Reading Louis et al. (1996)—not the same one as last week—got me thinking about how “open door policies” and leadership styles based on providing “support” can be counterproductive.
Another article about common problems
The article has a simple enough point: the goal of school improvement should be to build the ability for the school organization to learn over time. This can be accomplished through organizational memory, a shared knowledge base, knowledge dissemination, reflective practice, and, you guessed it, professional learning communities (PLCs). Two schools are described, one which achieved positive improvement and which did not. In the school that struggled, the “vision remained fuzzy,” the “teachers had difficulty maintaining focus,” and the initiative for change was “short lived” (p. 15). The authors attribute the negative outcomes to teachers lacking knowledge of instructional techniques and time to collaborate, as well as to an overall lack of a shared vision amongst school staff.
It’s all pretty standard and should be familiar to anyone who has read much of anything in these spaces. Yes, we’ve been having these same discussions for more than thirty years. It’s the kind of article that by now feels like a dime a dozen, easy to skim or ignore.
“Accessibility” and “Support”
My bell was rung to read a little deeper, though, when I saw this, on page 19:
Accessibility to the principal characterizes schools with the greatest levels of learning and community.
Perhaps too vague to last for long, this idea was soon provided more nuance by DuFour and Eaker (1998), who argued that “the isolation of teachers is so ingrained in the traditional culture of schools that invitations to collaborate are insufficient” (p. 118). They are correct, but their point is solely managerial for the sake of PLCs. Sure, principals can get more collaboration to happen by more explicitly requiring it, but why are invitations so often insufficient in a school context?
So I re-read Louis et al. (1996) and there is was, almost everywhere: the language of “support.” It’s the job of the principal to “lead from the center” (ironic, given the title of the article), to provide “support” and “resources.”
However many qualifiers the authors might give, one thing is certain: a leader’s job entails more than being available. Education is not the only sector where “open door” policies and platitudes like “Let me know if you need anything” are quickly dismissed if unaccompanied by active problem solving (Tucker & Singer, 2015). Even worse, promises of support from otherwise disengaged leaders can cause cynicism to spread wild.
What teachers actually need for PLCs
Of course teachers need “support,” but we don’t mean making photocopies in a pinch, or hosting a taco bar, or playing a funny song on the intercom. Much more often than not the support they need from a principal is for the principal to exercise their unique job functions, such as enforcing student discipline and mediating contentious staff relationships. These are things teachers cannot do, and so fundamentally the kind of support they need.
So what about PLCs more specifically? Here are some ideas about what PLCs can gain from a principal’s unique role:
- a fair schedule of meeting times
- data reports of student achievement that are formatted for quick and rich analysis
- the regular presence of the principal at the meeting itself
- an appropriate system of accountability, so that “do-gooder” groups aren’t left as the only ones participating
- clear, realistic guidelines (with training) about what the teachers are supposed to do during PLC time
- a vigorous explanation of the special ways PLCs make the vision and mission of the school possible
Again, these are things that only a principal (or administrative team) can do, and so constitute a piece of what teachers perceive as a principal’s function. You can’t just leave the ball in the teacher’s court with a reassurance that “I’m here for you.” This carries the strong implication that teachers will be blamed for “not reaching out” if the initiative fails. Basically, if you like offering “support,” make sure you are doing your job first.
References
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. National Educational Service.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Raywid, M. A. (1996). Putting teachers at the center of reform: Learning schools and professional communities. NASSP Bulletin, 80(580), 9-21.
Tucker, A. L., & Singer, S. J. (2015). The effectiveness of management‐by‐walking‐around: A randomized field study. Production and Operations Management, 24(2), 253-271.
also published on Substack
Leave a Reply