Dr. Hana Bor is the Director of the MA in Jewish Education and Jewish Communal Service at Towson University.
In this article Hana Bor describes how a summer learning program for teachers became the springboard for ongoing professional development in a congregational school.
used to teach my students, but now, as chief learner in my classroom, we create learning together … If I could I would give the gift of lifelong learning to every child. I would always be patient and guide them to their passions. I will not quit my quest to inspire and empower them …
– Denise Krebs
It is significant that every day school teacher and principal was once a student, as learning lays the foundation for the cycle of Jewish education. The role of the principal as school leader has evolved and advanced over time. In recent memory, a principal’s job description was heavy on administrative duties, requiring service as department head or grade-level chair, planning and providing in-service training for the faculty, mentoring other teachers, and developing curriculum (R. Ash, 1999). But times have changed: technological advances have reshaped the way teachers conduct class; family and social dynamics have been irreversibly altered, with single-parent homes and blended families becoming the norm; economics – particularly the vanishing middle class – have played a significant role in family, community and school structure. In keeping up with these and other drastic changes, the role of the principal has evolved, too. In addition to the mundane, managerial tasks required of the Head of School, the principal’s job description has expanded to include such diverse roles and skills as communicator, visionary, culture builder, activator, producer, character builder and contributor, who is focused on actively transforming his or her school into a community of learners (McEwan, 2003). This article focuses on the Head of School and the department heads of a large, Conservative congregational school, and their dynamic and visionary approach to promoting a culture of learning among their faculty, with an eye towards creating a first-rate school experience for students and faculty alike. “The new model of a school leader is one who is continually learning. The leader’s task is allowing people throughout the organization to deal productively with the critical issues they face, and to develop mastery in learning disciplines.” (NAEST, 2009).
Principals have the power to use their resources to build a community of learners and cultivate an atmosphere of collaborative learning that will realize the vision, mission and goals of their schools (Umphrey, 2002). School principals who devote energy to encouraging teacher leadership make capital gains in their own power. Student performance increases; parent and teacher satisfaction rises. Teacher leaders can and do influence teaching and learning (Katzenmeyer, 2009). Everything a principal does in school must be focused on ensuring the learning of students and adults (NAESP, 2009).
Making professional development a priority
In the case we will explore here, the Congregational school’s Head of School has made professional development a priority both in time and monetary resources, so that all of the teachers feel as though they are part of the larger professional learning community – a concept that is anchored in the notion that the principal is responsible for enhancing the attitudes, skills and knowledge of the staff, creating a culture of expectations around the use of those skills, and holding accountable the individuals for their contributions to the collective result (Elmore, 2000). The principal’s approach to professional development is creative and inspired, as he looks to build an environment that supports continuous inquiry and improvement. He conducts annual review of faculty surveys and enrollment statistics with the synagogue clergy and the school committee, making appropriate determinations regarding the type and depth of professional development that will best serve the current needs of the school. Leaders who are flexible are able to respond in diverse ways to the needs of an organization. In the school context, change should be oriented towards improved outcomes and achievements for students (Buchanan, 2012).
A survey of the student body in 2011 revealed a growing population of dyslexic students and others with clearly identified special learning needs. Responding to this inquiry, the principal invited the Head of School from a well-known institution that serves dyslexic children, to conduct a “best practices” workshop for his faculty. The visiting headmaster encouraged the Congregational teachers to imagine themselves as having special needs, and then offered concrete ways to transform their classrooms into multi-sensory learning experiences that benefit all children, not just those who learn differently. This workshop conveyed the message to the faculty, staff, students and parent body that the Congregational school is always open to learning and practicing new ideas and initiatives, as well as constantly reviewing and improving upon their procedures.
Expanding the community of practice
The Congregational School has expanded its community of practice by inviting members of the community who possess particular professional skills and experience to serve as mentors to the faculty. Several years ago, the Head of School learned that a member of the shul is an award winning expert in educational technology for the Baltimore County Public School District, and he immediately tapped her for professional development workshops. Today this woman continues to work voluntarily on the school committee and on specific projects with the Head of School and the Rabbi Educator, bringing her outside expertise into the School’s community of practice and helping to integrate best practices from the public school community into the Religious School program.
The B’nai Mitzvah Coordinator shares her experience on the Congregational School faculty, and reflects on why she has stayed with the school for so many years. “The Head of School has always encouraged me and my colleagues to continue our education at the (then) Baltimore Hebrew University and other institutions of higher learning in the area, even offering us tuition reimbursement. I use the knowledge I have acquired when approaching those with whom I work and study, and I’ve been able to form new partnerships within the school as a direct result of my involvement in the ILI (see below).”
