Fostering collaboration in urban schools.

Abstract

True collaborative cultures are rare in urban schools, where many challenges to working together exist. This three-year case study explores intricacies involved in fostering collaboration in two urban elementary schools. We identify and emphasize the importance of contextual factors--specifically, principal leadership, established structures of special education service delivery, and school-wide collaborative vehicles. From these data, we make recommendations for building stronger collaborative communities.

Introduction

Professional collaboration is considered fundamental to major educational reform. Without professional collaboration, serious efforts to improve schools, such as efforts to include high-risk students in general education, are likely impossible (Pugach & Johnson, 2002). In special education, educators tout collaboration's importance and describe how teachers might go about collaborating (Hourcade & Banwens, 2003; Friend & Cook, 2002). Missing from this literature base is research on how collaboration might be promoted in isolated environments (c.f. Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997). Existing studies evaluate effects of collaboration by analyzing benefits incurred to teachers and students, problems teachers encountered during collaboration, or contextual factors characterizing collaborative versus isolated school cultures.

While these studies provide useful information, they do not provide insights into how schools might move from more isolated to collaborative environments. Principals and teachers need information about ways to promote and support collaboration, and this is particularly true in urban schools, where challenges associated with working in those schools make developing collaboration more difficult. Urban teachers are often overwhelmed by problems children living in extreme poverty bring to classrooms, making it harder to focus on pedagogical dilemmas that all teachers encounter (Louis, Kruse, & Associates, 1995). Instead, teachers' work in urban schools is more hurried because educators are looking for strategies to solve urgent problems immediately (Rosenholtz, 1989). Not only is daily work more challenging, but resources and organizational conditions existing in urban schools create additional barriers to collaborative attempts. Urban schools are typically located in communities that cannot provide resources similar to suburban schools (Louis, Kruse, & Associates). Moreover, urban districts are large, often engaging teachers less in policy decisions while experiencing more difficulties recruiting and retaining talented teachers than suburban counterparts (Louis, Kruse, & Associates). Given these challenges, it is little wonder administrators and teachers find it difficult to establish collaborative communities that can develop innovations to promote inclusion. In fact, conditions of urban schools and barriers they create for teachers collaborating might partially contribute to the segregated services that urban, poor children are more likely to receive (Fierros & Conroy, 2002). Struggles faced by urban schools compelled us to examine how we might work with two urban elementary schools to foster collaboration. Lessons learned and challenges faced in this process revolve around specific contextual factors present at these schools.

Study Context and Methodology

We targeted two elementary schools as part of a 3-year federally funded effort to improve collaboration in urban schools. They are located in a Southeastern city with approximately 200 elementary schools in the district. At the time of the study, Hilton Elementary had a population of 382 K-5 students with 73% minority students and 84% of students on free or fee-reduced lunch. Special education students at Hilton were served in primarily segregated settings. Hidden View Elementary had 570 pre-K-5 students with 43% minority students and 52% on free or fee-reduced lunch. Students with high-incidence disabilities at were included in general education classes. There was no formal collaboration occurring at either school, with some informal collaboration occurring at Hidden View and less at Hilton.

At each school, teachers volunteered to join the Teacher Learning Cohort (TLC) at the beginning of the school year and met monthly to discuss instruction in their classrooms. University researchers facilitated these meetings and often provided information on research-based strategies on topics of the teachers' choosing. The number of teachers participating in the groups varied yearly from 5 to 9 at Hilton and 11 to 19 at Hidden View. We used case study methodology (Yin, 1994), taking meeting notes, observing teachers informally and formally, and interviewing participating teachers and principals twice a year. We also kept researcher reflections documenting informal conversations and events during each school visit. A more detailed description of our methodology is provided elsewhere (Brownell, Yeager, Sindelar, VanHover, & Riley, in press).

