Dreaming and Doing

Final Reflection for HTH 212: Leadership for School Change

Never confuse your schooling with your education, said Mark Twain. My dream school and
the mission of HTH schools would render this boundary very blurry indeed. Thinking back to
my most successful experiences in school, I realized that, in each one, I derived deep, personal
meaning from my work. I can still remember the comic strip I created in first grade, featuring
my own original characters and storyboards. In fourth grade, I worked on a travel adventure
story that became a labor of love; more than ten pages long, I would unravel my scroll in the
playground to the amazement of my friends. In fifth grade, I played a small role in the school
play; I was eager to make it my own, and the experience sparked a lifelong passion for the
performing arts. In all these cases, I took great pride in my work. It became part of me.

As this course began, I was paying a little more attention to the principle of personalization.
What does personalization look like for a PBL class of twenty-two students? What is the
relationship between personalization and student choice? What kind of personal meaning are
students deriving from projects, and how can we deepen that experience? As I pondered these
questions, I set out to ask colleagues and students about their dream school.

The Dream

Many teachers and students revealed that their dream school would look a lot like High Tech
Elementary. At the same time, each had ideas about how our school might improve. One
colleague was concerned with providing adequate and appropriate support for all students,
especially those with special needs. Students wanted a school where each room would have a
different focus (e.g. learning Mandarin, trampolining) and students were free to explore
whatever subjects interested them. Recalling a visit I made to a Montessori school last year, my
own thoughts wandered in the direction of open classrooms and student choice. Out of these
conversations, a question emerged: How might teachers empower students to pursue their
own learning goals while also providing enough structure for them to succeed? Examining the
ideas behind these conversations, I hit upon the unifying vision: a school where learning is
deeply personalized. Students personal goals, experiences, and needs would direct the course
of learning, unique for every child. The dream was personalization.

The Reality

At our second GSE class, I experienced a couple of reality checks. Confronting my lead reviewer
group with the challenges of personalization, my classmates reminded me that personalization
takes multiple forms, many of which can be seen at High Tech Elementary. Personalization
doesnt necessarily mean that every student is doing a different project, they explained;
personalization could be as simple as making a strong connection to an assignment, field trip, or
guest teacher. Besides, how could a teacher realistically manage twenty-two different projects
at the same time? (Fair point. It can be tricky enough managing one!) In discussing my
thoughts with Anne, we hit upon another reality check. With three other teachers initiating
school change projects, we wondered if one more about personalization would overwhelm
our staff. After all, we wanted to support our colleagues, not burden them. Since Georgia
found herself wrestling with similar themes, she and I decided to collaborate on a single project.
For the time being, the subject of personalization would roll into her investigation of PBL
practices.

To narrow the scope of our project, Georgia identified three potential focus areas within PBL:
teacher guidance (lessons and planning), student journey (personalization and process), and
student work (assessments and feedback). We sent out a survey to staff, asking them to vote on
which area they would prefer a professional development session. Approximately 70% voted
for student journey. Suddenly, personalization was back in the forefront! Preceding this
closed question, however, was a series of six open-ended questions. In constructing the survey,
we had wanted to hear our colleagues voices as clearly as possible. Accordingly, we asked how
our colleagues viewed their strengths, areas for growth, and support systems in facilitating PBL.
Interestingly, some teachers identified strengths that others identified as growth areas, a
discovery that we plan to use to our advantage. While I am glad that we took this open
approach, the responses varied widely, and I found it tricky to connect the dots. In conversation
with Georgia, however, we were able to identify some common ground. To borrow my
colleagues turn of phrase, teachers wanted to make projects as personal, meaningful, and
long-lasting as possible. To make this vision a reality, they also wished to share resources and
expertise that would enhance students experiences.

The Change

In partnership with my colleague and school director, we began to develop a plan for moving
towards our dream school. While the student journey would remain our anchor, we wanted
to give our colleagues an opportunity to work on what mattered most to them in their PBL
practice. In short, we wanted to personalize professional development. To capitalize on the
collective expertise and leadership of our staff, we envisioned a collegial coaching model. This
approach recognizes that leadership is less the property of a person than the group, as
Richard Farson (1997) explains in Management of the Absurd (p. 144). Although no formal
teacher leadership roles exist at High Tech Elementary, we want all teachers to feel like they can
play informal leadership roles, as described by Ackerman and Mackenzie in their article
Uncovering teacher leadership: *. . .+ more teachers lead informally by revealing their
classroom practice, sharing their expertise, asking questions of colleagues, mentoring new
teachers, and modeling how teachers collaborate on issues of practice (p. 66). After all,
Georgia and I are not the experts; expertise is held within the group. Accordingly, teachers will
reflect on their strengths and growth areas around PBL, and then match up with a teacher (from
a similar grade range) who they can both learn from and support. To guide the change process,
my colleague and I developed the following sequence for teachers:

1. Address their strengths and growth areas in teaching projects.
2. Connect with other teachers to share artefacts and supports.
3. Discuss approaches to PBL that will help lead to more personal and authentic project
experiences for students.
4. Apply strategies and reassess effectiveness and growth goals.

