Learning is always an on-

the-job phenomenon.

— PETER SENGE

AUTHOR AND FOUNDING

CHAIR OF THE SOCIETY FOR

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

Volume XVII, No. 4 July 2004

VIEWPOINT

By Thomas Many, Ed.D.

INSIDE

Why Data RetreatsAre Key to Improv-ing ResultsPage 3

Distributed Leader-ship: What’s All theHoopla?Page 6

It is the same everywhere. Teachers andprincipals are working harder and harder to meetgrowing expectations for student success. Princi-pals are looking for ways to ensure their schoolsmake adequate yearly progress. Teachers are look-ing for ways to respond to the increasing demandsthat all children learn to high levels. Thechallenge is real, and it is not going away.

Many principals are turning to learning com-munities as a means to improve teaching andlearning. According to William Ferriter and JohnNorton, “Open any educational journal and youwill likely find material endorsing school-basedcollaborative learning communities as a cure forthe ills of underperforming schools.”

The argument for creating professionallearning communities was effectively articu-lated by Rick DuFour and Bob Eaker in theirbook, Professional Learning Communities atWork, but they are not alone in their support ofthe idea. Milbrey McLaughlin writes, “The mostpromising strategy for sustained, substantiveschool improvement is building the capacity ofschool personnel to function as a professionallearning community.” Likewise, DuFour stateshis position: “The path to change in theclassroom lies within and through professionallearning communities.”

Andy Hargreaves, who has worked withschools across the country, reported that theidea of the professional learning community

represents an “ethos that infuses every singleaspect of a school’s operation.” He found that“when a school becomes a professional learn-ing community, everything in the school looksdifferent than it did before.”

What happens when teachers and princi-pals come together to form a professionallearning community in their schools? Thissimple, frequently asked question begs acomplicated answer that is aptly illustratedby Ken Keyes’ story of the hundredthmonkey - a wonderful little parable based onthe scientific observation of a monkey colonylocated off the coast of Japan.

…. The Japanese monkey MacacaFuscata had been observed in the wild forthirty years or more. In 1952, on theisland of Koshima, scientists were pro-viding monkeys with sweet potatoesdropped in the sand. The monkeys likedthe taste of the raw sweet potatoes, butthey found the sand and dirt unpleasant.

An 18-month-old female named Itofound she could solve the problem bywashing the potatoes in a nearbystream. She taught this trick to hermother. Her playmates also learnedthis new way, and they taught theirmothers, too.

The Myth of the Hundredth MonkeyCreating Learning Communities in Schools

2 July 2004 Instructional Leader

❞

❝

Continued on page 10

This cultural innovation was graduallypicked up by various monkeys. Before theeyes of the scientists and between 1952and 1958, all the young monkeys learnedto wash the sandy sweet potatoes to makethem more palatable. Only the adults whoimitated the children learned the innova-tion, however. Other adults continuedeating the dirty sweet potatoes.

In autumn of 1958, something startlingtook place. A certain number of Koshimamonkeys were washing sweet potatoes.Although the exact number is not known,suppose that there were 99 monkeys onKoshima Island who had learned to washtheir sweet potatoes. THEN ITHAPPENED! One morning, the hundredthmonkey learned to wash potatoes.

By that evening almost every monkey inthe tribe was washing sweet potatoes be-fore eating them. The added energy of thehundredth monkey had somehow broughtabout an ideological breakthrough!

The Myth of the Hundredth Monkey illus-trates how a single individual can initiate a changethat spreads and is eventually adopted throughoutthe entire “community.” In this story, washingpotatoes slowly gained wider and wider accep-tance until, one day, the hundredth monkeyadopted the behavior, thereby creating the critical

mass needed to make washing sweet potatoes apermanent part of the island’s culture.

