© stefanie felix creating collaborative cultures

A S C D / W W W. A S C D . O R G 67

Barbara Kohm and Beverly Nance

In one school, teachers work together towardcommon goals. In another, it’s every man forhimself. In one school, teachers assume respon-sibility for every student’s success. In another,they blame parents and administrators for

student failure.Good people work in all those schools, but some

are more effective than others. The difference isschool culture. Teachers who work in schools withstrong collaborative cultures behave differently fromthose who depend on administrators to create theconditions of their work. In collaborative cultures,teachers exercise creative leadership together andtake responsibility for helping all students learn.

When schools are under pressure to improve, theytend to abandon collaboration in favor of top-downedicts. Collaboration seems like a luxury they can nolonger afford. But rising expectations call for morecollaboration, not less. The ultimate success of anyimprovement depends on the behavior of teachers,and when good teachers work together, they support

Creating CollaborativeCultures

To accelerate positivechange in your school,foster a climate ofworking together.

© S

TEFA

NIE

FE

LIX

© S

US

IE F

ITZH

UG

H

Kohm pp67-72_2:EL Template 8/31/09 12:54 PM Page 67

one another’s journey toward betterinstruction. Principals who need to raiseachievement are driving with the brakeson unless they build cultural normsthat support faculty working together.

Collaborative cultures take thebrakes off and accelerate a faculty’scapacity to improve instruction. AsFigure 1 suggests, when teachers havemany opportunities to collaborate,their energy, creative thinking, effi-ciency, and goodwill increase—and thecynicism and defensiveness thathamper change decrease.

Principals can foster a school envi-ronment that leads to collaborationand teacher leadership by sharingresponsibility with teachers as often aspossible and by helping them developskills that foster collaborative problemsolving. As we’ve seen in our own prac-tice and our years mentoring principals,

collaborative cultures are guided by twooverarching beliefs: transparency(meaning as little as possible is donebehind closed doors) and shared deci-sion making.

Toward Collaborative Decision MakingInformation is the lifeblood of anyorganization. Principals building aculture that supports school reformshould pay attention to the ways officialand unofficial information circulatethrough their schools. Official informa-tion includes published policies, sched-ules, and so on. Unofficial informationincludes rumors and the ways teachersrelate to one another and translate offi-cial policy into classroom practice.

In collaborative cultures, official andunofficial information are similar andreinforce each other. In top-down

cultures, they are dissimilar and at oddswith each other.

Transparency Tips the Scale at ElmwoodDuring the 1990s, the faculty ofElmwood Elementary School1 workedwith the principal and assistant superin-tendent to develop a literacy programthat reflected its deepest beliefs aboutthe ways young students learn to readand write. The goal was to help allstudents in the school’s diverse popula-tion develop sophisticated literacy skillsand learn to love reading and writing.Elmwood’s test scores rose, and theaccomplishment was celebrated in thelocal press.

When the principal and assistantsuperintendent left, the district adopteda new literacy curriculum. Althoughthere were fundamental differences,

68 E D U C AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 9

Principals who develop collaborative cultures shift from being the person who sets the goals to being the person who sets up the conditions that allow others to establish goals.

© S

TEFA

NIE

FE

LIX


many of the new program’s goalsmatched the Elmwood teachers’ goalsand would have furthered their commit-ment to provide excellent literacyinstruction for all. However, teachersresisted implementing the new program,and test scores began to fall.

What made the difference? In the firstinstance, teachers were involved inplanning the literacy program, so theyunderstood the rationale for instruc-tional decisions and felt responsible forsolving problems that inevitably arose.Problems were discussed openly andsolved collaboratively; official and un-official information about the strengthsand weaknesses of the program wereidentical. Conversations in the teacherslounge and the parking lot reinforcedthe program.

In the second instance, teachers werenot involved in choosing the newliteracy curriculum. As a result, theyfailed to see the connections betweenthe old program and the new. Theybelieved the administration had ignoredtheir past experience and success.

In this climate, teachers failed tomake the many small classroom adjust-ments that make a program work. A

great deal of teacher energy was drainedaway by complaining. Official and un-official information circulating about thecurriculum became very contradictory,and conversations in the teacherslounge and the parking lot underminedthe program.

