three days a week for at least an hour each visit.

New teachers tend to ask the coach to demonstrate lessons; more experienced teachers often prefer that the coach watch and reflect on the effectiveness of their lessons. During the fourth year of in-classroom coaching, many teachers at Lee Richmond requested co-teaching cycles, where both the coach and the teacher engage in action research, trying new ideas from professional texts and looking for improved student learning.

As principal I also focus the collaborative culture by creating and sustaining the professional atmosphere necessary to support in-classroom staff development. I use most staff meetings for professional development, professional reading and discussion. The entire staff works together to plan, conduct and implement their own professional development.

Because this is important, I find time to provide in-classroom modeling, and often co-teach to help the teachers transform their classrooms. I coach teachers in cycles lasting from three to five weeks. I do this because research shows that effective staff development programs model constructivist teaching, offer intellectual, social and emotional engagement with new ideas, and demonstrate respect for teachers as adult learners (Danielson and McGreal, 2000).

In order to maintain a level of instructional competence, the coaching team at Lee Richmond (including the principal) reads professional texts regularly. The team discusses new ideas for refining instruction and identifies areas of need for professional development. In this model, the administrative team and the teaching team are constantly learning together and focusing on improving instruction and student learning.

Teachers coach each other, a natural outcome of the amount of time that the leadership team spends in the classrooms teaching, reflecting and planning instruction. Teachers stop in the hall and share student work, they compare practices and swap lesson ideas regularly. As needed, teachers ask to be released from their classrooms to visit other teachers and watch them teach.

During the first two years that the staff focused on site-based professional development, the school hired a half-time teacher to substitute regularly. The substitute released teachers from their classrooms so that they could observe in other classrooms, coach colleagues, or watch the learning director or literacy coach provide a demonstration lesson. The teachers informally coached one another working in pairs or triads, most often as grade-level teams. Later, staff members formally mentored and coached new teachers to help them be successful.

Planning for change

Systemic change is difficult and occurs with careful planning. To implement effective in-classroom professional development that changes instruction, improves student learning and creates an atmosphere of collegiality, the staff asked questions to align its focus, desire and ability to accomplish goals. These questions included:

* What do we want most to achieve academically for the children in our school?

* How will we create a collaborative professional development atmosphere?

* How will the adult learning be provided for in the classroom?

It was important to write a plan to keep the team on track. The team that was formed that collaborated on issues around professional development and consisted of six teachers, the literacy coach, learning director and principal. Each year the team wrote a professional development plan that focused on five key issues:

1. Where we going and what are the needs of the staff to improve instruction?

2. What steps will we take together in the first month of our adult learning plan?

3. What steps will we take next?

4. How will we ensure that we achieve our goals in the first year?

5. How will we avoid the "can-do" checklist and really implement our plans?

Visualizing change and seeing results

Making in-classroom professional development a systemic part of your school culture is hard. It means rethinking how you align focus, resources and money. It means believing in all of the hard work, reflection and discomfort that comes with being open, honest and transparent. But this effort resulted in improvement.

In the fall of 2003, Lee Richmond School exited the II/USP as monitored by the state of California. By focusing on the improvement of instruction through site-based professional development, the staff met and exceeded performance targets, as identified by the Academic Performance Index, two years in a row.

The focus on coaching and co-teaching provided the vision and support the staff needed to turn the academic program around. All of the achievement, as measured by standardized test scores, was achieved by improving instruction. The staff did not implement a test preparation program, or a scripted literacy program. Student learning improved because the staff improved instruction.

Overall, the staff continues to increase the number of students achieving in all subject areas, but our focus remains on sustaining a collaborative culture and improving instruction through in-classroom professional development.

RELATED ARTICLE:

The literacy coach spends one hundred percent of her time providing professional development services to teachers. She fosters adult learning through in-classroom modeling. She doesn't teach groups of students in order to provide intervention directly to students. She teaches groups of students and models for the teacher best practices and intervention techniques. Her goal is to teach the teacher. The focus for the literacy coach combines intent with action. The focus includes complete concentration on adult learning; using standards to guide instruction; examining student work to assess learning; setting goals with the teacher that directly relate to student learning; and modeling instruction for implementation.

The learning director's focus is also on adult learning; however, her work includes effectively implementing differentiated instruction. She makes sure that all students are succeeding in the reading and writing workshops. It doesn't matter if the child is gifted or in need of resource services, all children receive instruction tailored to their reading and writing needs. The learning director focuses on standards, examining student work and setting goals to improve student learning with the teacher, but she deepens this focus by watching the teacher instruct, and reflects with the teacher. Together, they analyze the instruction for rigor, quality and student learning. The focus questions guiding her work are: What did the children learn from this lesson? What is the evidence of student learning?

Through modeling, observing and discussion, the literacy coach and learning director help teachers reflect on instruction. Together, the team members push their thinking.

References

Akhavan, N. (2004). How to Align Instruction, Assessment, and Standards and achieve results you never dreamed of. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Calkins, L., Montgomery, K. and Santman, D. (1998). A Teacher's Guide to Standardized Reading Tests: Knowledge is power. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement. Alexandria, VA.: Assn. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C., and McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: To Enhance Professional Practice. Princeton, N.J.: ETS.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Assn. for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Nancy Akhavan, principal of Pinedale Elementary School in the Clovis USD and an author, was formerly principal of Lee Richmond Elementary School in Hanford.