The same holds true for schools, where, asin the Hundredth Monkey, individual princi-pals or teams of teachers at the building levelcan be catalysts for change and begin to influ-ence others to behave and think differently. Butas DuFour writes, “The challenge for principalswho want to change the culture of their schoolsis not to find the one teacher or team of teacherswho will be a positive deviant and try some-thing new, but rather to persevere and nurturean idea until it reaches the critical ‘tippingpoint’ and is accepted as the norm.” In otherwords, the practice continues until it becomes“the way we do things around here.”

Is it worth the effort? Is becoming a profes-sional learning community a reasonable goal?Many believe so, and as Mike Schmoker writes,“Learning communities offer proven, afford-able structures that exist right now and couldhave a dramatic, widespread impact on schoolsand achievement - in virtually any school. Suchstructures are probably the most practical,affordable, and professionally dignifying routeto better instruction in our schools.” Add LindaDarling-Hammond’s statement that “thesestructures can be established by any leader, notjust the rare individual with charisma” and it isclear that a principal’s interest in creatinglearning communities is well founded.

But too often principals are impatient. Why isit when an idea is not universally embraced, when

Becoming a professional learning community is aboutacting differently in our schools. It requires persistentaction, starting with a single principal or team ofteachers determined to make a difference.

Instructional Leader July 2004 3

Ten years ago few school leaders weretaking the time to lead their schools through anintensive evaluation of their school’s data inorder to identify opportunities for improve-ment. But times have changed, and with the newrequirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)and pressure on even high performing schoolsto make “adequate yearly progress” in everysub-group, school leaders are very focused onusing data to improve results. Unfortunately,we often make two mistakes in the process,either of which alone or combined will inevita-bly lead to disappointing results. Fortunately,both mistakes are easily remedied, and gettinginvolved in data retreats is a first step.

What is a data retreat? Aimed at schoolimprovement leadership teams, many states areadopting this workshop format for schools toexamine their own data, identify priorities forimprovement, and develop plans for action.Over a course of two to three days, these work-shops can be convened with other entities in-cluding state departments, regional serviceagencies or independent consultants. Title Ischools applying for “Comprehensive SchoolReform” (CSR) grants1 must conduct annualdata retreats as part of their grant obligations.

However, attending a data retreat as a schoolimprovement leadership team is just one pieceof the accountability puzzle. Those involved inthe data retreat will learn a lot about theirschool, and will probably leave feeling verycommitted to their priorities and action plans.But this is where leadership teams often makethe first mistake: Believing that involving the

other teachers in the data reflection process istoo time consuming, and besides, “We’ve doneit already so why bother them?” Teams willsimply announce to the rest of the school staffwhat they’ve learned and what they’ve decidedthe school should do to make improvements.(And indeed, most staff will at first breathe asigh of relief: “Thank goodness I don’t have toget involved in looking at the data—they’vedecided what we need to do!”)

While it is certainly true that it takes moretime to involve staff than to simply analyze thedata oneself and tell others where to focus, thepurpose of examining data is to create themotivation to change instructional practices,curriculum and programs. We know from theresearch (O’Neil, 2000; Calwelti, 1999;Newmann & Wehlage, 1999) this requires thedeep and broad commitment of the entire schoolcommunity. To create such commitment requiresprocesses that fully engage people in “learningthemselves through change” (Lambert, 2003).We’ve all had the experience of telling othersthe “truth” only to meet resistance in the formsof denial, bargaining, even anger. You mayinitially hear the sighs of relief, but you willultimately experience what it feels like to “pushnoodles up a hill” if you don’t engage your staffin the very process your leadership team learnedin the data retreat. If we don’t engage teachersin the reflection process, we have simply re-placed “decision by one” with “decision byseveral” and we’ve done little to grow teachers’commitment, skills and knowledge in using datato make improvements.

1 Title I schools can apply for three-year CSR grants which fund as much as $125K per year forschool improvement. For more information, visit the Texas Education Agency’s Division of NCLBProgram Coordination at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/nclb/QandA2002/policyguide.htm.

