Patch Blog: Collaboration Versus Instruction? No.

Disclaimer: Scott Tracy is the President and official spokesperson of the LCUSD Governing Board. Wendy Sinnette is the Superintendent and speaks for the District.

This article represents my own views; I speak for myself.  It was originally distributed via my Education Action Committee. Click here to subscribe to future updates/newsletters.  

This week, I had the opportunity to spend the day visiting our school sites to observe the various activities taking place on the third “Collaboration Day” in LCUSD this year. I had a very interesting day, and am grateful for the contribution this experience had in further deepening my understanding of this volatile issue in our community.

I’ve had many people ask me, “Is it worth it?”  I think this question epitomizes the ways in which the entire notion of Collaboration Days has been framed poorly, and I hope we can move into negotiations for future school calendars with a bit of a paradigm shift when it comes to “instructional days,” and “Collaboration Days.”

Because these Collaboration Days were added to the calendar at the expense of instructional days, the conversation from the start has been about the value of instruction and the value of collaboration, within a zero-sum context that puts the two at odds with another.

But this just isn’t the case.  Collaboration and professional development are vital components of delivering a quality education to our students.  So is instruction.  We shouldn’t be assessing their value in terms of one another.  This, however, was inevitable when the District negotiated the addition of these days at the expense of instructional days; it established a false dichotomy between collaboration/development and instruction.  When it comes to delivering a high quality education in our schools, we shouldn’t have to “choose sides.”

While visiting the “collaboration day,” I saw some tremendous work.  I observed a team of second grade teachers at PCY diligently sharing best practices and developing new, more cross-subject projects; I watched a fantastic development session led by Kaplan-trained experts on differentiated instruction; I participated in a training on introducing iPads in the classroom, and much more.  As I mentioned above, though, I don’t think the question here should be about the merit or value of collaboration and development.  The work being done is important.  But if we’re going to abandon the mindset that pits collaboration against instruction (and I think we should), we need to adopt a new mindset that permits the virtues of both to coexist simultaneously.  And that’s how we arrive at the need for a more ongoing and regular expectation for development and collaboration.

The idea that the organization’s daily business (instructing students) must come to a halt in order to facilitate meaningful growth and collaboration for staff, is really the concern many have.  Certainly, it is my concern.  I think it does everyone a disservice to conceive of collaboration only in terms of its opposition to instructional days.  And I don’t think we have to.

I spoke with many teachers during the collaboration day that suggested collaboration and development certainly weren’t limited to these four days, and I am not suggesting that they are.  I do, however, think we have opportunities to make these efforts a more regular, ongoing part of staff work in our District, without supposing it comes at a loss to instruction.  To the contrary, we can ensure it is only ever thought of in terms of how it enhances instruction.  It will take some effort from all stakeholders, though.

First, we need to take a look at how we are using the pupil-free, teacher “in-service” days that already exist on the calendar (and predate these additional collaboration days).  For activities that require discussion between school sites (such as meetings that occurred this Collaboration Day between elementary and middle school English teachers), and other large-scale trainings (such as introductions to new technologies), these days might be the appropriate venue.

Second, we ought to look at our contract with the teachers’ union regarding the time they are required to give to the schools.  I, for one, would rather have sports games scored by volunteer parents, and teachers working to directly improve their craft.  Coordinating additional time among teachers will take some extra logistical efforts.  But families also face logistical burdens when attempting to work around the student-free days.

Third, we must establish objective (and, wherever practical, quantitative) metrics to evaluate the success of these efforts in terms of gains in student learning and achievement, and against goals established at the outset.  This data needs to be used to guide future development and collaboration endeavors.

Going forward, my goal is to do away with the corrosive and- in my view- inaccurate dichotomy between collaboration/professional development and instruction.  My hope is that the virtues of collaboration and professional development will not be casualties in the community’s frustration at losing instructional days this year.  Rather, I hope our staff and families are able to see the tremendous merit in these efforts (as I certainly do, and am only more confident of after observing this week), and work hard to incorporate that value in a way that only supplements the instruction our students get in the classroom.

This article first appeared on http://www.ajblumenfeld.com/blog/.