One of the things whch struck me in Professor Richard Elmore’s presentation today was his recurring use of the term “instructional practice”.

I know teachers in Scotland would be horrified by such a term - “we are not technicians” would be their immediate response. The other difficulty in the term is its association with the verb to “instruct “- to tell/direct, which for many teacher smacks of didactic and authoritarian methodologies.- “instructions are something that you get when you board a plane”

Yet one of the themes which have jumped out for me over the duration of the course has been the need to separate the classroom practice from the person if we are going to be able to have a true dialogue about the quality of that practice.

The problem with the word teaching is that is is associated with the noun - teacher, i.e. if you comment on my “teaching” you are commenting upon me as a person.

If we take heed of Elmore’s words there is an undeniable need to clarify a body of knowledge and skills associated with teaching - perhaps by using the concept of instructional practice it might be possible to step back from evaluation of the person - to an evaluation of the practice -which is surely where we want to be?

Professor Richard Elmore claims that “education is a profession without a practice”.

He justifies his assertion through reference to an absence of a clear body of knowledge and a clear body of practice.

For Elmore the weakness of the profession is the mistaken notion that:

autonomy = professionalism

Yet such a relationship is essentially anti-professional - “Within a true profession an individual does not have autonomy over it’s body of knowledge and it’s practice” - which would appear to be the case for education. Yet other professions such as medicine, law, dentistry or accountancy have a body of practice and knowledge, which must be learned, mastered and implemented within agreed and non-negotiable norms.

Professor Elmore proposes that there is no unified agreement on what constitutes high performance/high quality instructional practice. Such a situation results in “the deep and central pathology” which afflicts education i.e. we change “readily and promiscuously in response to the environment”. Yet surgeons don’t change the way they carry out a heart bypass operation because the government has changed - so why do we in education change our practice everytime we face a shift in political administration - the differnce is that surgeons’ practice changes in response to research - wheras the majority of teachers are essentially divorced from research and are quite happy to support such an assertion..

Elmore went on to call for the profession to begin to take control over its practice and knowledge. The however, is that IF we were to agree a body of practice and knowledge then, just as with other professions, there would have to be an expectation that there would be less varation in practice from one classroom to another.

The reality, however, is that there is enormous variation from one classroom to another. In fact research proves that the major factor in determining pupil success is the difference between the teachers. For example, if a pupil has one teacher who has poor instructional skills - the pupil will take over 3 years to recover; of the same pupil has two consecutive years of being taught by a teacher with poor instructional skills they will take 5 years to recover; and if they have three consecutive years they will never recover.

So how do Head Teachers currently address such problems?:

They either move teachers around to ensure that pupils don’t get two consecutive years of poor instruction; or

they attempt - all to rarely - to remove such teachers from the system;

Elmore expanded upon these when he suggested there were only three ways to improve the quality:

1. Change the role of the student;
2. Raise complexity of content through more challenging instructional tasks; or
3. Increase the knowledge and skills of the teachers; this would necessitate

*you cannot do one without the other

I’m certainly taken by these ideas, particularly the notion of establishing unambiguous, consistent, shared and rigorously upheld norms of instructional practice which permeate a school and an educational system.

Inspirational!

Yesterday I moved very definitely into my “stretch zone” when I volunteered, in front of over 140 delegates, to participate in a role-play situation with Barry Jentz.

Barry asked me to engage in one of those “difficult conversations” we sometimes have to conduct as leaders. The scenario, in brief, was that I, as the leader, had to share with Barry, the new teacher to the school, that I was unhappy about his conduct in a recent staff meeting.

At the end of the role-play I thought I had done a fairly good job in that I was “cool, calm and collected” and I had also managed to give Barry the bad news.

However I was making these conclusions based on my reflexive thinking i.e. I gave Barry the information I had to share with him BUT I conducted the conversation in a “closed” manner.

With some input from Barry I was able to see that I need to move to a much higher level of engagement and shift my thinking from this reflexive mode to the more open, reflective mode where one is entering into a two way, problem-solving approach.