By Jan O’Neill

Why Data Retreats Are Key to Improving Results

4 July 2004 Instructional Leader

The second mistake lies in assuming thatby looking at test scores alone we’ll be able tomake significant improvements that can be sus-tained over time. The purpose of a data retreatshould not be to improve test scores! If thatwere the case, all staff need to do is simply alignall curricular and instructional practices to“teach to the tests.” The research is clear thatwhen that happens, test scores eventually hit aplateau and then decrease (Hoff, 2000). Thepurpose of examining data should be tocontinuously improve student learning; risingstandardized test scores are just one of manyimportant measures of success. The highly re-

garded effective schools research (Lezotte,1997) indicates that in order to achieve andsustain excellence, a school needs to look atwide variety of factors, including the learningenvironment (safe and orderly, time on task),climate (high expectations, sense of commu-nity), home-school relations (parent satisfac-tion, attendance), and other factors along withstudent achievement. Further, standardized testscores as summative end-of-year measures,provide single snapshots about the school’scapacity to produce “proficiency” over time.But more frequent district and classroom-basedmeasures provide validation about the skills

ReferencesCawelti, G. (1999). Portraits of six benchmark schools: Diverse approaches to improving student

achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Hoff, D.J. (2000, January 26). Testing’s ups and downs predictable. Education Week, 19(20), 1, 12-13.Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Asso-

ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Lezotte, L. (1997). Learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective School Products.Newmann, F. M., King, M.B., & Youngs, P. (1999, April 28). Professional development that

addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

O’Neil, J. (2000, April). Fads and fireflies: The difficulties of sustaining change (Interview withLarry Cuban). Educational Leadership, 57(7), 6-9.

❞

❝ ...the purpose of examining data is to create themotivation to change instructional practices, cur-riculum and programs. We know from research thisrequires the deep and broad commitment of theentire school community.

Instructional Leader July 2004 5

needing work as well as diagnostics about whichstudents need help. A data retreat should helpschool teams examine all these forms of data,so they get a comprehensive view of theirschool. Rick DuFour calls this “painting aschool portrait.” It is important to ask schoolsto examine “Where are we now?” in relation totheir mission, vision and values. Title I schoolsare required to conduct “comprehensive needsassessments” as part of their application forCSR funds. Any school desiring to apply foradditional funds, either through foundations orpublic monies, will need to paint a comprehen-sive picture of where they are currently.

By engaging teachers fully in the processof analyzing multiple forms of data about“where we are now,” schools eliminate the riskof both mistakes—assuming we shouldn’t

“bother” teachers with examining the data andlooking at just test scores. In the process ofengaging teachers, they will help create “cog-nitive dissonance” – a shared understanding ofthe “gap” between what we believe to be trueabout ourselves and what the data say is true. Asa result, teachers will become committed toworking together to change their practices andapproaches to helping all students learn.

Jan O’Neill is a co-founder, with AnneConzemius, of QLD Learning, a Madison, Wis-consin-based consulting and software firmspecializing in building shared responsibil-ity for accountability and continuous schoolimprovement. Visit www.qldlearning.com formore information.

6 July 2004 Instructional Leader

Distributed Leadership: What’s All the Hoopla?

By James P. Spillane

There is a new flavor in the educationbusiness; no surprise, fads are plentiful in theeducation industry. This time the flavor of themonth concerns school leadership, namely, dis-tributed leadership. The notion of distributedleadership has garnered the attention of manypolicymakers and practitioners (see EducationWeek). The term is often used interchangeablywith “shared leadership” or “democratic lead-ership” (among others), raising the question asto whether there is really anything new aboutdistributed leadership. Is distributed leader-ship simply a re-labeling of familiar phenom-ena? At least in my understanding, there ismuch that is new about taking a distributedleadership perspective.

Below, I take up this question: What is dis-tributed leadership? The short answer is that itdepends; it depends on what one reads and withwhom one talks. My intention is not to offer the“one best” definition of distributed leadership.Rather, I describe how I have come to understanddistributed leadership, based on a five-year re-search project in elementary schools in Chicago(see http://www.distributedleadership.org). I be-gin with a brief overview of the distributedleadership perspective, introducing and defin-ing key terms and ideas. The main section ofthe article unpacks these ideas in threesub-sections – leaders, followers and situation.The final section takes up the uses and misusesof distributed leadership.

