Planning, Implementing, and Mentoring for Successful Co-Teaching

As a service delivery option, co-teaching utilizes a general education teacher and a special education teacher through shared instructional responsibility and accountability for a diverse group of students, including some with disabilities.  The goal of co-teaching is improved outcomes, reduced gap in achievement gap, and optimized success for ALL students. Co-teaching is premised on each educator bringing clearly identified and different types of expertise to the classroom, thereby blending their skills to create a classroom that is instructionally appropriate for each student whereby specially designed instruction is integrated into implementation of the general education curriculum. 

However, even when professionals are committed to co-teaching and prepared to implement it, barriers often arise related to the logistics of implementation as a sustainable service delivery option. The most frequently mentioned concern pertains to scheduling. This includes scheduling students into co-taught sections, populating co- taught sections with other students, assigning special educators and general educators to co-taught classes, and arranging for common planning time (Friend & Barron, 2014). 

In relation to planning and scheduling for effective co-teaching, Friend & Barron (2014) suggest a few universal principles must be heeded. When foundational concepts are either not understood or inappropriately reflected in district and school policies and practices, then scheduling for effective inclusive practices will suffer.  Specifically, stakeholders need to accept that co-teaching is not a cure-all.  Co-teaching should not be the only type of special education service offered within a school. Realistically, some students with disabilities benefit greatly from supplemental instruction in a separate setting while others might need extensive services in separate classes. 

Not all students with disabilities within general education classes need co-teaching as a service delivery model. Depending on needs based on the content area than a diagnostic label, some students with disabilities might succeed in general education without co-teaching. A student with disabilities should be assigned to classes accordingly to his or her present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), assessed needs, and IEP goals.  These diverse areas should form the basis for determining a student’s service delivery and schedule. 

Therefore, while some students with disabilities should have co-teaching on their IEPs for an entire class period or subject area, other students may need only partial support. Not all secondary students need co-teaching in all core academic areas.  Neither should elementary students with disabilities have co-teaching prescribed all-day as a matter of course. By being fully aware of the students’ needs and appropriate service options, stakeholders can then determine the most effective amount of co-teaching.

While grouping students with disabilities in co-taught classes is usually required to make service delivery feasible, when many students with disabilities are grouped into a single class then curriculum momentum can be compromised. Recommended proportions range from 20-40 percent of a class being comprised of students with disabilities. Of course, natural proportions are closer to 20 percent.  However, any model should be based on the assumption that the remainder of the students within the class exhibit a range of abilities and needs. Crucially, no classroom should be comprised of only struggling students (Friend & Barron, 2014).  

Co-teaching requires three components: co-planning, co-instructing, and co-assessing (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). Without all three, co-teaching as an effective service model is not occurring. Given teachers and administrators often question what constitutes a shared lesson an observational checklist may be beneficial. Is it sufficient for teachers to agree on a lesson one teacher has already taught before? Can teachers agree to take care of “their own” students, provided diverse students are in the same class- room? The following clarifies what is required of each of the three components to ensure that teachers and observers know how to optimize effectiveness in a co-taught inclusive classroom: 

Without sufficient co-planning, at best teachers are working together in a parallel or reactive manner. exemplify a special educator entering the classroom and asking, “So, what are we doing today?” When special educators are not expected to be content experts, they are placed at a disadvantage, and too often spend the class time catching up, figuring out the instruction, and later remediating when students are not able to access the instruction as originally presented. Another situation has the general and special educator taking a typical lesson plan and determining which teacher will do which part. This can often result in both teachers’ simply splitting up a lesson and delivering it exactly as the general educator would have if working solo, thereby resulting in the question, “What is special about special education?” (Murawski and Lochner, 2010).

The purpose of co-planning is for the special educator to have proactive input into the instructional process. By using his or her expertise in differentiation, accommodations, positive behavior support, and pedagogy, a lesson can be created that will enable more of the students to access and learn the curriculum the first time it is presented (Murawski, 2015). Students with disabilities can be more successful with the general education curriculum when their specific areas of need are proactively addressed by both teachers (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). 

