Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]
Regular readers of my blog know that I lament the stagnation of assessment results in literacy and numeracy and the lack of improvement in achievement among Indigenous students and students with special needs designations. For the several months I have been reading the strategic plans developed by school boards in British Columbia that are designed to align with the goals of intellectual, social, and career development as expressed in the Statement of Education Policy Order. I am wondering how school districts are going to produce the changes that are required to fulfill the goals in their plans.
Teachers are, of course, the key agents of change. Without their support, change cannot occur. There are other factors at play, but it is essential that teachers be willing to change their practice to improve student performance and outcomes.
In my quest to understand change, I recently read an article that so resonated with my experience that it has me thinking along new lines. That the article resonates with my experience doesn’t prove anything, but it is worth considering the implications of what the scholar-practitioners—the authors of the article--learned from their experience.
Two university researchers, McKenzie and Scheurich, both with teaching and research experience in urban educational settings, conducted a collaborative action research project at a diverse urban elementary school. Their objective was to work alongside the school's administration and staff to boost the academic success of all students across various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. While the school's accountability data showed some progress, particularly for the lowest-performing students, the project revealed four main obstacles to change: the tendency to blame external factors for low achievement, the perception that accountability systems undermine teaching, the belief that proposing change implies criticism, and a general reluctance to embrace leadership roles.[1]
McKenzie and Scheurich found that the teachers with whom they worked and with whom they had positive relationships frequently blamed factors outside the school, such as parenting, student behavior, and poverty for students' academic struggles. They inferred that pointing to external reasons suggested that the teachers were hesitant to consider how their own methods might contribute to student performance. They also found that biases against students' diverse backgrounds also played a part, leading teachers to view some background differences negatively.
The authors also found that, across various educational settings, teachers voiced concerns that accountability measures, such as standardized testing, hindered their teaching. The teachers argued that these systems limit their creativity, fail to address the needs of all students, and create a stressful environment. McKenzie and Scheurich found that the resistance went beyond pedagogical objections to the teachers' sense of autonomy within their classrooms. Accountability was often viewed as an intrusion, challenging the traditional power teachers hold in the classrooms and leading to a defensive stance against perceived external scrutiny.
Teachers with whom the authors worked frequently viewed suggestions for improvement as personal criticism, regardless of how they were presented. McKenzie and Scheurich believe that this issue was linked to the power dynamic between school administrators and teachers. Despite efforts to work together on changes, teachers often felt that improvement suggestions were a critique of their work. That situation made it hard to change teaching methods and revealed the challenging tension between leadership and teacher resistance to change.
McKenzie and Scheurich wrote that, although the idea of shared leadership assumes that teachers will welcome the chance to take on leadership roles, the reality was that teachers were hesitant to accept these roles. They tended to avoid actions that might set them apart from colleagues or disrupt established norms. Even teachers who were formally acknowledged as leaders frequently resisted using their authority to guide teaching practices. The authors opined that such behavior indicates a widespread reluctance within the teaching profession to embrace leadership responsibilities.
The McKenzie and Scheurich article has me thinking about four related questions:
- How can we design professional development programs that encourage teachers to reflect on their teaching methods and view challenges as opportunities for increasing their effectiveness?
- How can we involve teachers in creating assessment systems that recognize their creativity and the diverse needs of students so that teachers see accountability as a professional responsibility and opportunity rather than a punitive measure?
- How can we redefine educational leadership to emphasize collaboration?
- What mentorship programs can we establish to support teachers transitioning into leadership roles?
These are difficult questions to which I do not have ready answers, but
I believe that it is crucial to involve teachers in answering them. Without
their participation it will be difficult, if not impossible, to shift the
perception of change from something that is done to teachers to something that
is done by them.
I am going to think about these four questions between now and the Fall when my blog will resume.
[1] McKenzie, K.B. & J.J. Scheurich (2008) Teacher
resistance to improvement of schools with diverse students, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 11:2, 117-133, DOI:
10.1080/13603120801950122