Many years ago a new math program was introduced to our school system. Like our relatively new principal, I was very excited about this change as I had never been that confident about my math teaching and this was a good inroad into improving practice and elevating student engagement in math. I embraced the new learning. I looked forward to the support. I liked the progress I noticed in my own teaching and student learning.
Yet, a colleague at my grade level was not inspired by the new program. She had been teaching math for many years and had developed a keen approach to the subject. She did not embrace the new program or the trainings and continued to practice in ways she had developed over years. I watched this and wondered why she was making this choice. I thought she was a bit closed minded, yet I noticed the success and enthusiasm her students demonstrated toward the subject--I knew that she was having a positive impact on the children.
Now, years later, I can easily see that our differences in experience and needs were impacting this situation greatly. As a new teacher, I looked forward to developing my craft in this area, but as a veteran, she had already developed a solid repertoire for teaching the subject well--her students were engaged and learning well. She didn't need the new program.
A similar variation was noted by a friend of mine. She is a veteran teacher in a school system other than mine. She has a younger math coach who is seemingly learning how to teach math well while learning to coach too. He is enthralled by all the new ideas he is learning and enthusiastically sharing those ideas with teachers in the school. My friend is a veteran teacher who has studied math education for year so much of this young coach's enthusiasm is not welcome since this teacher knows those ideas and has developed a rich repertoire for teaching math. The coach hasn't thought about this, and in fact, is puzzled when my friend's math scores are the best in the school since he is too new to the subject to recognize the value of a rich repertoire and the fact that new ideas for one educator may be tried and true ideas for another.
A persistent challenge and benefit in any school is the differing perspectives, experiences, talents, and abilities of a staff. What's new to one may be well known to another. What's easy for one may be a challenge for another. That's why one-size-fits-all, top-down professional learning is usually a bust--there's great variation amongst teachers at school, and typically educators know where their needs are and how to best meet those needs.
When school leadership begins to truly look at educators as the professionals they are, they will begin to restructure schools to better support each educators and help those educators develop their craft and meet expectations in ways that matter rather than ways that are easy, cost effective, or seemingly needed. To best meet the potential that a varied staff begins with talking to that staff, knowing them well, and then building programs to grow a school with educators' needs, interests, and abilities in mind.
It's easy to disregard educator voice, choice, and leadership. It's easy to sit in an office distanced from the real work of schools and make plans for educators as if they are all the same. But is that the right thing to do? The better way to lead is know the people you lead well and to work with them in ways that develop schools and school systems in rich, varied, dynamic ways.
We can do better in schools, and this betterment begins with restructuring schools in ways that begin with knowing the educators, families, and students that make up the school community well, and then working with those learning team members to meet needs, interests, and potential in ways that matter.