As the in-classroom element of co-teaching, effective co-instruction is possible when two teachers with varying areas of expertise collaborate to provide quality instruction.  The results can be and should be inspiring. On the contrary, when two adults who do not believe in co-teaching or who do not respect one another as professionals are physically in the same classroom and do not interact, the result is often dis-heartening, discouraging, and ultimately a complete waste of time for the teachers and the students. Although it is fairly easy to determine when teachers are dynamic together compared to those who are apathetic together, a large continuum looms between for the teachers who are unclear as to how to successfully share the classroom. 

Teachers who co-teach well together are those who take advantage of the fact that there are two adults in the room. They engage students actively, use a variety of co-teaching approaches to regroup students, collect and share assessment information to better individualize for students’ needs, are open-minded and willing to be innovative. These teachers communicate with one another during instruction and provide classroom structure that is supportive of students.  They are also flexible to meet ALL students’ changing needs. It is clear that the classroom, as well as all the students in it, belong to them both and that they are both willing and capable of providing substantive instruction that utilizes their areas of expertise. Co-instruction does not look the same as in any general class. The input of the special educator is clear, resulting in strategies, mnemonics, and differentiated instruction. In a perfectly co-taught classroom, one would see two teachers enjoying each other and all students, who are clearly learning and benefiting from the positive instructional environment (Murawski & Lochner, 2010). 

Co-teachers view ALL students as “their kids” and consciously avoid “my kids” compared to “your kids” situations. This mindfulness extends to assessment, evaluation, and grading as well. General and special educators may have different frames of reference that will affect the way each views assessments. Often, a general educator more initially be more versed in curricula standards and whole-class assessments.  By contrast, the special education counterpart may be more familiar with individualized or alternative assessments. From the perspective of students with disabilities, this combination of specialization becomes beneficial given the standards-based focus of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2010) and need for individualized instruction and assessment mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Working together, effective co-teachers ensure that they are able to assess what students actually know as well as what they are able to demonstrate on formative, summative, standardized, or high-stakes assessment. 

There are many choices co-teachers can utilize to validly and reliably assess.  Being aware and open to each option is crucial. Co-teachers should become fully capable to describe or demonstrate how they plan to accommodate needs through diverse assessments that treat students as individuals in determining their mastery of content standards and curriculum. How can administrators assess the effectiveness of co-teachers in this regard? Certainly, looking at student grades is an indicator of co-teaching effectiveness.  For instance, do students with disabilities fail at a greater rate than typical students?  A single measurement should not be the only method of assessing students. Student improvement can be exhibited and documented in a variety of formative processes. Just as co-teachers need to be open to various methods of assessment, observers likewise need to know the variables that determine the collaborative effectiveness of the two teachers in an inclusive classroom. 

            When seeking to provide mentorship or professional development related to co-teaching dynamics, the role of an observer needs to be clearly understood and presented in advance.  Before walking into a co-taught classroom, an administrator or other observers need to know the goal of the observation and therefore be empowered to clearly describe what they want to collect, see, and hear (Peterson & Petersen, 2006). Observation literature indicates that to maximize feedback provided by observers, data need to be descriptive rather than evaluative (Cook & Friend, 2017).

Students with disabilities, those with English language needs, those who are gifted, and the typical learners in any classroom deserve to be instructed based on their individual learning needs. There is a wide variety of literature available on diverse learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the value of brain-based instruction. Effective teachers recognize that each student presents a unique learning profile and therefore every student benefits when education matches his or her profile (Lavoie, 2007; Levine, 2002). When alone, addressing the various learning profiles exhibited within the classroom can be daunting.  By contrast, working with a partner can be truly exciting and beneficial to all stakeholders. Co-teaching enables two teachers to collaborate in an effort to effectively plan, implement, and assess differentiated instruction.  For those teachers that may be new to co-teaching, an administrator needs to serve the role of supervisor, mentor, and support provider.  Confounding the needs of the teachers that may be struggling with their collaborative role in the inclusive classroom could be administrators that themselves do not feel sufficiently instructed on what they should be seeing in an effectively co-taught classroom and collaborative relationship.  The ability to observe, document, give feedback, and be an instructional leader for co-teachers requires time and experience (Murawski & Lochner, 2010).  

