Back in April I attended the AERA conference in Philadelphia. AERA is such an overwhelming experience (hundreds of sessions, thousands of attendees!) that I guess it’s not surprising that it’s taken me months to come back to some of the ideas shared in those Philly conference rooms. 

A symposium I attended half-way through brought together researchers “at the nexus of continuous improvement and school district research.” Research on continuous improvement focuses primarily on principles and practices by which schools can use improvement science to become learning organizations, facilitating adult development in service of student success (check out Bryk, Hinnant-Crawford, and Senge for more). School district research is basically what it sounds like: it focuses on the role of school districts and school district leaders and how central offices have evolved over time. A growing segment of school district research focuses on the potential for school systems to be sites of transformation, even amidst their historical record of reproducing rather than upending inequity (see Honig and Rainey and Turner). 

The researchers in the room largely agreed that though district offices are often enthusiastic about directing schools to “do” continuous improvement, it’s rare that they embrace it to guide their own work. This imbalance undermines the efficacy of improvement efforts. In the session, researcher Candice Bocala drew upon the unpublished work of the late great Richard Elmore and the concept of “symmetry” to explain why. Per Elmore, “symmetry” is the notion that student learning mirrors adult learning. To bring about a change in how students experience learning within the classroom, so too must teachers experience a shift in how they experience learning within their school community. Similarly, if district leaders aim to transform how schools function, they must invest in how they function in service of schools. Essentially, change can’t just be something that happens elsewhere. Transformation needs to happen with all of us, together.

Here are a few thoughts on how to apply these ideas in the context of school- and system-wide instructional improvement efforts: 

1. For instructional reforms to be successful, district leaders need increased clarity on how their work will change. 

   When Chancellor David Banks announced the NYC Reads initiative here in New York, he shared his diagnosis of the cause of low literacy rates citywide: “[Students] aren't reading because we've been giving our schools and our educators a flawed playbook . . . with overlapping, contradictory, and sometimes just flat-out bad guidance.” As school districts across the country seek to roll out a new “playbook” to schools and teachers through the adoption of new curricular materials and investments in professional learning, there’s an opportunity to interrogate how the playbook metaphor extends to their own work. District leaders enacting reform efforts may have a mental model for what must change in classrooms, but do they have a mental model for what must change in how they lead? Leadership is a critical lever for instructional improvement and too often is the missing ingredient in improvement efforts. Unless system leaders are willing to transform their own practice, they may wind up continuing to run the “flawed playbook” even as they believe they’re dismantling it. (I wrote a bit more about these ideas here.)

A Call for Systemic Instructional Improvement

Michele Caracappa

·

February 8, 2024

Read full story

2. Symmetry doesn’t mean everyone needs to learn the same thing, but it does mean everyone needs to be learning. 

   As districts engage in improvement efforts, leadership development often remains an afterthought. State reading policies, too, may emphasize teacher training in instructional practices but rarely articulate or provide dedicated funding for leader development in service of improving student outcomes. When districts do invest in leader development, a common move is to have leaders train alongside teachers – sending them to LETRS training or reinforcing their need to be present for their teachers’ curriculum-based professional learning sessions. This is a start – but it’s not enough. School and district leaders need opportunities to invest in role-specific, job-embedded learning that enables them to perform their roles with greater efficacy, not just absorb the knowledge and practices that teachers need to do theirs. A system that truly understands symmetry provides coherent and aligned learning across roles, both developing a shared base of knowledge and supporting leaders with varied responsibilities in building their capacity to effectively lead from their specific vantage point. System leaders can advance this work by identifying the particular leadership practices enacted by principals, school-based coaches, principal managers, and district-level instructional leaders to drive improvement to learning and teaching — and developing a learning plan specific to each. 

3. Adults cannot expect students to think critically if they are unwilling to. 

   Asymmetry shows up profoundly when we consider the gap between the stated aspirations we hold for our students and the culture of schooling within which our teachers and leaders often operate. Take a look at school and district vision statements and be inspired by the cultivation of critical thinkers! Of creative and independent learners! Of the advancement of students’ intellectual, social, emotional, and moral development! In service of life-long learning, civic responsibility, and personal growth! Yet reform by mandate too often devalues adult intellectual engagement, placing far more emphasis on compliance than critical thinking. If we want our students to become critical thinkers, to cultivate democratic values, to love learning and experience mastery of learning goals – then we need to do the same for the adults who serve them. There’s no way to “teacher-proof” or “principal-proof” our way out of this. A system that truly values learning invests in the ongoing learning and development of all within it, in ways that go beyond rhetoric and are embedded in practice. 

In short, achieving symmetry requires that leaders, both at the school and system level, hold up the mirror to their own practice. Requiring others to change but not investing in changing ourselves will undermine even the most ambitious improvement efforts. As Maya Angelou reminds, “nothing will work unless you do.” Leaders have an awesome responsibility to reconsider the ways we work in order to drive change for students – let’s embrace it!