Overview: Getting to the Heart of the MatterA distributed perspective on leadership

argues that school leadership practice isdistributed in the interactions of school lead-ers, followers and their situation. Two issuesneed to be underscored here. To begin with,distributed leadership is first and foremost

about leadership practice rather than lead-ers, leadership roles or leadership functions.Leadership practice is the core unit of analy-sis in trying to understand school leadershipfrom a distributed perspective.

A second critical point is that practice isdefined or takes form in the interactive web ofleaders, followers and their situation. We willexamine these three core elements of leader-ship practice below. The issue to grapple with isthat leadership practice is not equivalent to theactions of the principal or some other schoolleader. Simply, leadership practice is not afunction of what a leader knows and does.From a distributed perspective, leadership prac-tice takes shape in the interactions of peopleand their situation, rather than from the actionsof an individual leader. Some readers mightargue this is little more than semantics. If youare one of those, consider the performance of adance, let’s say the ‘Texas Two-Step’ for argu-ment sake. Now, while the actions of partnerone and partner two are important, the practiceof the Texas Two-Step is in the interactions ofthe partners. In a sense, the dance is in-betweenthe two partners. Hence, an account of theactions of both partners fails to capture thepractice; the account has to focus on the part-ners in interaction. Moreover, the music – partof the situation – is also essential to the creationof the practice in order to get the 4 steps to 6beats of music rhythm. Indeed, we might saythat the practice of the Texas Two Step dance isin-between the two partners and the music. Thesame holds for leadership practice, though fre-quently there are more than two leaders, and ofcourse followers, and aspects of the situationare also critical and relevant considerations.Perhaps square dancing begins to capture thedepth of the complexity.

Instructional Leader July 2004 7

❞❝ ...distributed leadership is first and foremost about

leadership practice rather than leaders, leadershiproles or leadership functions.

Distributed Perspective on Leadership PracticeThe aspect of distributed leadership that

has garnered most attention is the recogni-tion that school leadership involves multipleleaders, both administrators and teacher lead-ers. As a principal in one of our research sitesput it most aptly, “I just couldn’t do it all.” Isuspect that no one individual could, andrecognizing that is essential. The preoccupa-tion with the principal in the school leader-ship l i terature is problematic and hascontributed to making the job an impossibleone. Others, besides the principal, can and dotake on leadership responsibilities.

Our research in Chicago elementaryschools illustrates that the execution of mostleadership functions and activities involvemultiple leaders. Principals rarely go it alone.Who leads and the extent to which leadershipis distributed over multiple leaders, however,depends on the leadership function oractivity. As one might expect, monitoringinstruction and teacher evaluation tends tobe the purview of principals and assistantprincipals, while teacher development tendsto involve more leaders ranging from theprincipal to teacher leaders. The extent towhich leadership is distributed over two ormore leaders in a school also depends on thesubject area. Specifically, leadership activi-ties for literacy instruction tend to involvemore leaders and are more likely to involvethe principal compared with leadershipactivities for mathematics or science instruc-tion. The subject matters when it comes to thedistribution of leadership for instruction.

At one level, then, a distributed perspec-tive presses us to ask who takes responsibilityfor which leadership functions and activities ina school. One approach might involve examin-

ing who is responsible for which leadershipfunctions (e.g., constructing and selling an in-structional vision, building norms of trust andcollaboration) in a school. Another approachmight focus on key leadership activities orroutines in a school, identifying the key leader-ship tasks involved in the execution of thisroutine, and then investigating who isresponsible for executing these tasks.

Regretfully, many discussions of distrib-uted leadership end prematurely at this point.As a result, both scholars and practitionerswonder what is new about distributed leader-ship. If this is the ending, little indeed is new.But, in my view of distributed leadership this isonly the beginning. After all, savvy principalsthe world over could have told one that theydepend on others for the execution of key schoolleadership functions and activities. Moreover,scholars have long argued for moving beyondthose at the top of organizations in order tounderstand leadership.

