21st Century Learning - Teacher Professional Development

My school district, Bethlehem Central SD (in Delmar, NY) has initiated a 21st century learning committee within the last 18 months and we are discussing and planning how to evolve teaching toward a paradigm that moves students to be intrinsically motivated learners whose skills more than adequately prepare them for (even the unkown) challenges of their working and living lives.

Mission statements are complete, visions have been shared, and we are now at the stage where conversations become more public with our entire faculty. Importantly, our committee does not go out to our staff as experts. Rather, we go out merely as facilitators of conversation. I don't think the importance of this strategy (and the underlying beliefs that prompt it) can be underestimated.

At the core of effective leadership (in any realm, role, or organization) is an awareness of fallibility. Leaders who assume they are infallible often fail to trust those they are charged with leading. They assume incompetence, apathy, unprofessionalism and a host of many other dysfunctions. Contrarily, leaders who recognize that they are imperfect have a better appreciation for how unique experiences cause people to have very different skill sets, and as a result they can better anticipate how to move collectives toward successful completion of challenging goals.

This (leadership efficacy, or lack thereof) manifests itself in the planning of support as an organization transitions toward its goal. The "infallible leader" places the burden of learning, skill development and motivation on the employee, while the leader who acknowledges that there is no common foundation among staff (particularly when trying lead a broad paradigm shift) plans differentiated support to meet the needs of the critical mass.

To digress, this is a good point to define what I consider an important distinction. Too often educators confuse, or don't distinguish between "enabling" and "empowering." Enabling "does for" a person while empowering teaches, or provides for a person "to do for him / herself." The key in this distinction is that permanence of learning, skill development, and motivation only come through empowerment. The only established permanency of enabling is dependence. It can certainly be said that it takes strength to demand change in an organization. It takes far greater strength to manage the balance between support and empowerment. When "supports" are defined it is likely that they never have an enabling influence, but when they are ill-defined, even the best intentions of an effective leader can lead to some endpoint that is worse than the starting point.

Therefore, as I accept the charge of co-chairing a professional development sub-committee (of our 21st century committee) I find myself faced with an interesting and challenging opportunity; how to empower (and support) without enabling.

The following are my (draft / still developing) thoughts on how to proceed through this process:

1. Assess the current state of skill, knowledge, and motivational proficiencies of our staff
2. Begin to plan for differentiated supports in each area (skills, knowledge, and motivation)
3. Following a "McTighe'ian" backwards design framework, identifing exemplars for skills, dispositions, motivations, and collegial collaboration. This will effectively / possibly get the 'self-starters' off and running and preempt moving them too slowly, which could have negative consequence on the critical mass and momentum.
4. Involve and get investment from a diverse set of stakeholders whose sphere of influence creates a strong critical mass (this likely should be #1 on this list).

At this point I'm thinking I shouldn't get too much farther. While I haven't read, or found any literature to this effect, it is my belief that far too many leadership initiatives never get off the ground because leaders (while trying to compel collaboration) don't collaborate with their colleagues to build sound planning strategies. They lay out "their" plan without asking if it's coherent and congruent with what others believe, perceive, and conceive should be the plan and because of this the leader fails to inspire any momentum.

Regardless of how I and our team evolve our planning on this (and despite the fact that we all hate large meetings) my read on our group is that there is a genuine excitement at the potential this initiative offers. I don't know how many I speak for when I say that I am excited as much for my own teaching as I am for our collective. My greatest thrills in teaching come from discovering ways to better what I do and increase my capacity. I can't wait to learn more!