The more information teachers know,the more effective they become. Insteadof censoring information, collaborativeprincipals make it available to everyone.They openly discuss proposed changesand address failures as well as successes.

Taking Action for TransparencyHere are some actions that principalscommitted to transparency can take:� Format information to make it user-friendly. One principal published aweekly memo for teachers. After sheheeded a teacher’s suggestion to putthe weekly schedule (an item thatdemanded teachers’ immediateattention) on the first page, teachersbegan reading the memo more widely.

� Edit your writing. Words are moreeffective when there are fewer of them.

� Develop guidelines for how todisseminate different kinds of informa-tion. Use e-mail and weekly memos for

announcements, feedback sheets forteacher feedback, and staff meetings fortopics that require dialogue.

� Explain your thinking in clearlanguage so that even those who do notagree with decisions will understand thethinking that underlies them.

� Post charts and graphs displayingpertinent data in faculty lounges.

� Work against isolation by givingteachers opportunities to observecolleagues and engage in conversationsabout work in classrooms.

Unearthing Underlying ProblemsDeeper factors often underlie apparently“simple” decisions. One March, the foodand consumer sciences teacher told theprincipal of her middle school that shehad depleted her budget. The teacherrequested additional money from the“slush fund” so students could do atraditional, treasured cookie-bakingproject. The principal replied that therewas no such fund and that additionalmoney would have to come from otherteachers’ budgets, which the principalwas unwilling to tap. The teacher saidthat students would be upset andstormed out of the room.


© G

ALE

ZU

CK

ER

PHOTO BY BRUCE BENNETT


The next day, numerous parentscalled to complain. Apparently, theteacher had told her students of theprincipal’s decision, and students hadcomplained to their parents and otherteachers. The issue became a school-wide controversy. Denying extraresources seemed practical and fair tothe principal.

In truth, the problem of lack of fundsfor cookie baking was only the tip of theiceberg. To minimize confusion and tomake collaborative decisions aboutbudgets, the principal had to get to thebottom of the deeper problem andcommunicate about it openly. She gath-ered the team leaders and departmentchairs. To facilitate the conversation,teachers used a tool called the iceberg(Goodman, 2002), which is designed toreveal the underlying behavior patterns,structures, and even mental assump-tions beneath the immediately visibleaspects of a problem—the three layersunderneath the surface. (See www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200910_kohm_iceberg.pdf for anillustration.)

The “tip of the iceberg” was the back-lash created when the principal denied

the consumer sciences teacher addi-tional money. To get to the first layerbeneath the surface, the group lookedfor patterns and trends related to thissurface problem. Had other teachers inthe past overspent their budgets? Whathad happened when they did? Didprevious administrators make budgetdecisions without faculty input?

Unearthing the second layer involvedexamining structures that allowed thesepatterns to recur. Structures can be

visible items, such as published schoolprotocols, or less visible things, such asattitudes and informal procedures. Inthis case, the principal needed to probefor such information as whether everydepartment chair had a sound budget,who was involved in developing

budgets, and what processes existed tomonitor them.

At the deepest level, the groupexplored the underlying assumptionsteachers held regarding monetaryresources. Did most teachers believetheir budget was flexible? Did theythink creating and adhering to a budgetwas someone else’s responsibility?

The dialogue was enlightening. As thegroup looked frankly at how differentdepartments handled their budgets,they realized that budget decisions affecteveryone in the building. Any moneyadded to one person’s budget decreasesmoney available for other departmentsor whole-school projects likepurchasing library books. And, mostimportant, they learned the necessity ofsharing information. As a result of themeeting, each department contributedfunds to the consumer science budget,making possible a positive learningexperience for students through the endof the semester.

Sharing decisions with teachers onsuch key issues as resource allocationchanges the culture of a school—andoften leads to sounder decisions. Sched-ules and budgets rule teachers’ everydaylives. When teachers decide togetherwhat they want to accomplish with abudget (for example, building up thelibrary) or a schedule (devoting blocksof time to literacy) and then worktogether to create budgets or schedulesthat accomplish these goals, their on-the-ground experience informs theirplanning.

