So, been up to my eyeballs in research for a graduate
course: Foundations of Teacher
Leadership. The reading is
interesting, but the writing and synthesis eat up all my spare(?) time.
Still, can’t help but tie the reading to my professional
life since, well, it’s all about my professional life.
The fun part of research—I think—is following the trail of
resources from one study to next, back in time, until you get a cohesive
narrative in your head.
The narrative I have formed in my head goes something like
this:
Since about 1994 we have pretty clear evidence about how to create
substantive change in schools resulting in student achievement. We
have even developed and tested tools that can bring this sort of reform to
scale. (see Coalition of Essential Schools, the National School Reform Faculty, the School Reform Initiative, Institute for Educational Leadership)
It's clear that if there are to be huge gains in effective
teaching there need to be two factors in place: strong leadership willing to
both define the vision and adhere to it over
time while a bottom-up strategy, where teachers work collaboratively to
continually learn from and refine their practice, gets the time it needs to focus on
attaining the vision.
Nearly all of the reading in the course is linked to the
idea of lowercase teacher leadership. In
other words, the teachers lead school reform by keeping professional
development close to a study of both their practice and student work with the
goal of improving student achievement always at the forefront. Effective schools are often described as “learning
schools,” places where the adults are immersed in self-directed, continual learning.
Yeah. Since 1994. That would be 21 years ago.
Here’s another thing we know. Tough “command and control” management will
result in some gains, but only small ones.
One recent search led me to my friend Rick Wormeli who wrote
the 2014 article “Motivating Young Adolescents” for Educational Leadership. In
it, Rick prompted my thinking when he offered a distinction between
manipulating students and motivating them.
Manipulation involves carrots and sticks: usually grades. And
we all know we can get kids to “do stuff” if we offer the right carrot (better
grade) or stick (a zero). But the
student is distracted by the carrot and becomes convinced that, having attained
the carrot, he's gained something. Worst case scenario (and this happens very often) the student decides he has no interest in the carrot and could care less about the stick.
Motivation, on the other hand, happens through “a classroom
culture that cultivates curiosity and personal investment, one in which
students feel safe to engage in the activity or topic without fear of
embarrassment or rejection.” (Wormeli, 2014) The outcome of this sort of impetus results in
student-owned knowledge because the student has both initiated the question and
found the answer.
Yeah.
So this classroom culture--where kids succeed--happens to mirror
descriptions of the collaborative communities teachers need in order to create
change in their practice. The teacher
community of learners should be inquiry-based, reflective, built on trust (where
risk-taking can occur without fear of embarrassment or rejection), teacher-led,
and focused on student learning and teaching.
You know, kind of the same things kids need in order to
thrive.
Stuff runs downhill people. We need everybody in the building working to create their own knowledge.
But what have we had instead? Carrots, sticks, manipulation.
And what have we gotten?
Not much.
In keeping with my current focus, you get
the APA approved citation:
Wormeli, Rick (2014). Motivating Young
Adolescents. Educational
Leadership. September, pp. 26-31.
