Teachers Should Never Work in Isolation
Education is centrally concerned with people: students, parents, teachers, counselors, administrators, community-based organization personnel, and policymakers. The motivation and power of people to organize and work in collaboration to set performance goals that support the educational community is translated into building capacity to get things done in a way that leads to successful outcomes (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2002; Shavelson, & Towne, 2002). Other researchers show that teachers who work in isolation or are self-contained in their classroom fail to form productive professional relationships and expand their teaching capacity by learning from other teacher’s expertise (Schlechty, 2002; Hargraves, 1995). Teachers that work in isolation not only struggle to gain support from their principal, but stifle the moral support necessary for innovative activities and curriculum integration (Lieberman, Saxl & Miles, 2002; Hargraves, 1995). A culture of teamwork among teachers supports professional growth and innovation, working in isolation undermines growth and innovation.
Review of Literature
The common reason for not working in collaboration with one another as given by teachers, is that their curriculum and subject standards are already integrated or aligned and already prepares students for college and a career pathway – according to the research, both the postsecondary and industry sectors disagree and continue to find fault in the system. Unfortunately, this is not unique to a handful of teachers, most teachers in public schools have little, if any training in curriculum alignment, and may not be aware of the potential impact that a fully aligned curriculum could have on their students’ academic achievement. In a recent study of 121 teachers from Southern California, Thompson, Warren, and Carter (2004) found that most of the teachers indicated that they were not adequately prepared to be an effective classroom teacher. This finding, strongly suggests the need for professional development around curriculum alignment that is relevant to the population of students being served. In the same study, Thompson and her colleagues found that the majority of teachers did not encouraged collaborative learning in their classrooms, indicating that teachers may not be aware of the advantages of working as a collaborative team. The fact is, too many teachers work in isolation. Too many teachers work in the absence of a professional learning community of teachers. The safest assumption for choosing to work in isolation is the lack of opportunity due to school organizational structures. The previous section emphasized “the process” or the positive progression of a consistent conversation around practice that requires input, knowledge, and a sense of teacher collegiality. Indicators that reflect strong collegiality among teachers and administrators, according to Barth (2006), are educators that practice:
- Talking with one another about practice
- Sharing their craft knowledge
- Observing one another while they are engaged in practice
- Rooting for one another’s success
Teacher Collegiality
In the efforts to create a culture of teacher collegiality and motivate educators of all walks to engage in a professional dialogue over a period of time and share their expertise, policymakers must call for a strong collective effort among the three primary sectors: the secondary sector, which includes middle school and high school; the post-secondary sector, which includes two-year colleges and four-year universities, and the industry sector. For a curriculum alignment process to be effective and efficient, the following educators are recommended as members of a collaborative team:
- Career technical education (CTE) instructor
- Academic core of teachers
- High school and middle school administrator(s)
- Guidance counselor
- Post-secondary representative
- School district representative
- Industry/community-based partner(s)
Conclusion
School districts, post-secondary institutions, academic teachers, CTE teachers, and industry partners are all stakeholders in the education of our youth. All stakeholders share a common responsibility and accountability to engage in conversations with each other in the efforts to increase student learning beyond high school.
References
Barth, S. R. (2006). Improving relationships with the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership,
29-33.
Bolman, G. L. (1997). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta GA: CEP Press.
Hargraves, A. (1995). Renewal in the age of paradox. Educational Leadership, 14-19.
Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles (2000). Teacher leadership: Ideology and practice. In The Jossey-
Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (pp. 339-345). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlechty (1991). Leading a school system through change: Key steps for moving reform
forward. Schools for the 21st Century: Leadership imperatives for Education Reform.
Shavelson, R. & Towne, E. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Thompson, L. G., Warren, S., & Carter, L. (2004). It’s not my fault: Predicting school
teachers who blame parents and students. The High School Journal; Feb/Mar; 87(3) 5-14.