By utilizing the Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist (Murawski & Lochner, 2015) the administrator and co-teachers understand the specific items that should be asked for, looked for, and listened for during the observation of the co-teachers’ lesson and collaborative activities.  Crucially, the Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist helps guide the administrator or observers in their effort to shape and improve the co-teaching. When providing constructive feedback to the co-teachers working collaboratively within the inclusive classroom, the ultimate goal is to improve the learning of students with and without disabilities. 

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 31, 2019) Planning, implementing, and mentoring for successful co-teaching.

[Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Collaborative teaching: The co-teaching model. (2002). PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e522152004-001

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (2017). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3). doi:10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Friend, M. (2008) Co-Teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.joci.ecu.edu/index.php/JoCI/article/view/17/26

Friend, M., & Barron, T. (2014.). Chapter 25: co-teaching: inclusion and increased student achievement. proven programs in education: classroom management & assessment, 121–125. Proven Programs in Education: Classroom Management & Assessment; R.E. Slavin (Ed). doi:10.4135/9781483365633.n25

Lavoie, R. (2007). Richard Lavoie: The Motivation Breakthrough. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e576212010-001

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Murawski, W. W (2015). Wendy Murawski Discusses Co-Teaching. SAGE Video. doi:10.4135/9781473930667

Murawski, W. W. (2015). Chapter 13: Creative Co-Teaching. What Really Works in Elementary Education, 203–216. Murawski & Scott (Eds). doi:10.4135/9781483390161.n14

Murawski, W. W., & Goodwirt, V. A. (2014). Chapter 21: Effective Inclusive Schools and the Co-teaching Conundrum. Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools. doi:10.4324/9780203102930.ch21

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2010). Observing Co-Teaching: What to Ask For, Look For, and Listen For. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183. doi:10.1177/1053451210378165

Peterson, K.D. & Peterson, C.A. (2006). How Principals Promote Effective Teacher Evaluation. (n.d.). Effective Teacher Evaluation, 16–23. doi:10.4135/9781412990219.d7

Developing and Sustaining a Collaborative Learning Culture

As a follow to the June 2019 discussion, when endeavoring to develop and sustain a learning culture, effective leaders must mitigate learning overload.  The following discussion seeks to provide strategic protocols for promoting collaborative teams.  These include a professional learning community, which can reduce stress and fear while optimizing organizational learning. 

An effective school collaboratively reaches consensus on the mission, core values, and beliefs (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  Thereafter, collective inquiry is effective for building shared knowledge.  This process, “in turn, allows them to make more informed (and therefore better) decisions, and increases the likelihood they will arrive at consensus” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker,  2008, p. 17).  Given the identified benefits of a collaborative professional learning community (PLC), Dufour et al were “convinced educators would benefit from both greater clarity regarding the PLC concept and specific strategies for implementing the concept” (p. 15).

Effective communication promotes collaboration, thereby optimizing the learning organization’s ability to reach consensus.  Schmoker (1999) posits teams outperform individual efforts, therefore, "learning not only occurs in teams but endures" (p. 12).  An effective learning organization utilizes the following three beliefs to optimize teams and the PLC concept:

1.   the team believes strongly in each member's capacity to develop practical solutions to everyday teaching and learning problems;

2.  there is a belief that regardless of a school's social or economic circumstances, improvement can and will occur;

3.     the team arrives at each meeting anticipating that informed trial and error will inevitably lead to better teaching and hence to higher learning (Schmoker, 1999, p.20).

Utilizing six elements of an effective PLC helps educators benefit in a number of ways from working together.  These include developing a clear, shared vision.  This element optimizes the group’s ability to develop a collaborative culture focusing on learning, engage in collective inquiry, remain action oriented, commit to continuous improvement, and adjust further based on results (Dufour et al., 2008).  Thus, the six elements of an effective PLC promote learning by doing.  As with many processes developed for sustaining success, the six elements work most effectively when treated as an interdependent, cyclical process. 

To be successful, the PLC requires “reculturing the traditional culture of schools and districts” (Dufour et al., 2008, p. 6).  Crucially, the shift needs to be cultural and not merely structural, thereby embedding sustained improvements in “the assumptions, beliefs, values, expectations, and habits that constitute the norm for that organization” (p. 90).  A skillful educational leader begins developing an effective collaborative culture by understanding the improvement process rather than merely the systemic change process.  A skillful educational leader and empowered educators trust in established and agreed upon non-negotiable goals (NNGs) and values while embracing both school-based and teacher autonomy. 