The critical issue, from a distributed per-spective, is not that leadership is distributed buthow it is distributed. And, how it is distributedover leaders, followers and their situation. Hence,the importance of keeping leadership practicefront and center. A distributed perspectivepresses us to consider how leadership practiceis defined in the interaction of two or moreleaders, followers and their situation.

Leadership Practice: Leaders and FollowersFrom a distributed perspective, a core

challenge involves figuring out how leader-ship practice is distributed over leaders andfollowers. It involves unpacking the interde-pendencies among leaders and followers inleadership practice. Leadership is typicallythought of as something that is done to follow-

8 July 2004 Instructional Leader

❞❝ The critical issue, from a distributed perspective, is

not that leadership is distributed but how it isdistributed.

ers. From a distributed perspective, this isproblematic because followers co-produce lead-ership practice in interaction with leaders.

While individual leaders act, they do so ina situation that is defined in part by the actionsof others – their actions are interdependent –and it is in these interactions leadership prac-tice takes shape. Sitting in on any one of thenumerous leadership activities for literacyinstruction at Adams Elementary School onChicago’s Southside one is immediately struckby how the leadership practice takes form in theinteractions of the leaders and followers. Theseleadership activities typically involve somecombination of four leaders – the principal, theschool’s literacy coordinator, the AfricanAmerican Heritage Coordinator, and a teacherleader. Sometimes these leaders act in similarways, other times they do not. The principalusually presses the big picture in terms of over-all goals and standards, she moves the meetingsalong, synthesizes what has been said by others,and constantly reminds teachers of what isexpected of them in their classrooms. TheLiteracy Coordinator does some of this, but sheis also the detail person, identifying problemswith literacy instruction, suggesting solutionsand resources to address these problems, andgetting teachers to participate. Leadershippractice for literacy at Adams gets constructedin the interactions of these leaders’ actions. But,teachers are also critical in defining leadershippractice in these meetings. For example, theyoften offer descriptions of how a particularteaching strategy suggested by the LiteracyCoordinator played out in practice that are some-times taken up by the leaders to press a pointabout improving literacy instruction.

Leadership practice in the above exampleis stretched over leaders and followers. We termthis collaborated distribution to underscore the

reciprocal relationship between the actions ofthe leaders and followers that gives rise toleadership practice. Reciprocal interdependen-cies involve individuals playing off oneanother, with the practice of person A enablingthe practice of person B and vice versa. Itresembles the interdependencies between part-ners in the Texas Two-Step or perhaps, consid-ering the number of people, square dancing isa better comparison.

We have identified two other types ofdistribution – coordinated distribution andcollective distribution. In a “coordinateddistribution” situation leaders work separatelyor together on different leadership tasks thatare arranged sequentially. For example, someschools in our study use a routine called thefive-week assessment cycle to identify instruc-tional problems and establish instructionalimprovement priorities. This cycle involves anumber of interdependent sequential steps –student test data and other information has tobe analyzed before instructional needs andpriorities can be defined. In this situation, theleadership practice is stretched over the differ-ent activities that must be performed in aparticular sequence for leadership practice.

In a “collective distribution” situationleadership practice is stretched over thepractice of two or more leaders who work sepa-rately but interdependently. The actions of twoor more leaders working separately generateleadership practice. Consider Ellis Elementarywhere both the principal and assistant princi-pal see evaluating teaching as a criticalleadership activity for instructional improve-ment. The principal believes that the legallyrequired biannual visits are grossly inadequateto evaluate teacher’s practice. Together withthe assistant principal, they have developed amore elaborate approach to evaluating teach-

Instructional Leader July 2004 9

ers’ practice. The assistant principal, who has afriendly and informal rapport with teachers atEllis, visits classrooms frequently, engaging informative evaluation with regular feedback toteachers about their practice. As he describes it,he “makes the rounds” two or three times a day,often sitting in on a lesson and giving theteacher immediate feedback. In contrast, theprincipal engages in summative evaluation.Teachers at Ellis see her very much as anauthority figure referring to her as “Doctor.”She visits classrooms once or twice per yearand makes final determinations about thequality of teachers’ instructional practices.Through formal and informal meetings theassistant principal and principal pool theirinformation to develop an understanding andevaluation of teachers’ practice.