The Head of School believes that “one of the most important roles that I fill in my position is the challenge of building a powerful learning community within my faculty; one that sets the tone and the pace for embracing a love of lifelong learning. From the parent-body all the way down to our youngest students, everyone is touched by our energy and our desire to share, build and connect.” He opens every faculty meeting with a passage of Torah text to study, whether he is meeting with the preschool or religious school teachers. “I make the text current, relevant, and that generates lively discussion.” He shares e-mailed and published materials with the entire faculty, encouraging them to “look up from their curriculum” in order to expand their teaching resources. “Learning is the fuel that runs the machine,” he explains.
The summer ILI experience
Harvard Professor Richard Elmore argues that leadership of schools is beyond the capacity of any one person and needs to be “distributed” to incorporate the contours of expertise into a culture that provides coherence, guidance and direction for teaching, learning and instruction (Elmore, 2000). In his pursuit of more avenues to excellence in education, and in acknowledgement of the notion that the strength of the school’s leadership lies in the distribution of knowledge and power, the Congregational School’s principal, administrative team of seven, and 6 veteran and novice teachers participated in a weeklong Summer Instructional Leadership Institute (ILI). The ILI was developed by the Center for Leadership in Education at the College of Education of Towson University (Towson) in response to a 2010 survey commissioned by The Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore (“The Associated”). That survey revealed that Baltimore has a highly involved Jewish community compared with most other Jewish communities. Seventy-four percent of respondents told The Associated that being Jewish is “very important” to them, and nearly sixty percent of households reported membership in a Jewish organization. The survey noted an expanding participation in Jewish early childhood and ongoing Jewish education among Baltimore’s approximately 26,000 children in Jewish households.
With this information in hand, the ILI was offered in the summer of 2012, as a hybrid course that combined a week of face-to-face, full-day workshops with an ongoing, online community that continues to involve the participants throughout their school year. Institute faculty included Towson professors of education who possess decades of instructional leadership expertise. The Towson faculty partnered with Jewish educational professionals from the Baltimore community to insure seamless and transparent integration of the dual perspectives of public education and Jewish education which are at the core of this institute. The ILI drew participants from 10 Baltimore-area early childhood, religious and day schools including the Congregational school, as well as B’nai Mitzvah teachers, camp directors and other educators from informal and adult education settings. The ILI target audience was the school principal; as the chief learner in the school hierarchy, it is through this individual that the school faculty inculcates a culture of inquiry, and can then establish a community of practice.
Virtually all of the participants in the ILI were of the mind that this professional development opportunity was a commencement of sorts, “an ongoing, never-ending process specifically designed to change the very culture” of the schools represented at the seminar (Dufour, 2006). One of the greatest benefits of attending the ILI was the opportunity for the Congregational school to create, expand, and refine its school-wide vision and mission statements. In breakout sessions and workshops, the teachers and principals free-associated and brainstormed, clarifying the differences between vision and mission, and affirming common goals that will enable the school to meet its objectives. Taking the time to talk with colleagues both from the preschool and religious school made the discussion about vision and mission richer and more productive.
After the ILI
Following the ILI, the Congregational school team shared its mission and vision with the Board of Directors. Later, the Congregation’s lay leaders and parent body were invited to share their feedback, input, and comments. The result is a vision and mission that reflect the strongest and clearest values shared by all of the school’s stakeholders.
Much of the time at the ILI was spent discussing how to transform theory into practice. With the largest group of attendees, the Congregational school found it easy to articulate the needs of the faculty and students, particularly the aspects of the school experience that are successful versus the parts that need revision. The ILI also offered the Congregational school the chance to grow as one unit. Teachers developed a kinship with colleagues across department boundaries. When the Congregational school staff returned after a full week at Towson, they were conscious of having missed a full week of summer work time. Despite this, everyone who participated in ILI said that the week of training, bonding and collaborating was the best use of prep time they had all summer.
