Susan Scott (Fierce Inc. and contributing columnist to Learning Forward) says that “honest
conversations are the cornerstone to building a culture of excellence” (JSD,
December 2013). She believes that the most powerful practice to transform
schools comes from ongoing conversations, the dialogue that either makes or
breaks what happens in schools.
As an instructional coach, honest and open communication and
ongoing conversations are what makes the difference between heavy and light
coaching. Of course, a coach is a resource provider and often provides
articles, templates, reports, and other useful items to teachers who do not
have the time to peruse google or other search engines to find the latest in research
or current trends to inform practice. This, however, is not coaching if there
is no follow up about using those resources. The issue is not only about which
resources to use; it’s about how to transform the written word into action and
then discuss how that action influences learning.
“Shoulder-to-shoulder” support makes a difference when there
is conversation about the practice. That’s one of the shortcomings of consultant
driven support that occurs at the introduction of the resource and not again
until the resource has been used for a period of time. I don’t think it’s a very
effective model to provide all the bells and whistles of wonderful resources
with no one onsite to help plan how to use the resources, or to work together
at the time the resources are used, or to reflect after they are used to
determine how useful the resources were to help the teachers reach a specific
learning goal with their students. In fact, offering this kind of support without training or
sustained conversation is what Dennis Sparks calls, “educational malpractice.”
(That’s why so many beautiful PowerPoint slide presentations stay hidden and
unused; without talking about the context, the materials are useless.)
Talking about one’s practice makes a difference. It’s like
the dress rehearsal before the grand opening. It makes such good sense for
teachers to talk to each other about what they want to teach, how they want to
teach “it,” how they will know if the desired outcomes are reached, and what to
do in the event that the instructional goals are not met. These kinds of
conversations must occur in deliberate and intentional ways. That being said, I
think the conversations can occur through a blended approach… they must be
face-to-face and may have an electronic component as well, e.g., virtual or
written conversations. I am not convinced that the conversations can be
effective via electronic communication alone although I do recognize the
constraints of time and location.
If we want to make a difference in the way students learn
and help them become lifelong learners, we need to ensure that every student is
taught by a highly qualified teacher. That’s not just through a teacher earning
a degree from a college or university. It’s through offering the teacher the
ongoing support needed to ensure that every student benefits when teachers talk
to each other, learn together, and regularly engage in collaborative practices.
We need to offer teachers the opportunities to nourish their own professional
growth through talking with other practitioners, seeing how they practice, and
collectively problem solving about things that impact student growth.
It sounds like such a common sense approach to encourage
teachers to talk to one another about effective instructional practices and how
to help each other reach their full potential so they can help their students
reach their fullest potential. But, then again, common sense is not so common,
is it?
This post addresses a cornerstone of the PIIC model, pointing out the importance of encouraging open, thoughtful dialogue between teachers as a way of improving practice. Our BDA model is built around this idea. The emphasis it places on follow up is critical.
ReplyDeleteThe key component is to convince administrators that they can find and dedicate the time to for any new PD or collaborative efforts rather than simply implementing programs based on funds received and a rush to spend them.
ReplyDeleteThe key to success is to convince administrators that they can find the time and the organizational structure to ensure training takes place prior to the implementation of any programs, etc. The 'American way' seems to dictate that when funding comes avaialble they money must be immediately used rather than creating a development team, provide training, and roll out a successful program.
ReplyDelete