Leadership Practice and the SituationOrganizational routines and structures,

material artifacts, and tools are an importantpart of the situation of school leadership. Schoolleaders, like the rest of us, rarely work directlyon the world. Instead, they work with tools,routines, and structures of various sorts thatfundamentally shape leadership practice. Froma distributed perspective, tools and organiza-tional routines along with other aspects of thesituation are not simple accessories that allowleaders to practice more effectively orefficiently – they contribute to defining thepractice in much the same way that the actionsof different leaders and followers do. In ourstudy sites, aspects of the situation that contributeto defining leadership practice include the SchoolImprovement Planning Process, Five WeekAssessment routines, grade level meetings, andstudent assessment data, among others.

Key aspects of the situation in interactionwith leaders and followers define leadershippractice. Of course aspects of the situation suchas tools and organizational structures can bemade and remade in leadership practice. A quickexample is illustrative. At Hillside School inChicago, the principal used appropriate stu-dents’ “writing folders” (a tool designed forclassroom writing instruction) as a leadershiptool and developed the monthly writing folderreview around it. Believing that writing andcommunicating clearly was critical to thesuccess of the Mexican American student popu-lation at Hillside, the principal set out to

transform writing instruction. The key leader-ship routine in this effort was the principal’smonthly review of students’ writing folders:every teacher submits a folder that containsone composition written by each student in theclass. The principal reads each student’s workand provides the teachers and students withwritten feedback.

The leadership practice in the aboveexample is defined in the interactions of theprincipal and the writing folders (and of courseteachers, also). The writing folder was re-designed by the principal as a leadership toolthrough her monthly writing folder review rou-tine. In turn, the writing folder fundamentallyshapes the leadership practice, grounding it onwhat students were learning and not learningabout writing and engaging both teachers andstudents simultaneously in the task of improv-ing writing instruction.

ConclusionA distributed perspective on leadership in-

volves more than identifying and counting thosewho take responsibility for leadership in a school.It also involves more than matching particularleaders with particular leadership functions andactivities, though that is an important initial step.

A distributed perspective on leadershippresses us to examine how leadership practicegets defined in the interactions among leaders,followers, and key aspects of the situation; iturges us to examine the interdependencies amongthese three defining elements. In doing so, weexplore whether and how things like better de-signed tools, new or reworked organizationalstructures and different combinations of lead-ers on particular leadership activities mighttransform the interactions, and thereby, poten-tially improve leadership practice. In this way,distributed leadership is a diagnostic tool thatprincipals and others can use to think about thework of leadership and a set of ideas that canguide efforts to revise leadership practice. It isnot, however, a blueprint.

James P. Spillane is a Professor of Educa-tion and Social Policy at Northwestern Univer-sity and author of Standards Deviation: HowSchools Misunderstand Education Policy(Harvard University Press, 2004). Spillane’swork focuses on the implementation of statestandards and school leadership practice (seewww.distributedleadership.org).

10 July 2004 Instructional Leader

it runs into opposition, or when the early resultsare not phenomenal, do we give up and go insearch of something different? If the monkeys inthe story had had an impatient principal, when theidea of washing the sweet potatoes didn’t catch onwith all the monkeys immediately and someresisted the change, many principals would havegone to a conference in search of new strategies,rather than sustaining the implementation of apromising practice. It takes persistence and effortto become a professional learning community.

How, then, can principals avoid thesepitfalls and move forward to create learningcommunities in their schools? According toFerriter and Norton, the successful ones keepthe idea of collaboration “on the front burner”of their schools. Dennis Sparks assigns respon-sibility for this role to principals when he writes,“Leaders effect change by shaping theconversations in their organizations.”