Using this qualitative methodology, we were able to identify themes related to contextual factors that allowed collaboration to unfold in Hidden View, but not Hilton. Specifically, we found four contextual factors especially powerful: Principal leadership, challenges of urban schools, model of special education service delivery, and chosen vehicle for collaboration. In this paper, we describe lessons learned related to these contextual factors and how they impacted collaboration at each school.

Lesson One: Collaboration Requires Facilitative, Resourceful, and Empowering Principal Leadership

Having a vision for the school, expecting teachers to collaborate around that vision, providing resources to do so, and giving teachers power to lead collaborative efforts helped Hidden View move from a somewhat isolated but friendly culture, in which teachers tended to share ideas in particular instances, to a more collaborative one, in which collaboration was more pervasive. Hidden View had two different principal leaders during the study and both communicated expectations and provided support for collaboration. Sharon, principal during the first two years, had a vision for the school, supported teachers, encouraged them to take the lead, and secured necessary resources. "As a principal, you encourage and support collaboration by showing teachers, being an example of how to collaborate to make decisions ... you bring positive experiences to the forefront" (Sharon, May 2000).

In addition, Sharon placed effective individuals in positions of instructional leadership. "Diane is a good ambassador with the other teachers. Sometimes, it's better that this comes from a colleague, not from me as the principal. When something works, they are sharing with each other, trying it, seeing it work" (Sharon, January 2001).

Teacher response to Hidden View's principals was overwhelmingly positive throughout the study. In year two, one teacher said,

   The principal has always supported us. She has a lot of confidence
   in her teachers. She wants to keep TLC going and will do anything
   to keep us involved. She wants to do whatever we need to do to be
   more successful with the children. (Linda, May 2000)

In contrast, Hilton's principal, Jack, was reactive, lacking sufficient and sophisticated knowledge to inform and help teachers. He was unable to articulate a school vision, develop teacher leadership, or facilitate teacher collaboration:

   I probably need to be more involved around a focus issue, and
   provide the support or direction. For the first year or two, I was
   so confused about my role. I did not really know where UF was going.
   I took a hands off approach.... I guess the only thing I can say, is
   tell me what role to play. I am just a facilitator to make it happen
   for you. (Jack, May 2001)

Jack's limited ability to lead his faculty toward collaboration seemed to make teachers increasingly resentful over time. In a final interview, one teacher said, " I don't talk to Jack anymore. I did in the beginning, what we were doing, feelings about it, significance of it, how great it was. I don't think he's made any attempts to learn more ... he hasn't been supportive at all" (Sarah, May 2001).

Additionally, Jack was unable to effectively help teachers resolve conflicts among themselves or put pressure on them to come to consensus about collaboration. For instance, two fifth-grade teachers were engaged in an ongoing conflict about their instructional and management styles, with both teachers arguing in meetings and in front of children. Jack did little to mediate the conflict until it was out of hand and then sought out the researcher for help. Inadequate principal support, low expectations for collaboration, and ineffective leadership abilities created frustration among TLC teachers attempting to promote school-wide collaboration.

Lesson Two: Urbanicity and Student Accountability Create Hurdles for Collaboration

We discovered a continuum of "urbanicity" within the two schools. While the schools can both be described as urban, the context at Hilton was arguably "more urban" than Hidden View based on student demographics. Hilton had a smaller school population but a higher percentage of both poor and minority students compared to Hidden View. We believe urbanicity at Hilton impacted challenges staff faced in creating and implementing a definition of collaboration. At Hilton, daily work was hurried and focused on the short-term, with crises continually occurring.

   What a day! The substitute went into insulin shock. A special
   education teacher did not show up for work ... The teacher's aide
   called to know who would cover the class while she was at lunch.
   Additionally, a teacher broke a child's wheelchair and did not tell
   Jack. Jack told me he had five discipline referrals in his box that
   he was never able to attend to. (researcher notes, February 1999)

Constant necessity to solve today's immediate problem, rather than focus on collegial relations and pedagogical issues, contributed to teacher burnout and low community spirit as well as hindered efforts to build collaboration at Hilton.