This reflective mode has far more intellectual rigour and also it is something we ask the people around us to engage in regularly so if we are asking them to do this we must show that we, as leaders, are ready and able to engage in this too.

A reflective skill set is about giving good data i.e. sharing accurate information AND listening. The outcome of this is that we can decrease the amount of defensiveness from the person with whom we are speaking which in turn increases the openness to change. This in turn leads to more opportunities to improve performance.

I found yesterday that, as Jentz says,

“Any information that helps improve your performance will make you sting inside.” 

However I can now see that

“A Reflective Mind is a Learning Mind.”

A challenging day!

We are collectively making some impression on the conference - not least today when Dennise Sommerville got up to participate in a role play exercise.

Very brave in front of 150 fellow principals - I kept my head down!!

One of the features of American education about which I have been suprised in the number of High School Principals who started their management careers in Elementary (Primary) schools.

One of the reasons that I’m so surprised is that the system here is so performance measurement oriented - in other words if something doesn’t improve the numbers it won’t be continued.  Yet there is no apparent difference in the performance of schools led by leaders who have only worked in the High School setting and those who are led by leaders who were first in the Elementary setting.

So where does that leave us in Scotland?

Well is doesn’t happen! - so why not? One of the reasons often given is that “Primary schools are so different from Secondary (High) schools “the examination system, the timetable,  pupil behaviour, structure of departments, and often the difference in the number of pupils “- yet one could argue that such elements are all at the techinical end of the spectrum - they can be learned.

What’s been reinforced to me here is that the big management issues - i.e. people and culture are completely the same between primary and secondary.

When I moved from being a High School Principal to being Head of Education - no one batted an eyelid - yet no one could have suggested that I had all the technical knowledge necessary for me to do the job. The reality is that I had developed a set of transferable leadership and management skills  which allowed me to take up my post and the rest I’ve had to learn on the job.

So why couldn’t an outstanding Primary Head Teacher be considered for a position as Head Teacher of a secondary school - especially when we are experiencing such a shortage of high quality candidates for such posts.

As the size issue - that would mean that any Head Teacher of a small secondary school could never be considered for the post of Head Teacher of a large secondary school - which would never happen.

I’d like to explore this further when I get home - no doubt teachers’ unions might have issues and parents might have concerns but I don’t think either are insurmountable - perhaps the greatest shift would have to come in the in the minds of people like me.

Mind you - if we did go  for such a shift, the direction of travel would have to be both ways.

Would I do it?  -  you betcha!!!

Lee Teitel

“The biggest challenge facing schools leaders is the burden of presumed competence” Roland Barth

“People do not resist change they resist the losses associated with change”

“Why are we doing what we are doing?” “sharpening the saw” – saw is blunted by continual use - coming to Harvard or attending good CPD sharpens that saw again.

Technical challenges – things we know how to do already – band aid approach – not necessarily easy but the necessary skill set is available – What is the problem you are trying to solve?

Adaptive challenge – trying to develop new solutions – involve conflict, choices or values – the characteristics of an adaptive solution would be that they create conflict losses choices or values – the problems keep coming back if you throw technical challenges at them. ( I teach chemistry not kids – this is a major adaptive change for the teacher)

If you try to change classroom practice by presenting teachers with attainment data that is technical change – temporary ‘band aid’ approach.

Need to talk more to find common solutions.

Is it always relevant to acknowledge our confusion?

Judgement needs to come into play

Confessing you don’t know can enhance your stature

It’s important to know what you don’t know

How are we developing our school leaders

People interpret the expression of confusion differently from men and women - women have to be right first time!

Need to find new solutions to old problems

What networks that support my practice as a leader?

What does it mean to be in a network that shares practice?

Good leadership is to important to leave to chance – bringing to scale high quality learning and teaching

Characteristics of school leadership practice networks:

• Belief that there is a leadership practice – perhaps not just one

• Have structured times and norms of honest and critical feedback

• Theory and practice are intertwined

• Use of protocols and norms to change default cultures