What strategies can principals employ asthey seek ways to keep collaboration on the“front burner” and attempt to “shape” theconversations that take place in their schools?On a global level, principals can support job-embedded collaboration, carefully allocat-

The Myth of the Hundredth Monkey, continued from page 2

❞

❝ ...when principals promote professional dialogueabout collaboration, they find that conversationsabout becoming a learning community - especiallydiscussions that focus on results - actually build themomentum that leads to the creation of learningcommunities.

ing precious time, money and other resources.Fortunately, principals are uniquelypositioned to create the conditions that sup-port learning communities.

More specifically, principals can arrangethe daily schedule to provide teams withcommon planning time, establish the param-eters within which teams work, and makecertain that teams are equipped with skills tobuild an agenda, set norms, brainstorm alter-natives, and reach consensus on their ideas.Principals can create an expectation that teamsshare their curriculum ideas, support eachother’s attempts at innovation, encourage thedevelopment of common assessments, andparticipate in the design of interventions toassist students who are not learning.

Many principals have been successful inchanging the format of their faculty meetingsfrom “verbal memos” to opportunities forprofessional inquiry that promote collabora-tion. In these schools, time during faculty meet-ings is devoted to reviewing data, looking atsamples of student work, or employing a criti-cal friends approach to gather results-orientedfeedback on classroom-based initiatives.

Instructional Leader July 2004 11

The Instructional Leader is published ev-ery other month by the Texas ElementaryPrincipals and Supervisors Association,501 East 10TH Street, Austin, Texas 78701.Telephone: 512-478-5268.

Statements of fact and opinion are madeon the responsibility of the authors alone,and do not imply an opinion on the partof the officers or the members of TEPSA.

Copyright 2004 by the Texas ElementaryPrincipals and Supervisors Association.

DUPLICATING: Educators may repro-duce a single article from this publica-tion without making a written request,provided that: 1) the duplication is foran educational purpose at a nonprofitinstitution; 2) copies are made availablewithout charge; and 3) each copy in-cludes full citation of the source. Per-mission to reproduce more than one ar-ticle will be granted if you request to doso in writing. Back copies (if available)are $8 each.

Subscription rate is $48 a year for sixissues.

Call for ArticlesThe Instructional Leader welcomes un-solicited submissions; however, it is bestto contact us about a topic in advance.For a copy of the writer’s guidelines,please contact TEPSA at 512-478-5268or visit www.tepsa.org.

Publisher & Education EditorSandi Borden

Marketing & Communications DirectorAnita Jiles

Publications CoordinatorCecilia Cortez de Magallanes

I N S T R U C T I O N A L

LEADER

printed on recycled paper

Other principals have found thatleading book studies, sharing articlesin faculty meetings, and attendingworkshops with teams of teachers arepowerful ways to model collaboration.The important point is that when prin-cipals promote professional dialogueabout collaboration, they find that con-versations about becoming a learningcommunity – especially discussionsthat focus on results – actually buildthe momentum that leads to the cre-ation of learning communities.

An additional benefit: principalswho encourage lively and open conver-sation about learning communities findit inevitably leads to deeper discussionsof teaching and learning. According toHargreaves, one of the benefits of themodel is that professional learning com-munities “bring teachers together to talkabout how they can improve the learn-ing of all students as they challenge andquestion each other’s practice inspirited but optimistic ways.”

With the best of intentions to createa professional learning community, howcan the effort go wrong? A commonmistake is to expect too much too soon.Indeed, the axiom “think big but startsmall” applies here. Principals need tofocus initially on small, short-term goalssuch as creating team norms or writing Continued on page 12

quarterly common assessments in orderto build credibility. These changes mayseem insignificant taken individually,but small successes early pave the wayfor big success later.

