I want to make sure you are going to be nice to me," she says, laughing and tossing chocolates at the participants seated around the table. Is this a student currying favor with a marking committee? No, it's a member of a group of Annenberg Principals, gathered together by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform to improve their practice and make their schools more effective for kids.
The principal's peers will give her feedback on a piece of student work from her school. She is anxious because she has taken a risk by bringing work that is not exemplary, but is real, unadorned. The purpose of our conversation, which I am facilitating, is not to compare the work with that done in other schools. We are specifically interested in seeing what we can learn by the act of looking at this work—what we can learn about our own schools, about teachers, and about children. As it turns out, we learn a lot. How we look at children's work reveals how we regard the possibilities for all children's learning and how we value differences among them.
Only a few years ago, professional development for principals consisted mostly of "chalk and talk." "Experts" presented and principals reacted. But principals have recently begun to gather for peer conversations much like those that are changing the nature of professional development for teachers—teachers who believe they can learn more by pushing one another than by being led by others. These professional communities are not "chat groups"; they use structured protocols to look at their own work and at student work, and they push participants to improve practice. The protocols demand behavior that is not always natural for educators—such as limited talk-time for each member. Principal study groups serve many purposes, and their appeal is evident by their proliferation in a variety of settings.
As principals discover the power of discussing practice together, the implications are exciting and instructive. For example, when principals look at curriculum and give feedback on its strengths and gaps, not only does the initiating principal get information, but the entire group raises its consciousness about curriculum and the leader's role in designing schools where meaningful student work can be the norm and not the exception.
Keys to Success
- They are small (6 to 15 members), with either designated peer or "outside" facilitators.
- The facilitator is responsible for convening the group, setting an agenda with the group, and keeping members on task.
- Participants come together to build knowledge by looking at their own work, student work, and research.
- Structured protocols build in time for presenting work, for listening (without responding), for giving and getting feedback, and for debriefing the process.
- Participants focus on learning how to deepen their understanding by being more descriptive and less judgmental.
These groups share several beliefs. First, members each bring wisdom and knowledge to the table, and their task is to build on that. Second, they learn more by reflecting on their own learning than by concentrating on getting others to change their ideas. Third, they work on building genuine trust and respect, and therefore commit to long-term participation. Finally, they recognize the need for strong leadership to make sure that all voices are heard; genuine democracy is not a free-for-all.
Early Lessons
- Good leaders learn to take time for their own learning. ("I know I should reflect more and react less, but you just can't stop the day-to-day crises that come up. I don't have time to read, think, reflect, and talk.") Many principals are initially reluctant to leave their "work" in schools to get together to learn. They feel it's a luxury and perhaps even "selfish" to, as Roland Barth (1997) puts it, "snatch bread from the mouths of babies in order to vest precious time and resources on [themselves]." Yet leaders are learning that focusing on their own work is critical to helping others with theirs. Today's principal recognizes the need to learn more about understanding problems rather than immediately "solving" them (Apodaca 1996) and knows that it takes regular reflection and learning with colleagues to get better at doing this. Also, good leaders need to take the longer view if they want their schools to do the same. Beginning school leaders in particular need such reflection, but, caught up in the compelling day-to-day work of schooling, they may take longer to appreciate its power. The habit of reflection, therefore, must be purposively taught and learned.
- Principals need peer groups. ("You're awake at 3 a.m., too? Why didn't anyone tell me this job was so lonely? I need to talk with someone who understands what this work demands. I need someplace to vent.") Principals are sometimes reluctant to meet with other principals because it may seem less "democratic" than spending time with students, teachers, and parents. Some principals seem to have internalized an anti-elitist sentiment that denies the role and importance of leadership or dilutes it to an assumption that says: We are all leaders and therefore there is no special need for a separate group for principals. Yet, the principal's job is unique, and principals need a peer group that understands, supports, and pushes them (Fullan 1993). Sometimes groups benefit from even further delineation. A group of new principals in Manhattan, for example, meets regularly in a program put together by their superintendent and Bank Street College. Although the common wisdom suggests that mixed groups enable newer folks to learn from experienced colleagues, this group is proving to be an invaluable way to provide professional development for novice leaders with particular needs whose voices might not be heard in a gathering that includes veterans.
- Learning communities push beyond workshops. ("This was a wonderful workshop. I'm looking forward to coming again next year.") Having facilitated many a workshop, I've often asked myself, How do we know whether the study groups affect practice at the schools? How can we build on what has been learned if our participants are different every time? However, when leaders meet regularly and reinforce the changes in their thinking by using evidence from their practice, the possibility of real change increases. The ATLAS Communities—groups of schools across the United States that combine the teachings of James Comer, Howard Gardner, and Ted Sizer—use study groups for teachers and are now beginning to see how principals can also benefit from participation in regular, sustained communities.
- Learning communities develop accountability. ("What do 'they' expect us to do about this latest initiative? I can't do what I'm supposed to do now. If they had my union leader/custodian/staff, they would understand. I'll do my usual job of creative compliance.") Networks of principals create an accountability mechanism that may be more powerful than any top-down model. A sense of responsibility to learn with a group that expects you to be serious, self-reflective, nondefensive, and candid changes the usual principal conversation about accountability. Increasing principals' sense of responsibility does not mean asking them to work harder, but asking them to reflect regularly on how to make their work count.