We also want to make this professional development experience feel exciting and valuable to
our staff. To speak candidly, I sometimes get the impression that, even in a dynamic school like
High Tech Elementary, teachers hold back during PD, as if the work that really needs doing is
waiting for them back in their individual classrooms. My colleague and I would like to create a
space where teachers are excited to bring the work that needs doing to the entire staff, where
they can benefit from cross-grade and whole-school collaboration. Maybe the work that needs
doing is analyzing student work or designing a rubric? Maybe it is finally getting feedback on a
particular aspect of your practice or connecting with ones critical friend? Whatever it is, we
want to create a space where teachers dont just enjoy but LOVE PD because it feels
personalized, productive, and fun!

The Step

To facilitate the process outlined above, my colleague and I are in the process of designing a
series of four PD sessions. While the ultimate goal of the sessions is to deepen students
learning experiences in projects, teachers will move towards this endpoint in different ways.
The first two sessions will focus on connecting with colleagues. Teachers will identify their
growth areas and strengths, as embodied by a resource or artefact that they will bring to the
meeting. Then, they will partner with a colleague who has compatible focus areas. (As
suggested by our consultancy group, we may publically post these partnerships and personal
learning goals as a reminder of teachers commitment to lifelong learning. Teachers might also
indicate their area of strength on a visual aid that represents the students journey through PBL.
Such displays would reflect the new teaching habits called for by Deborah Meier (2002) in her
book The power of their ideas, habits that are collegial and public in nature, not solo and
private as has been the custom in teaching (p. 140). Next, teachers will establish goals and
action steps for their partnership, such as observing one anothers teaching, sharing particular
resources, or analyzing student work. At this stage, we will encourage teachers to plan firm
deliverables through the creation of a contract. As Roland S. Barth (2006) explains in his article
Improving relationships within the schoolhouse, Deeper and more instructive peer observations
emerge when both parties forge an agreement beforehand (p. 11). The second session will
focus on the outcome of these action steps and allow time for new goal-setting. In our current
draft, the final two sessions focus on grade-based discussions around the content and
facilitation of projects. Towards this end, we will read and discuss an Expeditionary Learning
article about models, critique, and descriptive feedback. To inject a little fun into the festivities,
we will begin each session with an energizing group game. As Hunt and Nhlengethwa (2009)
remind us, a little energy boost can go a long way in advancing new ideas: Ideas love to bounce
off each other. If the mood stays positive, the bounce gets more and more frenetic until it
begins to ricochet around your head and around the room (p. 34). Im also interested in
beginning the educational part of each session with an inspiring, motivating spark: a student
panel, a thought-provoking passage, or a model of exemplary student work. In keeping with the
positive culture of our school, we will close the final session with celebrations regarding our
growth.

Growth

Reflecting on my growth throughout this project, I return to my original questions around
personalization. Conversations with colleagues, school visits, and my own internal dialogue
have led me to a clearer understanding of this design principle. In my mind, personalization
speaks to the whole child; it refers not only to how teachers individualize or differentiate
instruction but how educational experiences connect with students identities, including (but
not limited to) their social-emotional being, passions, and goals. I recently visited a Montessori
school, where students progressed through a predetermined series of word work activities at
their own pace. Since they were all in different places, the work appeared to be personalized.
In reality, however, only the pace of instruction was personalized, not the work, for all students
would eventually do the same activities in the same order. An example of personalized content
can be currently found in third grade, where each student is researching a different sea creature
as part of their project on coastal ecosystems. One enthusiastic third-grader stopped me in the
hallway stopped to show me pictures of a rocky seashore terrarium, full of marine fauna and
flora, which she was building at home. Now thats real personalization! As the staff pursues
their own personal wonderings and goals around project-based learning, I hope that well
continue the conversation about what personalization means for us and our students.

At the beginning of this project, when my students, colleagues, and I reflected on our dream
school, it was difficult to find the common theme. As more voices influenced the projects
directions, tying together different threads of thinking remained a challenge. While I knew what
I wanted from PD sessions on PBL, managing diverse viewpoints diluted my visibility, to borrow
a phrase from Heifetz and Linksy (2008, p. 35). And yet, slowly but surely, we developed a
collective vision that we hope will appeal to teachers and positively affect our students. In many
ways, leadership is an art of weaving; one must craft a tapestry that speaks to individuals while,
at the same time, inspires all.

Works Cited

Ackerman, R., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership. Educational Leadership,
63(8), 66-70.

Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership,
63(6), 8-13.

Farson, R. (1997, March 13). Management of the Absurd. Simon and Schuster.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger. Educational leadership, 61(7),
33-37.

Hunt, J., & Nhlengethwa, S. (2009, November 26). The Art of the Idea: And how it Can Change
Your Life. PowerHouse Books.

Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.
Beacon Press.