Teacher turnover also added to the challenges Hilton faced. Not only did Hilton have high turnover school-wide (approximately 39% over 3 years), but also within the TLC (losing 5 out of 9 teachers in 3 years). One talented teacher left Hilton in the second year of our study because she viewed the school as non-collaborative, which was an important workplace criterion for her. The teachers involved in collaborative efforts were dwindling, which impacted efforts at school-wide collaboration. In contrast, at Hidden View, teacher turnover was virtually non-existent (approximately 4% over 3 years) and, TLC membership grew (increasing from 11 to 19 teachers in 3 years).

Along with level of urbanicity, district/state accountability demands reduced faculty morale. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) was used to determine schools' grades by a state-determined formula. Despite rising FCAT scores at both schools, the school grades were low, with Hilton at a D and Hidden View at a C. The challenges Hilton teachers faced in working with students, and their continual, unsuccessful attempts to improve their school grade demoralized TLC teachers at Hilton and made collaboration difficult. In comparison, at Hidden View teachers faced fewer challenges and were able to improve student learning, as Hidden View raised their grade to an A after researchers completed the study, while Hilton remained at a D.

Lesson Three: Collaboration is an Expectation at Schools Where Special Education Students are Included

A school-wide commitment to all children and shared responsibility for meeting their needs was important in influencing the extent of collaboration at Hidden View. Viewing children as more than just learners and opening up opportunities for them is the premise of a learning community (Ryan, 1999), and Hidden View was making progress toward developing that type of community. Because Hidden fully included students with mild disabilities, there was an expectation that collaboration was necessary. The special education teacher collaborated with general education teachers in co-teaching or consultative arrangements throughout the day. Exceptional students were included in every class at Hidden View and expected to achieve alongside non-disabled peers. No such expectation existed at Hilton, where special and general education teachers did not need to collaborate because of the isolated settings and the lack of shared responsibility for students. In fact, many teachers, and even the principal, persisted in their beliefs about the limited potential for students with disabilities. At a faculty meeting,

   Jack said the teachers should appreciate the luxury of
   self-contained classrooms, and be happy that not many parents are
   aware of the law promoting more kids in the mainstream. He said
   these crackerjack parents say that they want their children to be in
   the regular classroom with everyone else ... He said here at Hilton
   we should be happy this is not the case. (researcher notes, March
   2000)

While an inclusive environment does not ensure collaboration, it does set up expectations that some collaboration is necessary. With a non-inclusive environment, there is no such expectation.

Lesson Four: School-wide and Systematic Collaborative Vehicles Lead to More Genuine Collaboration

Besides the formal TLC vehicle for collaboration, some informal collaboration was also occurring, with much principal support at Hidden View and less at Hilton. In addition, during the third and final year of our study, district pressure required principals to adopt a recommended school reform. Hilton's principal chose a scripted Direct Instruction (DI) program to be implemented in primary grades and provided necessary resources and incentives. Support for TLC was gone, dividing the school. "There are no supports--not anymore. It's again, individual initiative. That's the only thing that will sustain TLC and keep it going ... As long as primary is DI, they will receive support ... we lost any principal support to DI." (Sarah, May 2001) In contrast, Hidden View adopted America's Choice (AC), a standards-based initiative in which schools restructure one subject at a time; Hidden View's teachers realized that school-wide efforts were required to make AC successful at their school. In addition, one very talented TLC teacher was selected to have the AC Model Classroom, and she became instrumental in helping other teachers implement AC and change their instruction. Diane said, "Collaboration will get better and better--AC will move that along. We have a reason to talk to each other. We had been doing our own thing, but now our world is bigger" (Diane, May 2001).