- Learning communities require structure and leadership. ("We don't need a leader to follow a protocol. We'll just get together and talk. We're democratic; we're all leaders.") Principals who feel they don't need structures for conversations are often principals who talk too much and need structures the most. Protocols insist that we take turns, listen to each other, curb our defensiveness, and focus on the question at hand. They show us democracy in action and ensure equal participation. The inclusion of all voices (especially those heard less often) also requires strong leadership. In New York City, members of high school principal peer groups report that the skill of the facilitators can be critical to a group's success. Thus the principals are becoming increasingly aware of the need for developing facilitation skills.
- Principals have to participate in learning if they want their staffs to do the same. ("Now you all are going to have a workshop. I'll be busy in my office if anyone wants me.") Principals must be the leaders of learning in their schools. Principals who want teachers to be in study groups can encourage the process in several ways, but they probably can't teach others how to be learners if they do not acknowledge their own need for ongoing learning. And they probably need to be in both like and unlike groups. Certainly principals need to hear the viewpoints of teachers, parents, and students; but sometimes they need to hear other principals to deepen their understanding of leadership.
- Focusing on actual work teaches us how to derive theory from practice. ("Let's talk about time management or testing. I don't have time to look at student work—teachers do that. I have more urgent things to do.") One way to get beyond the day-to-day "stuff" that consumes us is by looking at theory—reading articles and books together. But good theory is not invented; it comes from observing and documenting practice. Teachers and principals are practitioners, and by considering their own work they can construct their own working theories. Often principals have difficulty recognizing the importance of looking at student work together; it can appear to be far removed from their own daily work—which is terribly compelling. But once they do look at student work, they see why it's important.
In the case of the principal mentioned at the start of this article, we looked at the work she had brought using a protocol that asked participants to discuss her question: What would you want to see this teacher do next? The ensuing conversation described the problem as the various participants saw it. And suggestions (in the form of "what ifs") came only at the end: What if you had more forums for looking at student work with community members? What if you had a way to address spelling problems with students before their work becomes public? The participants began to see that they were constructing the need for bringing multiple perspectives to the table to extend the learning process into the community. Reading an article on the value of multiple perspectives probably would not have had the same effect.
Lessons About Learning and Feedback
- "I learn better when I am with people I like." How often do we tell students, "You can't be in a group with your friends"? Yet that's exactly what we want (need) for ourselves.
- "I need an agenda that is flexible and that responds to my input." How often do we tell students, "There are 34 people in this class; I can't do something just because you want it"?
- "I like to get to know people better, and I like to work in different ways. And I don't like my time wasted."
Designing activities that allow us to both develop shared contexts and learn about and through different perspectives must be an organic part of the work at hand. Learning how to construct knowledge together is the heart of the matter. Learning how to hear different points of view includes hearing outside voices and theoretical frameworks; it is not just about valuing our own opinions. And students and teachers, as well as principals, don't like to feel they are doing things that are not valuable.
Learning communities also teach us the value of giving and receiving meaningful feedback. Commenting on principals' reticence about classroom visits, Seymour Sarason (1996) says,One quickly learns that telling a teacher what is wrong and insisting upon a change is a far from effective means for changing attitudes and practices. The power to legislate change is no guarantee that the change will occur (p. 149).Principals need to learn how to give feedback. By participating in the process themselves, they begin to understand what well-delivered feedback feels like, and they learn how to give it. Giving harsh feedback is not helpful, giving no feedback is wrong, and giving only positive feedback is dishonest. Feedback that is more descriptive and less evaluative is the goal.
We practice this in our learning communities. The Annenberg principal offering chocolates to her colleagues was nervous about being judged. Afterward, she said she felt helped rather than judged; we had collaborated rather than "clobbered" her, and she felt she could do the same with teachers in her school. By insisting on fully describing and understanding the problem, participants shift from the predilection for leaping to solutions to first considering the problem's complexity and depth—leading, of course, to superior advice or solutions. And the recipient's sense of being understood leads to the ability to really hear the feedback.
When a group of ATLAS principals looked at student work together, one observation noted "how intensely the group [was] engaged" in the process. Reviewing student work (and teacher work and principal work) is authentic grown-up work. And it is not the only work of study groups. There are analyses of critical incidents, reading of difficult texts, and group consultations as well. Authentic work demands that we take it seriously. And when we do this together we don't feel we are indulging ourselves; we know that we are pushing ourselves, challenging ourselves, extending ourselves.
These activities suggest the exciting prospect of creating more effective learning communities for kids. Imagine if kids had groups in which they felt comfortable and connected, and in which they looked at their work, giving and getting feedback with teachers, parents, and authentic guests ("critical friends") who could provide legitimacy to their work and to its assessment. Imagine if they felt they would have a fair share of "air-time." Imagine if their contributions were genuinely valued. Imagine if they learned from one another, not just the teacher. Imagine if they felt accountable to the group, not because their grade depended on it, but because they had developed a network that fostered responsibility and taught the value of interdependence rather than independence. Imagine.
