Lessons learned: leading collaborative reform.

Abstract

This article describes the evolution of the professional cultures of two urban high schools as collaborative reforms are undertaken. Both schools experience remarkable similarities in the challenges faced and the ultimate paths to effective implementation. Characteristics of successful leadership practices are identified, as well as administrative tensions brought on by the changes in the professional leadership culture at the schools.

Introduction

This article describes how the teaching and learning climate in two urban high schools evolved from relative hopelessness to ones of hopefulness, through reforms that foster collaborative relationships among faculty, students and administrators. These dynamic changes were observed by the author who served as an external consultant at each school during the past three to four years. The schools are located in the urban centers of neighboring mid-west cities. Faced with the increasing demands of the national "No Child Left Behind" legislation, each high school has sought to break out of the all-too-well-known pattern of urban school malaise through the implementation federally-funded reform projects designed to create "small learning communities" for teaching and learning. Though the administrators in charge of leading the reform at the schools were not acquainted with each other at the time, the pathways taken and successes achieved share remarkable similarities. This article reports the common experiences shared by the schools as they changed from organizations characterized by isolated professional practice, hierarchical relationships, and authoritarian decision making, into schools where collaborative practice and shared leadership flourish.

Contemporary High School Reforms

Many of the reforms currently advocated for secondary schools--smaller learning communities, small schools, team teaching--are based on a set of theories that propose the organization of teachers (and students) into more intimate and responsive educational environments will "help build more collegial and collaborative communities of practice" (Supovitz, 2002). These organizational structures seek to have teachers work together to address student needs and develop shared responsibility for student learning. Jolly, author of A Facilitator's Guide To Professional Learning Teams, explains that research has found teachers' attitudes and abilities are shaped and reinforced ..." not through traditional models of staff development, but in the contexts in which they work and learn, including the communities formed by their relationships with other professionals" (2005). Trying out new strategies, receiving and giving feedback, and reflecting and planning together with other teachers promotes the development of a professional learning community.

Common Challenges of Urban High Schools

Though the first priority at each school was to create smaller communities for students in order to enhance learning, experience shows that it is necessary to first create professional learning communities in which teachers are empowered to collectively reflect and act on student learning and changes in practice (DuFour and Eaker, 1998). However, key elements necessary to develop such communities--supportive and shared leadership, as well as shared values, vision, and practice--are not easily introduced into schools locked in a long history of "how things are done here": "Steeped in tradition and dependent on practices that have long outlived their usefulness, high schools are in dire need of reform ... Although the problems confronting high schools do show up in affluent suburbs and rural areas, these problems most acutely affect high-poverty urban neighborhoods" (Noguera, 2005). As Noguera further explains (and as was certainly true in our situations), many such high schools have high absenteeism and drop out rates, low teacher morale and student achievement, and an inability to attract and retain strong principals.

Tipping Point 

School administrators in each district pointed with pride to the high schools' near-century-long participation in the region's school accreditation system. However, it was clear the use of these "school improvement" protocols had not been sufficient to engage the staff in the authentic and powerful ways needed to reverse decades of decline. Perhaps it is not surprising that the precipitating events that ultimately led to the whole school reform at both schools came rather inauspiciously. In both cases, grants solicited by district without prior involvement (or even communication) with building staff were "dumped" on the schools. School administrators and faculty were notified that they were expected to completely reform their schools into "wall to wall small learning communities" within the following three years. A classic recipe for disaster! And in fact, the ball was bobbled at both buildings, as building administrators struggled to respond to the unanticipated challenge. It was clear these schools initially did not have the organizational capacity to respond to an outside demand that they change dramatically. In each case, a year or more was wasted until a leader with the requisite organizational and relational skills "emerged". The evolution of leadership was a dramatic process, as head building administrators at both schools came under the pressure of growing public scrutiny and faculty outrage over the mismanaged grants. Ultimately, each school turned to trusted assistant principals to assume leadership of their reform projects.

Interestingly, the assistant principals who were tapped to become leaders of both schools' reform projects were not in roles traditionally associated with being "in charge" of whole-school reforms. Instead, they were employed in roles of instructional and curricular support (one administrator was the Dean of Students; the other was Assistant Principal of Curriculum and Instruction). It is likely that the professional skills, knowledge, and experience of these administrators were key to their ultimate success. Both of these persons had a deep knowledge of curriculum and professional development, and successful experiences working with faculty in more peer-oriented, collegial, rather than authoritarian or hierarchical, relationships. In addition, they also had strong knowledge of and experience in planning and organizing system processes and marshalling resources. Ironically though, it is possible that the depth to which morale at each school had sunk provided the most important factor in the initial success of their change efforts. The new project leaders at each site reported that their "staffs were hurting" and felt "they had nothing to lose". Whatever the reason, once these administrators came forward to lead the reform initiative, each found they had little difficulty recruiting teachers who were key building opinion leaders to voluntarily participate in groups charged to research and develop a vision and direction for their respective schools.

