Ed. Leadership: Primal or Visionary?

“Primal” is the adjective renowned psychologist and emotional intelligence theorist Daniel Goleman ascribes to great leaders. Their appeal, he posits, is essentially emotional. He cites Shaman and Chieftains as examples. They are the emotional guides, as well as the protectors when trouble calls.

“This emotional task of the leader is primal—that is, first—in two senses: It is both the original and the most important act of leadership.”

No doubt, this is absolutely true! Anyone who has read Lord of the Flies witnesses as primal leadership takes over. Ralph lacks Jack’s ability to move others - they lose faith in him and gravitate toward face paint and blood. What could be more primal than that?

But this is where Goleman’s argument falters. Sure, Jack taps the boys’ emotional needs - food, adventure, and the hope for survival that does not rely on rescue. For that, he is awarded their loyalty. And look where that leads.

What Jack lacks, of course, is vision that serves the common good. More important than emotional appeal is this vision.

Consider this in terms of educational leadership. Let’s begin microcosmically - in the classroom. Whom would you prefer in your child’s room - Ralph or Jack? Many charismatic and well-intentioned teachers lead students toward Goleman’s ideal of “higher morale, motivation, and commitment.” (So did Jack - those kids were quite spirited.) But does this mean that students are achieving higher-level learning? Not necessarily. However, a clear vision of learning outcomes and the steps necessary to achieve those will lead there.

Likewise, a principal may be expert at motivating staff to stay late selling concessions or to chair the school safety committee, but without a clear vision for student learning, the school will lack the rigorous learning culture necessary for student success.

And at a district level, lack of vision leads to chaos- hopscotched initiatives, misspent time and money, and silo schools. Vision more than emotion provides direction and leads to broad student achievement.

To be fair, Goleman does imply the need for a vision by suggesting that the primal leader must “driving the collective emotions in a positive direction.” Logically, however, the positive direction must be predetermined and is therefore more important, or more primal, than the ability to move people.

Roland S. Barth, in his 2001 book Learning By Heart, suggests an alternative order for leadership. For him, effective leaders carry a “vision leading to a better way, can enlist others in that vision, and can mine the gold of everyone's craft knowledge to discover ways to move toward that vision.” Here the vision precedes the emotion.

Of course, though, the next obvious question - a question for another day, is where does this vision come from?

Are We Shifting?

We all know by know that the Common Core State Standards place new, steep demands on students. So steep, in fact, that parents whine about it for their children, and the same legislators and activists that once bemoaned the sorry state of US Education are harkening for the good old days when kids could get an A for effort.

To deeply understand increasingly complex texts, to synthesize and transfer that understanding, and to “ analyze, critique, communicate [and] present arguments with evidence” are literacy demands the Common Core places on students, according to Berger et al in Transformational Literacy.

Of course, almost any reasonable adult would admit that these are the kinds of things we want from our students - logical reasoning, using evidence to back up their thinking, the ability to read critically and write convincingly. What could be wrong with that?

Well, for many, this represents both a theoretical and practical shift in practice. What Mike Schmoker coined as “The Crayola Curriculum,” in his 2001 Education Week article by the same name is unfortunately not yet an anomaly for many students and classrooms despite his “enormous hope for dramatic, near-term improvements at every level of education.” Of course Schmoker’s optimism resides in the adage that “Acknowledging the problem is half the battle.” If students’ spending too much time on ancillary activities rather than the actual practice of reading and writing is the problem, then too many teachers are still stuck there.

Perhaps what Schmoker failed to recognize is the enormity of it - the other half of the battle. There are teachers everywhere! If the problem was as pervasive as he indicated in his article, then what solution could be as pervasive?

The Common Core, of course. Place higher demands on students and teachers will rise to the challenge.

Convincing all of these teachers, however, that their high-engagement, text- to- self activities are flawed is a theoretical battle in and of itself. Convincing hard- working diligent professionals that creating pictures representing the meaning of a short story or poem is wrong-headed, that assembling students into groups to create a collage of theme is ineffectual, that spending time on activities that don’t directly measure growth is wasted time, is a gigantic task.