An instructional leader can create a defined learning culture to optimize structured organizational learning by utilizing strategies that encourage high levels of effectiveness.  The first pursuit in this endeavor is to mitigate learning overload.  Learning overload prevents effective educational leaders from realizing progress and achievement of stated goals (Reason, 2010).  Citing Kennedy (2006) and Franklin (2005), Reason (2010) notes, “We can’t alter the brain to hold more information, but we can change our approach to learning in ways that reduce overwhelm and prepare us to deal with institutional challenges more effectively” (p. 99).  Every stakeholder’s reticular activating system (RAS) impacts his or her attention and motivation.  Therefore, the RAS influences how efficiently staff addresses the organizational focal points.  The effective leader recognizes this and seeks to “clearly identify the learning focal points that matter” (p. 100) as a way to mitigate stressors that overwhelms one’s perception and attention to organizational focal points. 

Learning organizations attend to what Vygotsky called scientific concepts (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003).  Scientific concepts are psychological tools such as language, formulas, memory techniques, concepts, rules, symbols, and signs.  Properly designed class instruction utilizes and learns through these psychological tools, which reduces learning overload by optimizing metacognition (Bohlin et al., 2008)

In the pursuit of defining a learning culture, effective leaders also seek to optimize structured organizational learning by utilizing a system proven effective for promoting change.  The following eight-step protocol (Reason, 2010), promotes success while reducing learning overload:

Step One: Acknowledging Learning Limits

Step Two: Lightening the Learning Load

Step Three: Identifying Learning Focal Points

Step Four: Establishing Emotional Relevance

Step Five: Establishing Inquiry

Step Six: Identifying Essential Goals and Outcomes

Step Seven: Making the Focal Points Public

Step Eight: Funneling New Ideas Into Current Focal Points (pp. 103-112)

Reason (2010) posits, “The identification of learning focal points, empowering questions, and must-have outcomes won’t reduce all the confusion in an organization” (p. 112).  However, the eight-step protocol noted above optimizes the learning organization’s ability to prioritize elements essential for promoting student learning and sustaining reform.  Clarity and focus mitigates fear and stress, thereby improving the organization’s culture of learning while reducing learning overload. 

The improvement to the collaborative culture begins with recognizing promotion of student learning in schools that are loosely coupled by design requires a tightly coupled system in relation to the established non-negotiable goals (NNGs).  Beginning with district leadership, a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates NNGs to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow or nonexistent.

An effective educational leader confidently handles more autonomy or increased degrees of freedom.  By contrast, novice principals or leaders at struggling schools need more guidance and direction from district-level leaders.  An effective leader recognizes when and how staff can work autonomously and collaboratively, thereby developing or removing staff as necessary and promoting a culture of high expectations within the school (Eck & Goodwin, 2010).

Purpose driven inquiry (Reason, 2010) can be utilized with either small groups or the entire school community.  Reason presented a six-step protocol useful for small and systemic projects alike:

Step One: Identifying the Question and Knowing Why We Ask It

Step Two: Igniting Collective Curiosity

Step Three: Defining Strategic Action

Step Four: Defining Accountability

Step Five: Making the Agenda Public

Step Six: Maintaining Engagement (pp. 78-86)

Establishment of non-negotiable goals (NNGs) are a product of earlier collaboration, which promoted staff empowerment.  Determination to collaborate, time to meet, willingness to ask serious questions, creating an action plan, and always meeting with an agenda, promotes communication aligned to those established NNGs.  Therefore, Reason’s (2010) six-step protocol for purpose driven inquiry mitigates learning overload while encouraging communication directed at sustained improvement and organizational learning. 

Effective accountability requirements hastened the emergence of professional learning communities (PLC).  Marzano and Waters (2009) believe, a PLC “suggests a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth-promoting way; operating as a collective enterprise” (p. 56).  The PLC and any potential action research must address the need to develop and sustain a systemic culture of continuous improvement that promotes learning (DuFour, et al, 2008). 