Building and Supporting a Collaborative Teacher Leadership Team

It was in these first leadership groups that the development of professional learning communities initially began. It seems likely that this development was due in large part to the emergence of a common pattern of leadership and engagement at the two schools. Both of the new leaders gave participating teachers "authentic" authority and responsibility for the work undertaken: neither project director had a pre-determined outcome; each genuinely empowered the teachers on their leadership teams with the responsibility to identify the innovations they found to be best for their students. The project administrators set the parameters for quality decisions by providing information on all known restrictions and/or pre-existing conditions that needed to be addressed by their teacher leadership teams. Research on school reform indicates that such collaborative decision making and shared governance is most effective in the implementation and sustaining of reforms (Corallo and McDonald, 2002; Cotton, 2003). Moreover, the creation of structures and processes to distribute leadership across an organization can help mitigate the problem of frequent administrative and staff turnover that often plagues high-risk schools (Lambert, 2003).

Personal characteristics of each leader contributed greatly to the success of their efforts. Both project directors had strong inter-personal skills which helped them to build trust with their lead teachers. Some of the relational traits exhibited by the directors in common included sharing information openly, answering questions with "unflinching" honesty; modeling transparent reasoning and problem solving processes, and providing thoughtful consideration of issues brought forth by staff members.

Another highly important factor in the effectiveness of these administrators was in their skillful use of time. The creative use of time is vital to provide adequate time for teacher collaboration (Meyer, 2001; Donahoe, 1993). The project directors were able to find every available moment for meeting, and to squeeze every possible minute of time for professional learning. Staff meetings, departmental meetings were utilized for teacher planning and collaboration, in addition to contracted building professional development hours. In addition, the project leaders supported their teacher leaders, by ensuring them the time and resources to necessary to do work. Not only were teachers provided with ample time to meet (or travel to offsite learning opportunities) during the school day, their time outside the school day was validated by professional development credit, flex-time, and/or contracted stipends. Because teacher planning time is covered by the contract, project directors worked with district and union leaders to provide common planning time for teacher teams. In both districts, letters of agreement between the district and union to establish protected common planning time were approved.

Once time has been found for collaboration, it is important that it not be wasted or usurped (Hargreaves, 1992). Both project administrators were proficient at organizing the work and keeping it moving, by the development of agenda items, identification of "next steps", timely acquisition/provision of resources, establishment of timelines and schedules, and effective communication with project stakeholders. All these behaviors created the space and the environment for the teachers to research, plan, brainstorm, and grow as professionals.

With Successful Change Come New Challenges

During the last two years that l have worked with these schools I have observed significant changes among the staff Teachers on the leadership teams at both schools have become transformed in many ways. As they increasingly became the leaders and communicators of the reform vision, their organizational roles began to shift and evolve. Leadership team members have assumed the responsibility to lead colleagues in the development of multiple professional learning communities in order to support the schools' move toward "wall to wall small learning communities" for their students. They have also assumed responsibility as instructional leaders, championing, modeling, and organizing research on and adoption of instructional changes for their respective small learning communities. The changes in roles, relationships, and responsibilities among teachers, and the implementation of teacher-driven recommendations appear to have directly and positively impacted the professional culture at each high school, as indicated by recent staff surveys.

However, issues of autonomy and control between the schools and district administrators have begun to crop up as the staffs at the two schools have become increasingly empowered in seeking reforms that restructure professional roles and/or responsibilities, and academic requirements and design. Schools' requests to implement substantive changes in student academic programs and requirements understandably have triggered district and school board scrutiny, and have necessitated the initiation of new collaborative work groups among expanded stakeholder groups. Regrettably in a number of instances, though the districts originally sought the reform grant for their high school, district administrators have balked at changes innate to the reform design and intent. In one of the district, the local teachers' union became foe against the establishment of an increased pay schedule for teachers assuming the extra duties of leadership roles.

These sort of issues pose significant challenges for the success and sustainability of reforms. In order to address these problems, project leaders at both schools have found it necessary to devote additional time for the development of positive and supportive communications and work relationships between district curriculum coordinators and supervisors, and the building administrators and teacher leaders.

