Autonomy: In the midst of community, there’s room for the individual

By Rick DuFour
Journal of Staff Development, Summer 1999 (Vol. 20, No. 3)

 

Recently I was presenting a workshop for school improvement teams to persuade them that creating a collaborative school culture is critical for sustaining school improvement.

One of the participants posed an interesting question: "What if the faculty of the school values individual autonomy and diversity between teachers more than it values working together in the pursuit of common goals? Can that school function as a learning community?" While this question often goes unspoken, it looms over every effort to develop a staff’s capacity to function as a learning community. The short answer to this question is that schools must strike a balance in the inevitable tension between individual autonomy and the collective efforts of the group. But let’s go beyond the short answer.

To contend that a collaborative culture is essential for improving schools is not tantamount to opposing autonomy for teachers. Too often educators have witnessed pendulum swings from one extreme position to another rather than seeking a middle ground that recognizes there can be value in both sides of a pedagogical debate. Schools run a risk in repeating that pattern if they denigrate individual autonomy as they pronounce the superiority of collaborative teams. As Michael Fullan advises:

"Pushed to extremes, collaboration becomes ‘group think’ — uncritical conformity to the group, unthinking acceptance of the latest solution, suppression of individual dissent . . . . In moving toward collaboration, we should not lose sight of the ‘good side’ of individualism. The capacity to think and work independently is essential to educational reform."

Anyone who has ever taught understands that individual teachers must have a great deal of autonomy in determining instructional strategies and pacing. Teaching is far too complex to be reduced to a simple recipe ("First do this, then do that.") or to be assigned to a lock-step calendar ("If it’s Tuesday, we must be on page 47."). Teachers need the autonomy to respond to the highly individualized dynamics of the classroom, to re-teach using different strategies when students struggle, and to divert from the lesson plan during those magic moments when student interest takes an idea in a new direction. They also should have the autonomy to pursue some topics and areas of study that are of particular interest to them. They must be free to challenge ideas and to offer different perspectives when addressing a problem. Professional learning communities do not call for an end to teacher autonomy in these areas.

What professional learning communities do require is an end to curriculum content based on the idiosyncrasies of the individual teacher. The core knowledge and skills that students are asked to acquire in a grade level or course should be based on consensus regarding essential learning rather than the predispositions of individuals. When each teacher is free to determine curriculum content in the name of autonomy, students in the same school pursuing grade levels, subjects, and courses with identical titles are often subjected to fundamentally different experiences. Access to equal educational opportunity should mean more than having the opportunity to attend school. It should mean that all students have the opportunity to acquire what has been identified as the knowledge and skills essential to their success.

A learning community is, by definition, a group of individuals working together to enhance their ability to achieve their shared vision and goals. If every teacher is free to determine his or her own goals, a school cannot generate the shared, collective goals essential to a learning community.

Another prerequisite for learning communities is that teachers must be willing to work together to develop assessment techniques, reflect upon their practice, analyze data on student achievement, and generate new strategies for becoming more effective in achieving their shared goals. Once again, in the absence of this collaborative culture, a school cannot function as a learning community.

It is impossible to argue that allowing teachers to work in isolation is in the best interests of students. Schools have pursued that strategy for over a century. It’s time to abandon the "teacher-as-Lone-Ranger model" of education for a new model that enables teachers to learn from one another as members of collaborative teams pursuing common goals. As John Kotter wrote :

"Because we spend so many of our waking hours at work, most of our development takes place — or doesn’t take place — on the job. If our time at work encourages us and helps us to develop, we will eventually realize our potential. If time at work does little or nothing to develop our skills, we will never live up to our potential." (1996, p. 165)

Teachers who work in effective teams can learn from one another and can benefit from the skills and strengths of their colleagues. Conversely, teachers who work in isolation are left to their own devices as they attempt to establish and achieve goals within the limits of what each knows or does not know. If teachers are to realize their full potential, schools must create the collaborative culture that supports job-embedded staff development.

So what is the longer answer to the question: "Can a school operate as a learning community if it places a higher priority upon individual teacher autonomy than teachers working together in the pursuit of common goals?" It is simply this. While there is an important place for individual teacher autonomy in schools, that place should not extend to ignoring the importance of shared goals and collective inquiry. If educators in a given school value the ability of each teacher to "do his (or her) own thing" more than they value common learning for students and the collective pursuit of continuous improvement, any initiative to create a learning community in that school is doomed to fail. Those considering such an initiative would be wise to engage faculty in a candid discussion of this issue.

References

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press

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