Positive change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear mission.  Unintended consequences, which often fall into the pool labeled “negative change,” typically ignore those characteristics connected with positive change.  Ideally, this discussion successfully emphasized it is not enough to want to change or need to change, for to effectively change, an organization must experience positive change.

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (July 30, 2019) Developing and sustaining a collaborative learning culture.

              [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References

Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2008). Ed psych: Modules. NY: McGraw-Hill.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution

            Tree Press

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Schmoker, J, (1999) The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd ed.) Arlington, VA: ASCD

Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical,

            interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman &

D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions

(pp. 207–228) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Invitational Education Theory, Collaborative Change, and the Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice

            The development of systemic support when seeking to promote a school culture that drives sustained school improvement requires collaboration (Marzano & Waters, 2009).  Since “the public school establishment is one of the most stubbornly intransigent forces on the planet” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 2), a positive cultural change needs new thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clear Learning for All mission.  The principal, teachers, and parents are all school leaders needing to be available to shape a school’s non-negotiable culture (Peterson & Deal, 1998). 

Effective collaborative change begins with recognition that although loosely coupled by design, schools can also be tightly coupled by adherence to non-negotiable goals and a culture that promotes student learning.  It is therefore essential to promote a “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 8) by communicating a clear vision to both internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change is slow or nonexistent (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  However, school leaders must effectively communicate to stakeholders the difference between a steady, sustained approach compared to resistance or unwillingness to change.

The effectiveness of school leadership acts remains contingent upon teacher acceptance (Matthews & Brown, 1976).  Teachers’ attitudes and perceptions influence positive or negative responses to initiatives (Rokeach, 1968).  Teachers’ perception of respect and trust exhibited by the principal correlates with both teachers’ and students’ morale, commitment, and achievement (Ellis, 1988; Riner, 2003).  However, when a school leader effectively communicates a vision for success, models positive expectations, and utilizes inviting leadership practices, teachers’ behaviors can be influenced (Asbill, 1994; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000). 

Invitational Education theory provides a needed collaborative and holistic framework for school transformation.  Rather than suggesting a quick-fix, the framework encourages a metamorphosis, requiring years of vigilance before affirming sustained change (Strahan & Purkey, 1992).  Vigilance is required because “transforming the way schools operate means transforming people” (Asbill, 1994, p. 42).  School reform requires systemic change, a metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps).  Such analysis discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Strahan & Purkey, 1992).

Invitational Education provides “a theory of practice that radiates into every relationship in the school setting” (Asbill, 1994, p. 43).  Actions and interactions can be perceived as either inviting or disinviting (Purkey & Novak, 2008).  Therefore, actions or interaction perceived as positive become “invitations that bid others to see themselves as capable, valuable, and responsible and to behave accordingly” (Asbill, 1994, p.43). 

Burns and Martin (2010) posit the Invitational Education theory creates a leadership model providing the collaborative structure needed to guide educational leaders through diverse and complex situations.  This leadership model is comprehensive in design (Burns & Martin, 2010; Egley, 2003).  It is also inclusive of many of the elements of transformational and servant leadership, considered essential for promoting success in educational organizations. 

Utilization of Invitational Education theory and practice can create and maintain safe and successful schools by addressing the total culture of the educational environment (Stanley, et al., 2004).  Leaders willing to explore key concepts of Invitational Education theory and practice increase opportunities for developing a school culture that drives sustained school improvement.  These key collaborative concepts include: Transformation of communication skills, ongoing assessment of the 5 Ps (people places policies, practices, and processes), and empowering group dynamics. 

The Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice (JITP) promotes the study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice.  As an online peer reviewed scholarly publication, the JITP presents articles to advance the theory.  As JITP editor, Dr. Chris James Anderson of Southwest Minnesota State University’s School of Education invites others to embrace the holistic and interdependent conditions that promote learning for all!  The JITP seeks to advance the tenets of Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices to optimize educational equity in quality.  While education is the endeavor that strengthens a mind, frees a spirit, and enriches a society, the JITP will not be limited to educational stakeholders.  Rather, the JITP  welcomes all opportunities to promote the study, application, and research of Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP).  Authors must follow the specific guidelines when submitting manuscripts for JITP publication consideration.  Guidelines for Authors or Book Reviews can be accessed from: https://www.invitationaleducation.net/publications/journal/  

Submit manuscripts as email attachments to JITPeditor@invitationaleducation.net

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2017) Invitational education theory, collaborative change, and the

                Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice. [Web log post] Retrieved from

                http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting

                Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1), 16-27. Retrieved

                from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female

                educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of leadership.

                Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 16, 30-56.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(10), 15-24.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational

                Theory and Practice, 9, 57-70.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action (first ed.).

                Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009). District leadership that works. Bloomington, In: Solution

Tree Press

Purkey, W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational Theory and

                Practice, 1(1), 5-14.

Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching

                and learning (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to

                professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

                http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of

          Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv13.pdf

How Educators can Effectively Advocate for Teacher Leadership

         Educators advocating for teacher leadership roles face many obstacles including but not limited to “lack of funding or trust, resistance to power-sharing or change and the inability of others to see beyond what currently exists” (Crowley, 2015).  Any endeavor to gain authentic leadership requires collaboration and by its nature, inviting behaviors by administrators.  However, collaboration usually fails without utilization of effective preparation, open-mindedness, and both verbal and non-verbal communication skills.

            A September 2014 post discussed Schmidt’s (2007) meta-analysis that identified sets of structure related to Invitational Education (IE) theory, which can be used to holistically evaluate school climate.  Five powerful factors–people, places, policies, programs, and processes, were highly significant for their separate and combined influence on Invitational Leadership and school culture (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).  In combination, “the Five Ps offer an almost limitless number of opportunities for the Invitational Leader to address and impact “the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (p. 104).  Through reflective consideration of the Five P’s, the invitational leadership model becomes a unique and holistic model of leadership  for communicating success and empowerment (Stillion & Siegel, 2005).

            During her tenure as a Center for Teaching Quality teacherpreneur, Crowley (2015) reflectively identified valuable strategies for preparing to be an advocate for effective collaboration.  Certainly, the implicit utilization of these strategies exhibit the teacher’s preparation.  These preparation strategies include,

Do your research: What do you know about your school’s mission, vision statement and strategic plan? Reviewing these key documents will help frame your idea within a larger context. If possible, schedule an informal, information-seeking meeting with an administrator you trust. This will help you develop a more on-the-ground perspective on these strategic plans. Knowing these documents demonstrates an understanding of the greater mission and vision of the building and district. In your proposal, be sure to answer how your idea or role supports the work and initiatives already in place.

Spend time planning: Before you approach administration with your idea or plan, consider its feasibility. Ask colleagues for feedback. They may provide perspectives you were not considering. Talk with people in your community to understand what they believe is “possible.” This doesn’t mean that you can’t push past comfort zones or introduce a never-been-done approach, but understanding how your idea is perceived is important to your presentation. Consider the scope of your idea. Although it may seem simple, in the complex systems of schools, even simple ideas can affect many people. Also consider this: Will your proposal have broad appeal and support in your community of colleagues, parents, students and business leaders? Frame your proposal around supporters and benefactors.

Consider the costs: New ideas often have financial consequences. Consider both the cost of resources and faculty compensation. If your idea requires time away from the classroom, know your district’s policies about short and long-term substitutes. Also consider pursuing alternate funding before presenting your idea. Think about the budget cycle and the timing of your proposal. Administrators are restricted by budget approvals and often need to justify new or increased spending. How can the funds for your proposal be justified? Valuing the cost will speak volumes to an administrator about the feasibility of your idea.

Be intentional in your approach: Keep an open mind to the perspective or lens administration brings. View them as collaborators, and be ready to offer shared ownership of your proposal. Having administration as an ally offers you valuable perspectives. Administrators often think about implementation of new ideas within a 3-5 year frame, while teachers often frame change within the school year calendar. An administrative perspective can be invaluable to creating a realistic timeline for implementation of an idea or proposal (Crowley, 2015).

            Understandably, good preparation exhibits readiness to collaborate.  However, explicit communication skills remain a requisite foundation to successful collaboration.  While key communication skills include listening skills, feedback skills, and presentation skills, it is essential to recognize the role of one’s mindset as the greatest influence upon whether communication skills will be optimized.  As noted in a February 2014 post, when seeking professional or personal development, better results occur when acting our way into right thinking rather than merely trying to think ourselves into right action.  When learning to truly embrace and promote empowered collaborations, it is helpful to reflect upon which mindset will be utilized prior to engagement.  With practice, a mindset elevating the tenets of peace, joy, and love become evident in all relationships. 

