Reading Corinna's thinking about the importance of vulnerability and trust on teams has gotten me to wondering about whether PLCs can truly be created through a set of logical, practical steps, or whether successful PLCs are more a matter of luck.
I mean, trust in teams is based on shared experiences---a group of individuals who come together, develop a collective vision for their work, and then walk forward as one. Successful teams laugh together and look forward to being challenged by one another. Successful teams see every member as an equal, capable of making worthwhile contributions. Successful teams move beyond conflict because of the value that they place on the relationships that they have with one another.
Can you really do these things with people that you don't enjoy?
If the members of a team don't "hit it off," will you really make yourself open to allowing others to change your instructional practices---let alone your thinking?
And if not, what implications does this have for the formation of learning teams in schools? Should teams self-select based on shared interests? Is "assigning" teachers to teams a misguided practice? Is hiring teachers no longer a role that administrators can fill without teacher input?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
While it is valuable and rewarding for members of a team to enjoy working with each other on a personal level, I believe that professional learning communities are, first and foremost, professional. Whether or not we form real friendships with our colleagues is less important than whether or not we are able to work together productively and respectfully. And, in my opinion, "hitting it off" is not necessarily a prerequisite to having a productive collegial relationship in which two people are able to respect and learn from each other. It's always rewarding when we become friends with our colleagues, but I don't think it's necessary within a PLC.
Parry wrote:
And, in my opinion, "hitting it off" is not necessarily a prerequisite to having a productive collegial relationship in which two people are able to respect and learn from each other. It's always rewarding when we become friends with our colleagues, but I don't think it's necessary within a PLC.
As a person working on a learning team, Parry, I'm not sure that I agree with you here. I think that teams who lack that "spark of friendship" can be cordial, but I think collaborative work takes something more than cordial.
I've worked in tons of situations with tons of different people, and the only ones that have changed my practice are the ones who I've "hit it off" with.
Could I "play nice" with others?
Sure.
But real change in instructional practices requires more than "playing nice," and dozens of learning teams fail to move beyond this level of development.
Pushback?
From an administrator's perspective, here's my concern: If part of the litmus test of building a successful professional learning team is that all of the members not only have to get along, but also have to "hit it off", then that severely limits the opportunities for using PLTs as a school improvement model.
Let me explain my thinking. Let's say that I'm an administrator and I'd like to use the PLC model to support teacher improvement. DuFour says that you have to make collaboration mandatory throughout a school, but I know that my 3rd grade teachers just do not get along with each other. Does this mean that those teachers are incapable of collaborating successfully, and that I should change my expectations for them? Does this mean that PLTs can only work in situations in which team members happen to have compatible personalities?
I do agree with you that collaborative work takes something more than cordial, but I believe that, given the right structure, expectations, and support, just about any group of teachers can go beyond cordial to become a successful PLT, whether they ultimately "hit it off" or not.
In conversations with teachers, especially when talking about student data, I constantly stress the need to separate practice from personality. That is, data speak to the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of practices, not the people behind the practices. So if teachers can separate practices from personality, shouldn't they be able to learn from each other even if their personalities don't mesh?
If not, I'm concerned about the possibility of the PLC model as a tool of educational reform.
Post a Comment