Taking on loneliness

By Rick DuFour
Journal of Staff Development, Winter 1999 (Vol. 20, No. 1)

One of the most formidable obstacles a school will face in attempting to function as a professional learning community is the tradition of teacher isolation that has represented the norm in most schools.

Despite the unceasing waves of reforms that have washed upon public schools, in the final analysis, teaching has continued to be characterized by a single adult, standing alone before 25 children, and working in isolation. Mike Schmoker’s reflection on his experience as a high school English teacher (1996) rings true for many teachers throughout North America. He wrote:

"The crush of ... our myriad daily events and duties kept us from collaborating on such obvious and challenging concerns as how to teach composition more effectively, how to conduct discussions about literature more effectively, and how to make literature more exciting. We did not know if or how anyone was teaching composition — or even what that meant. So we worked, consciously or unconsciously toward our own goals, within the limitations of what each of us knew or did not know. Day-to-day concerns kept us from reflecting on what our most important goals should be."

Few educators argue with the characterization of teaching as the "lonely profession." Separated by their isolated classrooms and tightly packed daily schedules, they seem resigned to the fact that they rarely work with colleagues on matters related to teaching and learning.

This traditional structure and culture of teacher isolation stands in sharp contrast to the collective inquiry, reflective dialogue, and collaborative culture of the professional learning community. Thus, it’s not surprising that creating a collaborative environment has been described as "the single most important factor" for successful school improvement initiatives, and "the first order of business" for those seeking to enhance the effectiveness of their schools (Eastwood and Louis).

The growing recognition of the need to replace the traditional norm of professional isolation with a more collaborative environment has led some schools to reorganize faculty into teaching teams. This is clearly a step in the right direction. Teams have been described as "the basic building block of the learning organization" (Pinchot and Pinchot), "the essence of a learning organization" (Dilworth), and a "critical component of every enterprise - the predominant unit for decision making and getting things done" (Senge).

Advocates for collaborative team structures in schools cite a host of benefits arguing that teams:

But while moving to a team structure may be a necessary step in becoming a professional learning community, it is not a sufficient step. In some schools, organizing into teams has become the end itself rather than the means to an end. Teams themselves are morally neutral. In fact, there is considerable evidence that in the wrong school culture, teams simply reinforce the negative aspects of the culture.

Most adults have had the experience of being on a "bad" team. Perhaps the team was unclear regarding its purpose, or hidden agendas emerged, or an individual dominated the discussion, or members were untrusting of one another, or the group did not feel it had the authority to take needed action after making decisions. Psychologist Robert Sternberg (1996) contends that such groups have low "group IQ." He argues that while a group can be no "smarter" than the sum of the strengths of individual members, it can be "dumber" if its internal workings don’t allow members to share their talents.

Schools make a major mistake when they settle for creating team structures. The real challenge is developing teams with high "group IQ," teams that are effective in working together to solve problems and to renew their school. We cannot settle for merely creating team structures. We must work to address the challenge of developing high-performance teams that are focused on essential questions of teaching and learning.

In the next issue of the JSD, I will offer strategies for enhancing the "group IQ" of the teams in your school.

References

Dillon-Peterson, B. (1986). Trusting teachers to know what is good for them. Improving teachers. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dilworth, R. (1995). The DNA of the learning organization. Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace. C.Sarita and J.Renesch. eds. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Eastwood, K. and Louis, K. 1992. Restructuring that lasts: Managing the performance dip. Journal of School Leadership, 2 (2).

Fielding, G. and Schalock, H. (1985). Promoting the professional development of teachers and administrators. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.

Klein, S., Medrich, E., Perez-Ferreiro, V., and MPR Associates (1996). Fitting the pieces: Education reform that works. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers professional relations. Teachers College Record 91 (4).

Pinchot, G. and Pinchot, E. (1993). The end of bureaucracy and the rise of the intelligent organization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Senge, P.; Ross, R.; Smith, B.; Roberts, C.; Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sternberg, R. (1996). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Wildman, T. and Niles, J. (1987). Essentials of professional growth. Educational Leadership 44 (5).

About the Author

Rick DuFour is superintendent of Adlai Stevenson High School District 125, Two Stevenson Drive, Lincolnshire, IL 60069, (847) 634-4000, ext. 268, fax (847) 634-0239, e-mail: rdufour@district125.k12.il.us.


Click for NSDC Home Page