            Nonverbal behaviors comprise a large percentage of daily interpersonal communication (Cherry, 2011).  Persuasion requires more than conversation alone.  Effectively using all eight types of non-verbal communication can dramatically increase a person’s persuasive power.  Since human interaction is about action, interaction, and transaction, then a “Helical Model of Communication exhibits how communication never loops back onto itself.  It begins at the bottom and expands infinitely as the communication partners contribute their thoughts and experiences to the exchange” (Beebe, Beebe, & Ivy, 2004, p 16). 

Collaboration between educational stakeholders improve whenever questions are planned to lead to answers that require more questions.  Theoretically, a perfect convergent, or closed-ended, question would have only one answer.  By contrast, a perfect divergent, or open-ended, question would have infinite answers.  The partner seeking effective collaboration understands the better question usually is the one that provides the most answers and his or her non-verbal behaviors should convey open-mindedness, willingness, and active listening. 

Given respect for and adherence to preparation and communication skills, a ten-step process for collaborative consultation should prove helpful in future advocacy for teacher leadership.  The process may appear to be a loop process but as is common with most action research approaches, the process embraces the Helical Model of Communication, thereby encouraging the good to become better.  Following are the ten-steps within the collaborative consultation process (Walther-Thomas et al., 2000).  Each step includes an implementation example:  

1.     Prepare for the consultation:

a.      Focus upon the targeted area of concern, organize materials, prepare several possible strategies, and arrange for a comfortable meeting place

2.     Initiate the consultation:

a.      Establish rapport, focusing upon the concern, creating a collaborative climate

3.     Collect information:

a.      Seek data and make notes, identifying additional data needs, summarizing information

4.     Identify the problem:

a.      Focus on needs, state what the problem is or is not, identifying desirable circumstances

5.     Articulate the goal statement:

a.      Identify issues, avoiding jargon, encourage expressions of concerns, develop a concise goal statement, check for agreement

6.     Generate solutions:

a.      Problem-solve collaboratively, generate alternative interventions, suggest examples, review options and likely consequences, select the most reasonable alternative

7.     Formulate a plan:

a.      Specify tasks for intervention, establish responsibilities, create evaluation criteria and methods, agree on the timeline for the review progress

8.     Evaluate progress and process:

a.      Conduct the scheduled review session, review data and analyze results, keep artifacts to document progress, assess the collaboration process, make positive and supportive comments

9.     Follow up on the situation:

a.      Reassess progress periodically, support effort and reinforce results, continue the plan for further improvement, make adjustments as necessary, bring closure when goals are met

10.  Repeat consultation as appropriate:

a.      Include other stakeholders as apropos, embracing diversity and inclusion

               Ideally, any educator seeking to advocate for teacher leadership should feel empowered.  However, exhibiting one’s effective communication skills, diligent preparation, and open-mindedness, will undoubtedly yield a more bountiful harvest.  Given this approach, advocating for teacher leadership success becomes related to acting our way into right thinking rather than solely trying to think ourselves into right action. 

References:

Anderson, C.J. (February 7, 2014) Effective communication requires a fertile mindset [Web log post]

               Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Anderson, C.J. (June 4, 2014) Successful collaboration requires utilization of effective communication

               strategies [Web log post]Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Anderson, C.J. (October 17, 2014) Invitational education theory and a framework for effective collaboration.  

               [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Beebe,S.A.; Beebe,S.J.; & Ivy,D.K. (2004). Communication: principles for a lifetime, 2/E. Allyn & Bacon

Crowley, B. (August 26, 2015) Administration as allies: Fostering collaboration for teacher leadership.

               [Web log post] Retrieved from http://smartblogs.com/tag/Brianna-Crowley

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to

               professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

               http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of

          Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23. Retrieved from: http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv13.pdf

Walther-Thomas, C., Korinek, L., et al., (2000). Collaboration for inclusive education.

Boston: Pearson, ISBN: 9780205273683

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (August 31, 2015) How educators can effectively advocate for teacher leadership.

               [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/