Lessons Learned

These two projects illustrate the impact of reforms based on teacher empowerment, collaboration and shared governance. As part of the annual grant reporting requirements, I interviewed the project administrators at each school and asked them what lessons they had to share about their efforts. Administrator "A" speaks first:

   Teachers are as interested in positive change for their students as
   are other school policy makers and stakeholders. It's important for
   administrators to support teachers' access to quality research on
   best practices, and facilitate the appropriate use of detailed data
   on their school, students, town, necessary to guide innovation and
   evaluate progress. As teachers become the drivers for the
   change--become the core dreamers-professional learning time becomes
   an opportunity to articulate, design, and plan the realization of
   their professional dreams and goals. (Personal conversation, March
   29, 2006).

Administrator "B" has slightly different but still strongly teacher-centered recommendations for leading collaborative reform:

   Here are my recommendations on how to support the development of a
   professional learning team: Transparent decision making,
   collegiality, and collaboration. It's also important to identify
   and articulate clear standards and goals. Give strong support to
   teachers who lead; use consistent and approved practices for working
   with less enthusiastic staff. In other words, don't ignore
   noncompliance; but never maintain less than a professional
   relationship. And, don't put staff into untenable positions; don't
   ask them to do something that they don't have the resources or
   authority to accomplish. (Personal conversation, April 1, 2006).

Conclusion

Observation and identification of the factors that led to the successful and effective adoption of collaborative reforms at both schools indicates that today's administrators require a different set of leadership skills from those traditionally sought in urban high school leaders. The new version of high school reform--the creation of professional learning communities--demands they be instructional leaders, skilled in building relationships and driven to accomplish meaningful goals with their staff (Fiore, 2003). When administrators share power and leadership, they do not give up their stewardship to have decisions or efforts meet standards of quality, nor their responsibility for facilitating the organization and pace of the work shared. But, in order for a learning community to be created, it is imperative that administrators work with teachers in an authentic and collaborative manner, and empower them to be accountable for the identification and accomplishment of valued goals.

Yet once this dynamic is successfully established, it is not unusual for traditions, policies, roles, and power relationships to be questioned. Schools, districts, and communities need to be prepared that the redesign of learning environments to match how we want to learn and work in the 21st century will necessitate that many things comfortable to those traditionally in control will be challenged. The project administrators at the two schools found it necessary to negotiate their power, role and authority with the lead building and central office administrators, in order to lead the reform project in their buildings. To a degree these negotiations have never been settled, particularly with the central office, which in both districts has sought to preserve hierarchical authority relationships.

Conversations with the two administrators of these projects also indicate their feelings of the tenuousness, or conditionality, of the learning dynamic. They both report that their teachers have limited tolerance for obstruction or having their recommendations or efforts disregarded by authorities. In an important way, the continuing success of the learning/growing dynamic in both buildings seems to be delicately balanced between the conditionality of teacher participation and the amount of true authority granted to the building and staff by higher administration. However, this balance is maintained by the support of time, resources, facilitation--and stewardship for the vision and quality of reforms--that these two administrators continue provide. Therefore, in order for the power of collaborative reforms to be fully realized, it is imperative that all stakeholders--central office administrators, school boards, building principals and teachers--be prepared to accept the emergence of new forms of authority relations and structures needed to support these reforms.

References

Corallo, C., & McDonald, D.H. (2002). What works with low-performing schools: A review of research. Charleston, WV; Retrieved August 14, 2006, from www.ael.org/ snaps/WhatWorks%2Epdf

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Donahoe, T. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298-305.

DuFour, R., and Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Fiore, D. (2003). Introduction to Educational Administration. Eye on Education.

Hargreaves, A. (1992). Time and teachers' work: An analysis of the intensification thesis. Teachers College Record, 94(1), 87-108.

Jolly, A. (2005). A facilitator's guide to professional learning teams,: Creating on-the-job opportunities for teachers to learn and grow. Greensboro, NC: SERVE. Retrieved August 6, 2006, from www.werve.org/_downloads/publications/PLTbook.pdf.

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Meyer, G. (2001). On point ... on time and how to get more of it. Denver, CO: National Institute for Urban School Improvement. Retrieved August 6, 2006, from www.urbanschools.org/pdf/OPTime.pdf.

Noguera, P. (2005). Transforming high schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Supovitz, (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice" Teachers' College Press, retrieved 3/24/2006 from www.tcrecord.org

Nancy Mansberger, Ed. D., is an assistant professor in the College of Education and a consultant with the Midwest Educational Research Consortium at Western Michigan University.