Developing Skills for CollaborationEngaging teachers in collaborativeproblem solving requires in-depththinking and sophisticated communica-tion skills. A variety of tools and prac-tices help teachers and principalsdevelop such skills. Principals in collab-orative schools help teachers gain theseskills and learn to use tools that enablethem to gather a variety of perspectivesand to recognize the complexity

Teachers support one another’sefforts to improve instruction.

Teachers take responsibility forsolving problems and accept theconsequences of their decisions.

Teachers share ideas. As one personbuilds on another’s ideas, a newsynergy develops.

Educators evaluate new ideas in lightof shared goals that focus on studentlearning.

Teachers discourage challenges to thestatus quo.

Teachers depend on principals to solveproblems, blame others for their diffi-culties, and complain about the conse-quences of decisions.

Ideas and pet projects belong to indi-vidual teachers; as a result, develop-ment is limited.

Ideas are limited to the “tried andtrue”—what has been done in thepast.

FIGURE 1. Collaborative vs. Top-Down Cultures

In collaborative cultures… In top-down cultures…

Reform should besomething done with teachers, not to them.



involved in good decision making. Andthey make clear what each person’s rolewill be (“I’m gathering as much informa-tion as I can from affected parties, but Iwill make the final selection” or “Thefaculty will vote or reach consensus afterwe’ve heard everyone’s views”).

Goal SettingPrincipals who want to encouragecollaborative leadership need to helpteachers look at tough situations headon and set realistic goals together. Onenew principal found herself in such asituation at Johnston ElementarySchool. When she arrived, the neighbor-hood surrounding Johnston Elementarywas dramatically changing. Many small,privately owned homes were being putup for rent or undergoing foreclosure.Neighborhood diversity was increasing,and more families spoke English as asecond language. Meanwhile, Johnston’stest scores were falling, and it had beenlabeled a “failing school.” The recentlyhired superintendent was calling forsignificant changes in curriculum andinstruction.

Far from being united and proactive,teachers were confused and angry. Olderteachers felt that no one respected theirpast successes or the school’s longtimetraditions. They often blamed thechanging population for their students’academic distress. Younger teachers—overwhelmed by discipline problemsand the sometimes confusing newcurriculum—didn’t know where toturn.

As her first year drew to a close, theprincipal realized that she needed tohelp her faculty focus on new learningrather than on past inadequacies. Andshe sensed that when principals andteachers develop goals together, teachersbecome stronger and student learningaccelerates.

This leader used the last staff meetingof the year to help her staff mutuallyagree on three or four goals for thefollowing year. First, she distributed toteachers (a week before the meeting) a

packet that included district goals, dataon student achievement and discipline,and academic areas Johnston needed toaddress. She extended the meeting timeand included dinner to provide time tocomplete the goal-setting process.

The group used the focusing fourmodel developed by Garmston andWellman (2002) to guide the conversa-tion. The process encourages wide-spread teacher participation by havingteachers go through four steps: brain-

storm, clarify, advocate, and canvass.Johnston’s teachers were able to reachconsensus on four goals within twohours. These goals (improving instruc-tion in reading, improving instruction inmath, motivating students, andincreasing parent involvement) mirroredthe goals the district had established. Bygoing through the goal-setting processthemselves, however, the faculty beganto own the goals. Because the processwas public, teachers realized there wereno hidden agendas. The resistance that

had slowed down progress in an alreadydifficult situation began to melt away.

When Johnston’s teachers met againat the end of the summer, they fash-ioned action plans, assigned responsibil-ities, and developed criteria for meas-uring the effects of their efforts. Duringthe next year, the principal and herleadership team organized staff meetingsaround discussions of the four goals.Data reports and conversations focusedon progress toward these aims. Progress

during the following year was slow butsteady and was no longer hampered bythe foot dragging and negativism thathad slowed Johnston’s progress the yearbefore.

Mutually developed goals focus afaculty’s energy. As consultants, we oftenask principals how their school devel-oped its goals and how teachers usethem. How schools develop goalsreveals a great deal about their culture.Principals who develop collaborativecultures shift from being the person


PH

OTO

BY

BR

UC

E B

EN

NET

T

Kohm pp67-72_2:EL Template 9/4/09 9:37 AM Page 71

who sets the goals to being the personwho sets up the conditions that allowothers to establish goals. They do so by

� Gathering relevant data and makingthat data accessible to teachers.

