I first placed my toe into the world of staff development and continuous improvement some thirteen plus years ago. My high school principal was concerned with student achievement results that he had been reviewing.  He wanted to see consistent improvement of all students’ achievement. He believed that building teacher capacity in three key areas: curriculum planning, assessment, and instruction were a first critical step in closing students’ achievement gaps.  In order to develop teacher capacity, he believed that ongoing tailored professional development for departments was needed in the building; his vision resulted in a staff development specialist position in my high school.   Back then I was young, or should I say younger, I felt this new prospect was chalked full of new learning opportunities.  I would get to work with kids, my fellow colleagues, and as well focus on the areas of teaching that I loved.

In the early portion of my teaching career, I was blessed to have been mentored by an extraordinary middle-years coach. She was super smart, dynamic, practical, and a person of incredible integrity.  I trusted her and knew that I could learn a lot from her if I was willing to put my ego aside and show my vulnerabilities.   Working with this amazing lady was a transformative learning experience, but I was among a small handful of staff members that utilized her amazing talent. So, what causes some staff members to want to work with a continuous improvement coach (CIC) and others not to be interested?  Well, there is a myriad of different reasons, which I am not about to list off.  Rather, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a couple of important “aha” moments that have arisen from this type of question in my CIC career.

I do believe that my profession, for many years, has not embraced or supported an embedded collaborative professional learning culture within the system. Independence versus interdependence has been an established and revered quality that has been cultivated in many education circles.  I can personally attest to this reality from my experiences as a public education student, pre-service teacher, and a certified educator.  From my experiences, and right from my induction into pre-service teacher education, I gleaned that the profile of a “strong” teacher was one who could handle classroom management issues without asking for any feedback, help, or support; develop units of instruction and assessment tools autonomously; and forge strong relationships with all educational stakeholders independently. I was raised in a culture that regarded collaboration as a sign of weakness and not as a source of strength.  Now, I want to clearly state that I do believe teacher autonomy is important, but I would advocate that educators do not need to learn how to improve their teaching craft in isolation. Without a collaborative growth network to nurture one’s teaching craft, I feel that it is highly unlikely that a teacher will be able to effectively meet the needs of all students on a daily basis. A teacher needs to be able to tap into the expertise, support, and mentorship of a team of teachers to grow professionally but even more importantly improve the achievement levels for each student in the classroom on a daily basis. I would also advocate that teaching is a craft and in order to get good at your craft, mentorship and collaboration are essential. In order to have the high overall achievement for all students, and not just some, we have to work together as a team.   I do not think that my educational experiences in the Province of Manitoba are that different than many other Canadian provinces or countries for that matter.

If I was to return to my initial question, “What causes some staff members to want to work with a continuous improvement coach (CIC), and others not to be interested?” I would say that a major stumbling block is a historical perception that collaboration is for “weak” teachers. Changing this perception will not take place over night and for a small minority of teachers, it may never change. Changing this culture has to be a collaborative effort involving administration, CIC’s, and continuous improvement teacher teams.  We need to model what collaboration is and isn’t and as well be able to demonstrate how it can foster an environment that improves the achievement of all students and not just some.

If I was to throw out the term “collaboration” to a group of teachers, I would suspect that there would be different pictures painted in their minds as to what collaboration would look like, sound like, and feel like. If you were to ask me what collaboration was ten years into my career, I most likely would have referenced my hallway and prep conversations where I swapped ideas, strategies, and activities with my colleagues.  Later down the road, I also would have included swapping unit and lesson plans via email or through specific websites with trusted colleagues. In my role as a continuous improvement coach and classroom teacher over the past twelve years, I now have a different picture as to what constitutes as collaboration.  I see collaboration as a mechanism for growth that must meet the following criteria in the order as it appears: a) improve all students’ growth, and b) improve teacher practices.  My early picture of what constituted collaboration definitely was not focused on improving each student’s achievement level, and I would be hard pressed to say that my practices changed much from sharing unit and lesson plans, participating in hallway conversations, and swapping ideas and strategies on the fly.   The one-to-one collaboration with my middle-years coach, over a sustained period of time, had the greatest positive influence on my teaching practices and directly elevated the quality of work that my students produced.  It took some time for me to be comfortable having another teacher in my classroom for a significant block of time, but it was the best risk that I ever made in my career.

