Post 6- Daniel Pink and Motivational School Leadership Part 4: What does work? Mastery

One of the biggest complaints that I hear from the teachers is, “Great, another mandatory program.  We’re not using the last 8 programs hoisted upon us at the last 8 faculty meetings, SDAIE, Direct Instruction, Data Driven Instruction, Marzano Strategies, Thinking Maps, Differentiated Instruction, Explicit Direct Instruction, and Step Up to Writing.  And last year, there were 8 others!” It’s funny that they can all name the list of the latest programs.  The frustration is not with the strategies themselves, but that time is never given to master any of them.  And that is the second factor that Daniel Pink attributes to building motivation and engagement . . . Mastery.

In my early years setting up Professional Learning Communities at schools, I would come in like a whirlwind.  We’d identify essential standards at one meeting, analyze data at the next, create pacing guides at the next, write common assessments at the next, create a rubric and cut scores for those assessments at the next, learn about the flavor of the month of instructional strategies (because they’re all basically the same, it doesn’t even matter which one) at the next.  By then, the contract or grant was usually completed and we never actually got to the part that makes the difference, writing powerful lesson plans.

If I were to go back and do it all over again, I’d do it differently and I would combine autonomy (from the previous post) and mastery together.  Here’s how I’d do it.  First, I would say, “Your collaborative meeting time is for you to get together with others and write lesson plans.  As long as you’re doing that, I won’t interfere.”  I would begin with what’s most important (planning powerful lessons) and allow them an entire year to master the skill.  Every faculty meeting would be focused on lesson planning, there would be a section of the library with books about lesson planning, and my classroom walkthroughs would focus on the lesson plan of the day.

The following year, I would ask the question, “How do we know that the lesson plans we created last year were effective or not?”  This would lead to an understanding that we need to have some kind of assessment and data analysis tool in order to see if our new lesson plans were effective.  Two collaborative meetings a month would be to continue writing lesson plans and two would be for addressing the assessment and data analysis question.  Faculty meetings would focus on how to write effective assessments and use the resulting data effectively, the library and intranet would be filled with assessment resources, and my daily walkthroughs would focus on long and short term assessments.

The following year, I would ask the question, “So, what do we do if our data analysis shows that our lesson plans were not effective at reaching all students?”  This would launch a conversation about prevention, intervention, lesson study, and differentiating the lesson plans.  From that point, two collaborative meetings a month would be to continue lesson planning, one for assessment and data, and one for addressing the question of what to do with struggling learners.  Which week was which and exactly how the meetings are structured would be left up to the teachers.  Our faculty meetings would focus on differentiation and remediation, the library and shared folder on the network would be filled with differentiation resources, and my walkthroughs would focus on differentiation.

The following year, the autonomy would increase even more.  Three collaborative meetings a month would be for lesson planning, assessment and data, and differentiation and the fourth would be for whatever the teacher is passionate about.  It might be planning fund raisers or motivational assemblies or working with parents or setting up a tutoring center or starting a robotics club or assisting students with science fair or history day projects.  The opportunities would be endless and so would the engagement.  At this point, the REAL committees (see post 5) would recommend what professional development was needed, what additional resources could be provided, and what our Instructional Rounds should focus on.

This plan gives teachers a year to master each of the components of a PLC without moving too quickly or piling on the initiatives.  You might be saying to yourself, “Four years to set up PLCs???”  Every principal I’ve ever seen who tries to change things too quickly either doesn’t make it to the end of the year or gets some compliance and no engagement.   Beginning with the most important component first (lesson planning) would almost ensure early victories in the process and allow mastery before adding more components.

Combining some facets of autonomy with some facets of mastery could elicit high levels of engagement from a school’s faculty.  It could change the atmosphere of collaborative meetings, faculty meetings, and leadership meetings.  But best of all, it could change the quality of the interactions between teachers and students, the only thing that truly affects student achievement.

In the very first post in this blog series, I said that a principal’s job is to hire, train, and retain spectacular teachers.  This process will certainly bring on the kind of engagement that will improve the classroom practices of all teachers, be engaging enough to encourage teachers to stay at the school, and motivate outside teachers to want to be at this school.

What practices have you put into place that allow teachers to master their practice?  Tell us the story below.

Read Part 1 of this blog here

Read Part 2 of this blog here

Read Part 3 of this blog here

Read Part 5 of this blog here

Read Part 6 of this blog here

Tags: Professional Learning Communities, dufour, motivation, teachers, principal, leadership, school, mastery, daniel pink, michael horton