It would also be a mistake to expectthat schools will reach their potential aslearning communities simply by declar-ing their intention to “become” alearning community, by making publicpronouncements that the staff develop-ment goal for the upcoming year is some-thing called “professional learningcommunities,” or by directing teams ofteachers to “go forth and collaborate.”Learning communities need to benurtured and it is a reality that, while timeand support alone are not enough to en-sure development of learning communi-ties, without them professional learningcommunities will not flourish.

Will teachers be willing to worktogether and create learning communi-ties? “In traditional schools,” WilliamFerriter and John Norton report, “teach-ers have not been rewarded for collabo-ration, and many schools remain placeswhere teachers are isolationists, reluc-tant to share responsibility for the suc-cess of the entire school.” While thismay be true in some schools, it doesn’talways have to be the case. As learning

ReferencesDuFour, R. (2001, Winter). In the right context. Journal of Staff Development. pp. 14-17.DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best

Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington, Indiana: NationalEducation Service.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R. & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting Started: Reculturing Schools to Become Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service.Ferriter, W., & Norton, J. (2004, Spring). Creating a culture of excellence. Threshold

Magazine. 2(1): 18-21.Keyes Jr., K. (1989). The Hundredth Monkey. Coos Bay, Oregon: Vision Books.Schmoker, M. (2004, February). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive

instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan. 85(6): 424-432.

12 July 2004 Instructional Leader

❞

❝

communities develop, Ferriter and Norton have observed,“People who are not initially motivated can become strongcollaborators as results emerge – usually seeing positivechanges in and for their students.”

That was certainly the case in Kildeer Countryside CCSD96, where there is clear evidence that student achievementimproved when faculties began to behave in more collabora-tive ways. In that suburban Chicago elementary district, schoolsthat reported increasing levels of professional collaboration inturn showed increasing levels of student achievement. Theopposite was also true: student achievement declined in schoolsin which faculties reported declining levels of collaboration.

Likewise, the same dynamic was present in Alberta, Canada,where student achievement improved when the Peace RiverSchool faculty began to embrace the idea of working incollaborative teams. For two years, teams of teachers workedto identify exactly what students were expected to learn andcreated common assessments to gauge their progress inmeeting clearly defined, results-oriented goals. The facultysaw their efforts result in consistently improving levels ofstudent achievement in every subject area as measured by theprovincial examinations.

So, how do principals begin to create learning communi-ties in their schools? Noted staff developer Tom Gusky sumsup the strategy: “You don’t change people’s minds, you changepeople’s practices, which changes people’s minds.” Principalsstart by framing out the necessary structures and by con-sciously organizing the schedule, assignment of teachers, andallocation of resources to support collaborative teams. Theymake a deliberate effort to look at using time in creative ways

and to create a daily schedule that clearly demonstrates that theprimary purpose of their school is learning.

As principals begin to build the framework, they alsofocus on creating the culture of a learning community. Theyspend time creating team norms and really driving home theschool’s mission, vision, values and goals. They activelyengage teachers in conversations around the critical ques-tions of learning, they support the creation of common assess-ments, and they help teachers take responsibility for creatingeffective interventions when students are not learning.

The Myth of the Hundredth Monkey illustrates how, whilethe action of a single individual can initiate a change, becom-ing a professional learning community requires passion andpersistence. Allen Wheeler said, “Since we are what we do, ifwe want to change what we are, we must begin to change whatwe do.” Becoming a professional learning community isabout acting differently in our schools. It requires persistentaction, starting with a single principal or team of teachersdetermined to make a difference.

The most promising strategy for sustained, substantiveschool improvement is building the capacity of schoolpersonnel to function as a professional learningcommunity.

- Milbrey McLaughlin

The Myth of the Hundredth Monkey, continued from page 11

Dr. Thomas Many is Superintendent of Schools in KildeerCountryside School District 96 in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, whichhas developed a reputation as one of the highest achieving/lowest spending school districts in Illinois. A highly-ratedAcademy VIII speaker, he has worked with schools in the U.S.and Canada on creating learning communities with specialinsights into developing a culture that supports learning com-munities, the importance of the principal’s role in sustaining thatculture, and specific strategies for creating high performing,collaborative teams.