Once that task is accomplished, however, then the “third half” of the battle begins: Teaching teachers how to make this shift, how to coach students to the higher demands, how to turn each moment into a productive moment of learning. And in truth, much of this will be in teaching English teachers to be reading teachers, as ironic as that sounds.

So where are we in this process?

In my most recent observations and conversations with teachers, some are earnestly in the midst of shifting. They are buying the vision laid out by the architects of the Common Core and such theorists as Schmoker, Berger, and Richard Allington - intensive focus on text as the centerpiece of a lesson, reading for 60 to 90 minutes per day, reading a high-volume of independent-level texts as well as struggling through teacher-directed close reads of complex materials.

Other teachers are asking questions: Where’s the fun in that? How do I engage students in this? Why should I believe them this time? They are venting frustrations: So much for the love of reading when all we do is focus on skills! My students no longer enjoy my class and neither do I! I want to transform lives, not just readers!

Their basic question is not where are we are on the shift, but is this a shift I want to make?

So, this is where we are. Working to convince some that these shifts are worth it while building capacity in those who are ready. Of course, test scores and data might compel some toward change, but a change of heart will have a deeper and longer lasting impact.

And as so often is the case with life, the skeptics are so critically important. Their questions will cause us to think deeper, to make sure that we are, in fact, on the right track. They will cause us to look not just at test results and growth data, but at the students behind the numbers. The reluctant among us are demanding proof of another sort - that this shift to a more rigorous, more academic curriculum can be made without sacrificing what we all came here for - the child.

Juxtaposition: Ed Theory and Ed Reality

Reading a top-notch theoretical treatise on pedagogy inspires us with the potential of powerful teaching and learning. It evokes images of highly engaged students dissatisfied by their first read of a text, demanding more - demanding closer reads, in-depth discussion, and analysis. It promises transformation for adults and students alike- the former recognizing new paradigms, the latter becoming motivated, informed citizens of our democratic society.

It is also confuses and frustrates with juxtaposed images of think tank learning cells versus thirty disengaged middle schoolers balking at the first read.

In short, where is the intersection between theory and reality in our classrooms and how do teachers direct traffic there such that their classrooms and students progress toward higher learning, deeper understanding?

Berger et. al, in their book Transformational Literacy, outline the seven dispositions critical for students’ success: “They demonstrate independence. They build strong content knowledge. They respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline. They comprehend as well as critique. They value evidence. They use technology and digital media strategically and capably. They come to understand other’s perspectives and cultures.”

This is accomplished through a text-based curriculum where students read and re-read, where they discuss, think and write about what they read. It’s an environment where teachers read and re-read the standards, where they too discuss, think, and compare standards to student work such that they know what it looks like when students do or don’t achieve the mark.

This is a learning community where school-based and district administrators provide teachers with “the support necessary to develop a new repertoire of skills and knowledge and to pursue with their colleagues a significant rethinking of teaching practice.”

Unfortunately, however, for far too many teachers this represents Utopia rather than Jefferson Middle School or King High School or …. Too many teachers are exasperated with professional demands beyond teaching and are exhausted by the volume of students as well as the diversity of student needs without adequate support. And Leadership is often lost because they lack the understanding or time or resources or other to create these learning communities.

Of course, authors such as Berger are not at fault. Their view is from beyond the cave; it is enlightened. They provide vision, and without that progress is impossible. And I have taught in this reality, in a public North Carolina early college high school where administrators, teachers, and students worked together toward the common goal of student success. It is possible, but is it possible everywhere and for everyone?

Certainly some circumstances are far more challenging than others - schools lacking learning cultures, overcrowded schools and classrooms with particularly difficult populations and inadequate resources.

Are these places beyond reach? Can theoretical visions affect these places and their overwhelmed teachers?

These are the questions that will accompany me as I work to join theory and practice over the next several weeks with middle grades ELA teachers across our district. Will dialogue and the development of a collaborative vision for instruction prove to be nothing more than a theoretical detour or will it create a dynamic learning culture that advances student learning?