Collaboration is a huge risk-taking venture for a teacher.  It is risky because a teacher has to show his or her vulnerabilities, requires extra time in prepping for a sub, creating new materials, and the end results might not be what he or she anticipates.  Collaboration for a CIC is also a risk-taking venture.  As a CIC, I need to be able to demonstrate how working collaboratively is of benefit to the teacher, not just from a teacher growth perspective, but from a pragmatic perspective.  I need to be able to address how collaboration can increase efficiency in the classroom and provide stronger achievement results. A common question that has popped up from time to time with regards to collaboration has been: “Is this going to take more of my time but provide the same results that I am already getting?  I know that this would be a question that would run through my brain if I was asked to work collaboratively with a CIC.  If I can’t demonstrate that efficiency and student achievement results will surpass the results of prior practices, it is very difficult to entice teachers to collaborate with a CIC. Thus, aha #1 is realizing that collaboration by staff may not be seen in a positive light due to the historical emphasis on independence versus interdependence and that adult learners need to see how this type of opportunity is going to result in stronger student achievement levels.

This segues into my second aha moment:  a continuous improvement coach must understand and be able to effectively apply adult learning theory principles.  As a CIC, I work with a variety of structures: professional learning communities, Response to Intervention, data-driven decision-making, are just to name a few. These structures have been receiving huge air time in education circles as promoted by organizations such as Solution Tree, and ASCD, but I find it extremely interesting, as I look back now, that basically zero air time has really been dedicated to examining the facets of andragogy (adult learning) in a formal manner.  I was introduced to Malcolm Knowles (1980) research by one of my thesis advisors. Had I not had my thesis experience, I still would be in the dark regarding this theory.

If I could restart the clock in my continuous improvement coaching career and change one thing, based on what I know now, I would have made andragogy front and center in my professional learning. As a CIC coach, I feel this theory is extremely under-utilized and under-represented in professional development resources and workshops. To date, I have not seen any professional workshop or session focusing on what andragogy is and the role it should play in adult professional development.  At times in my staff development career, I was involved in meetings where staff learning was compared to student learning.  There are some very, very significant differences between andragogy and pedagogy.  Below is a summary chart that provides a quick snapshot of the differences.

This chart was taken from  Awesome Chart on ” Pedagogy Vs Andragogy “. (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2017, from http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/05/awesome-chart-on-pedagogy-vs-andragogy.html

As you can see the role, readiness, orientation, motivation for adults is quite different than a student, and this reality has significant implications for the work of a continuous improvement coach.  In addition, Malcolm Knowles (1980) also suggests that there are four principles that can be applied to adult learning:

1. Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction.
2. Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for the learning activities.
3. Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance and impact to their job or personal life.
4. Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented. (Kearsley, 2010)

In returning to my original question, “What makes some staff members want to work with a CIC and others not so much?” Well, I know that ignoring the components of adult learning theory is a key factor that will facilitate staff frustration and resistance. My personal goal as a CIC this year is to document my understanding, application, and implementation of adult learning theory into my job. I plan on sharing this through my blog.   I am hopeful that by utilizing this theoretical framework to a greater extent, I will be able to meet the needs of my staff more effectively and as well move the priorities of our continuous improvement plan forward to a greater degree of fidelity.

I would also like to note that relationship building is a cornerstone component of building staff capacity.  I recognize that in this blog post I have not touched upon it because I assumed that it was a critical component when I took the job.  My assumption was confirmed through the professional publications of Michael Fullan, Anthony Mohammad, Rick Dufour and others.  Relationship building is a critical and essential component of building staff capacity.

This school year I plan to dedicate my blogging on the topics of adult learning and my continued journey with critical thinking in the classroom.  I wish everyone a safe, relaxing, and rejuvenating summer.

Best Wishes,

Ingrid