� Convening groups of teachers andorganizing meetings in a way thatensures every voice is heard.

� Ensuring that meetings result inclear, specific, written goals and actionplans for achieving them.

� Making certain that goals andaction plans are specific and realisticenough to be effective.

� Measuring progress toward goalsthroughout the year.

Modeling Productive MeetingsAt Oceanside School District, a knowl-edgable superintendent modeled how tomake meetings fruitful. Oceanside had ahistory of academic excellence andcommunity pride. Teachers and admin-istrators thought of colleagues as familyand held tradition in high esteem. Butfamiliarity and tradition blinded staff tohow the needs of their student popula-tion had changed. Oceanside, once aleading district, was now failing to meetthe state’s academic standards.

Oceanside held monthly administra-tive meetings for principals. Becauseeveryone knew one another well andthe culture was well established, no onesaw a need for detailed agendas orprotocols. But productivity at meetingshad deteriorated. People came late,avoided contentious issues for fear ofupsetting friends, and gave pat answersto hard questions.

When the decrease in studentachievement became obvious, the super-intendent took action. She realized heradministrators needed tools that wouldhelp them ask hard questions or advo-cate for opposing ideas without makingvalued colleagues feel as if they werebeing criticized. She introduced thefollowing two meeting protocols, amongothers. She knew these protocols wouldengage meeting participants, focus theirattention, and model strategies that

would help principals facilitate thenecessary difficult conversations back attheir schools.

� Check-in. This involves taking a fewminutes at the beginning of a meeting togive everyone an opportunity to easeinto conversation by responding toshort prompts such as, What good newsdo you have to share? or What’s on yourmind that might distract you in themeeting? The prompt might even relateto a topic on the agenda. It’s important

that everyone speaks and that they focustheir attention on a common question.Check-in prodded participants to comeon time and met their need to be seenand heard.

� Dialogue. The key to dialogue is toavoid judgment and make the thinkingof both the speaker and the listenerclear. The superintendent modeledinquiry stems that demonstratepowerful language for questioning, suchas, Can you help me understand yourthinking about…? (a nonaggressiveopener) or How does this relate to yourother concerns? (language that probesfor significance). She modeled advocacystems to use when stating individualbeliefs, such as, Here’s what I believeabout . . . . Such language furthers

shared communication because eachspeaker carefully describes underlyingthoughts and feelings (Senge, Kleiner,Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994).

The superintendent and anotheradministrator role-played using thesestems in a dialogue about a controver-sial curriculum decision; administratorsthen practiced in pairs. Eventually,dialoguing became standard practice atmonthly meetings. The principals real-ized that if they didn’t reflect on howthey framed questions and statedbeliefs, they could unknowingly sabo-tage conversation among teachers—andeven the whole collaborative process.

With, Not ToCollaborative cultures build the confi-dence teachers need to lead. Whenadministrators identify problems anddictate solutions, teachers see problemsas somebody else’s fault and solutions assomebody else’s responsibility. Collabo-rative decision making strengthenseveryone’s ability to set and meet highstandards. Reform should be somethingdone with teachers, not to them.

1All school and district names are pseudonyms.

ReferencesGarmston, R., & Wellman, B. (2002). The

adaptive school: Developing and facilitatingcollaborative groups. Massachusetts:Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Goodman, M. (1997). System thinking:What, why, when, where, and how. TheSystems Thinker, 8(2), 6–7.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.,& Smith, B. (1994) The fifth disciplinefieldbook: Strategies and tools for building alearning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Barbara Kohm is a consultant withelementary-level principals and coauthor,with Beverly Nance, of Principals WhoLearn: Asking the Right Questions,Seeking the Best Solutions (ASCD,2007); [email protected]. BeverlyNance is Assistant Professor in theSchool of Education at Maryville Univer-sity in St. Louis, Missouri, and aconsultant with school administrators;[email protected].

EL

When principals and teachers develop goalstogether, teachersbecome stronger.


Listen to an interview withBarbara Kohm and BeverlyNance at www.ascd.org/authortalks#kohm

AUDIO

Kohm pp67-72_2:EL Template 9/4/09 9:38 AM Page 72

© stefanie felix creating collaborative cultures

Documents