Discussion

Collaboration is difficult work, and as these data highlight, confounded by contextual factors that make it even more so. However, if schools are to evolve into places where teachers collaborate to improve the education of all children, the impact of these contextual factors must be recognized. Lessons we present from our three-year case study of two urban schools elucidate how various contextual factors interact to promote collaboration, and how the struggles associated with urban schools make steps toward collaboration more difficult. In our study, both schools struggled to develop more collaborative environments; however, the TLC blossomed into a more comprehensive school-wide effort at Hidden View than Hilton. As such, we support Hargreaves' (1994) contention that schools can use contrived collaborative vehicles to foster more teacher-driven, schoolwide attempts at collaboration as long as certain contextual factors are in place. Given previous research on the role of leadership in collaboration (DuFour, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1989), we were not surprised to learn that principals who expected their faculty to collaborate and empowered them to do so were more successful at achieving school-wide collaboration.

Moreover, our experience at Hilton emphasizes just how difficult it is to establish professional collaboration in our most urban schools (Louis, Kruse, & Associates, 1995). Similar to other schools with a higher level of urbanicity, frequent teacher turnover, fewer quality teachers, and challenging student needs made it difficult for the principal and teachers at Hilton to create a cohesive professional community where collaboration could emerge. Moreover, the pressure to respond to student accountability demands made it more difficult for teachers to focus their efforts on one aspect of teaching or learning, particularly when they believed that slowing down to learn and implement a strategy might hamper their ability to cover the material for the state test.

Hidden View Elementary experienced more successful attempts at collaboration; however, this disparity between the two schools helps to demonstrate that urban schools can become more collaborative communities given the right conditions. Yet, urban schools may need considerable support to do so. States and districts need to consider incentives for attracting leaders committed to collaboration between educators, or at least develop better ways of mentoring current leadership in these schools. Additionally, states and districts should put together policies and incentives that enable urban schools to engage in carefully designed school-wide reform efforts that focus on the inclusion of students with disabilities, as doing so will encourage more professional interaction between special and general education teachers and increase potential for developing genuine collaboration. Within school-wide efforts, building leaders and teachers should consider ways by which to establish mechanisms for collaborating, such as peer study groups or co-teaching, and then develop the ongoing support for those engaged in such mechanisms. These contrived vehicles for collaboration provide a space for sharing, learning, improving skills and expertise, and implementing new teaching approaches, whereby providing opportunities for teachers to move toward more genuine collaboration (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997).

While some of the contextual factors we have identified are immutable, knowing more about the impact of these factors is important because they help states and districts understand how they must target their policies and incentives if they want to achieve stronger professional communities in schools. Since teachers work in isolation in many schools, the challenge is to find the right policies and incentives that can help build administrative and teacher leadership necessary to work through contextual barriers to collaboration.

Note: The names of the teachers and schools were changed to protect their identities.

References

Brownell, M.T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M.S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers working together: What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(4), 340-359.

Brownell, M.T., Yeager, E. A., Sindelar, P.T., VanHover, S., & Riley, T. F. (in press). Teacher learning cohorts: A vehicle for supporting beginning teachers.

DuFour, R. (2001). In the right context. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 14-17.

Fierros, E., & Conroy, J. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and race in special education (pp.39-70). In D. Losen, & G. Orfield (eds.) Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (3rd ed.) NY: Longman.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hourcade, J.J., & Bauwens, J. (2003). Cooperative teaching: Rebuilding and sharing the schoolhouse (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed., Inc.

Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D., & Associates (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Pugach, M.C., & Johnson, L.J. (2002). Collaborative practitioners, collaborative schools, (2nd Ed). Denver: Love.

Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. NY: Longman.

Ryan, S.P. (1999). Examining the impact of collaborative structures on teachers' work: Contexts, characteristics, consequences, and complications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dimple Malik, University of Florida Mary Brownell, University of Florida Alyson Adams, Lastinger Center for Learning, FL

Malik is doctoral student. Dr. Brownell is associate professor. Adams is program coordinator at Lastinger Center for Learning.