Several weeks later at their back-to-school summer training, two of the teachers who had attended the ILI took the initiative to prepare a workshop of facilitated activities focused on creating multi-sensory experiences in the classroom. On their own time they produced games, activities, and brainstorming sessions that brought to the fore the lessons of the ILI, thus continuing the chain of communication, and planting the seeds of a community of practice. This was all done with the explicit consent and approval of the Head of School, who saw this multi-sensory workshop as a furtherance of his mission to perpetuate the process of creating a culture of learning and inquiry in the School. The decision by the Head of School to invest in the ILI falls in line with the notion that “teachers who strategically and intentionally participate in formative assessment practices can undergo profound transformation in their professional growth” (D. Ash, 2003). Stepping into the role of his school’s “chief learning officer,” the Head of School is following through on his commitment to provide a clear framework for teaching and learning, share governance and collaborative problem solving, use visible standards to inform practice, and extend in-school opportunities for teachers to collaborate with colleagues (R. Ash, 1999).
The Assistant Principal recalls that post-ILI faculty meetings have become
less dogmatic, more democratic. ILI changed our way of thinking about the teacher orientation – instead of telling, we now include the teachers in the planning, and give them what they have asked for – more guidance in developing innovative curriculum, more help in lesson planning, and lots of creative ideas for teaching.
She believes that the ILI and other professional development opportunities will not only help her develop the school’s community of learners, but will
increase my knowledge, help me learn new skills, develop new techniques, explore state-of-the-art educational developments and satisfy my love of learning. My passion for learning is transmitted to the faculty and my students as I share my experiences and new information. I get excited sharing ideas with my faculty, which in turn sparks conversation, energy and passion in them.
She added,
One of the best practices that came out of the ILI was a community of practice where as a team (clergy, administrators and educators) we created teacher orientation workshop, between teachers of the same grade level, and follow-up workshops to strengthen and continue the learning among cohorts and develop extraordinary lesson plans. The teachers and administrators inspire each other; this in turn engenders dynamic and exciting learning in the classroom.
Impact on academic achievement
Nearly 60% of a school’s impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher effectiveness (New Leaders for New Schools, 2009). In order for students to have high-quality learning gains year after year, whole schools must be high-functioning, and must be led by effective principals and teachers. The primary goal of the principal as chief learning officer, then, is to build and inspire teachers to become a team of highly qualified school leaders, prepared with knowledge, skills and creative problem-solving abilities, who will work, think and learn together to support high levels of student achievement. Collectively this team will create the positive, vibrant Jewish learning atmosphere that will ultimately sustain a culture of learning year after year.
This article has examined the case study of a school that implements this model of teachers as learners, who believe that their learning strengthens and energizes the school. The common denominator of the faculty and staff is their desire to build on mutually-held Jewish values, including their love of learning, and their desire to learn new teaching techniques. The result is improved school morale, which in turn gives the teachers confidence in their teaching abilities, allows them to choose the best curricular themes, and accommodates the needs of the students as learners. Ultimately, the cultivation of leaders as learners and learners as leaders (Schein, 2009) serves as a model for the school community, preserving the ideal of the perpetual Jewish student. A commitment to the value of lifelong learning enables the principal to consider other possibilities and processes that lead to better learning outcomes and achievements for students (Buchanan, 2011) for the present and future.
References
Ash, D. and Levitt, K. (2003). Working within the zone of proximal development: formative assessment as professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(1): 1-313.
Ash, R.C. & Persall, J.M. (1999). The principal as chief learning officer. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84 (616), 15-22. Retrieved from www.change-specialists.com/articles/The%20Principal%20as%20Chief%20 Learning%20Officer.pdf
Buchanan, M. T. (2011). Faith leadership: A model for educational leadership contexts. Journal of Catholic School Studies, 83(2), 44-51.
Dufour, R. and Dufour, R. (2006) Learning by doing: a handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington. Available at http://files//solutiontree.com/pdfs/Reproducibles_LBD2nd/LBD2ndeditionactionguide.pdf
Elmore, R. (2000) Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker Institute, Winter.
Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G. (2009). Building a culture that supports teacher leadership in Awakening the sleeping giant: helping teachers develop as leaders (Third edition). Corwin: California.
Krebs, D. (2012). “Chief Learner.” Retrieved from: http://mrsdkrebs.edublogs.org/
McEwan, E.K. (2003). Ten traits of highly effective principals: from good to great performance. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
National Association of Elementary School Principals (2009). Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Washington, DC.
New Leaders for New Schools (2009). Retrieved from www.newleaders.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/08/princpal_effectiveness_executive_summary_nlns. pdf
Schein, J. (2009). The pedagogy of teaching educational vision: A vision coach’s field notes about leaders as learners. Journal of Jewish Education 75: 364-379
2010 Greater Baltimore Jewish Community Study. The Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore (2011). Retrieved from www.associated. org/local_includes/downloads/53896.pdf
Umphrey, J. (2002). Talking in school. Principal Leadership 2(7): 4.