Conformity Disguised As Collaboration

 

con·for·mi·ty

 noun \kən-ˈfȯr-mə-tē\

: behavior that is the same as the behavior of most other people in a society, group, etc.

: the fact or state of agreeing with or obeying something

col·lab·o·rate

 verb \kə-ˈla-bə-ˌrāt\

: to work with another person or group in order to achieve or do something

What causes educators to conform?

According to the definition of conformity, it is a noun denoting that people choose or feel forced to exhibit the same behavior... they "go along" with what others want or think... perhaps driven by agreement or to "keep the peace" or simply to "obey" or comply. 

Collaborating, on the other hand, is verb and signifies working together to achieve something--no mention of agreeing or obeying, just working together for the greater good.

So what motivates us to agree, obey, or to genuinely work together to achieve or do something?  Does collaboration mean everyone must agree to do the same thing?

Does one way fit all?

The implications of “conformity” in teaching have been turning over in my mind for quite some time now.  As the new school year begins, I wonder about its causes, its roots.  

In today’s political and fiscal environment (that seems to be anything but pro-education), how often do teachers feel diminished or fearful?  A plethora of extrinsic factors, including norm-referenced test scores, apply immeasurable pressures.  Do we somehow seek “safety in numbers?”  If we so, could this be a contributing factor to our willingness to “obey” or concede to conformity, even if we aren't sure it's best for our students?

Are we mistakenly believing that collaborating means we all must do exactly the same thing at the same time in similar ways?  Is there danger in daring to be "different"?

In the name of collaboration, teachers are sometimes being handed lesson or unit plans created by others, with either an overt or underlying message of, "Do this," vs., "Here are some ideas or starting points for our new conversation about our class's needs."

While we all have some conformity requirements in what we have to do--standards to teach, curriculum maps to follow, and standardized tests for which students must be prepared as best as possible.  But teachers should be able to plan timely, relevant instruction to reflect their own teaching styles and their students' learning needs and interests.

If a teacher needs to be a carbon copy of the teacher next door or down the hallway, does that ensure that s/he is "a good teacher" or "highly effective" (or at least effective)?  Does it guarantee that the teacher will not be viewed as "in need of improvement" or "ineffective"?

Even when a teacher sees varying needs in her classroom, there are times that her colleagues, administrator, or even her students' parents pressure her to mirror her colleagues in:

• teaching particular lessons in an exact time frame 
• “covering” specific lessons, units, or textbook material in the same way
• assigning/grading a certain workbook page or set of spelling words

Does conforming in ways such as these make us better teachers—or does it serve to protect us via “safety in numbers”? 

Some teachers are feeling pressured to jump into textbooks and curriculum without taking time to get to know students.  This (perhaps inadvertently) supplants the use of time for amply gathering data (both qualitative and quantitative) about their students’ needs.  This can lead to struggling with time later on, knowing the most efficient ways to differentiate, and documenting students' progress.

Taking time to know students as readers, writers, spellers, and mathematicians allows teachers to deeply consider and plan for instruction that has the greatest potential to meet the needs for the entire class as well as individuals.

This creates the magic of feeling as if we have more time in our instructional day.  

When the teacher knows precise needs of the class and individual students, time can be saved and used more wisely.  Without pre-assessments, standards that might have taken weeks to teach to a whole class might only need the intense focus of a small group for a few days.  That saves time, allowing students to advance more quickly or learn more deeply.  Thus, achievement should be increased while instruction becomes more engaging and timely; the teacher is better able to teach what students need to learn, neither moving too slowly nor quickly. 

But the fact remains:  some teachers are made to feel like they are somehow “behind” if they take time to figure out how to teach responsively.  When their colleagues’ pace and styles don’t match theirs, they are sometimes told or believe that they need to somehow “catch up.” 

Those who haven’t taken time to become sufficiently informed regarding their students’ learning needs are the ones who are behind; it is they who have a LOT of catching up to do. 

I have asked worried teachers how they can perceive themselves as being “behind” with anything when we are just a few days into the school year, especially when they are gathering information and building a classroom community that will support intensive and explicit teaching practices.  

Not only is it possible to be a responsive teacher and still follow curriculum maps, it is the only responsible way to approach teaching.  

Projecting and planning units of study requires knowing your students’ strengths and needs.

In reading...

This is true when forming and effectively teaching small reading groups; teachers need to gather details about each student’s reading habits and preferences, interests, fiction and nonfiction reading levels, the types of errors s/he makes with fluency and decoding, and to collect data regarding how/when comprehension breaks down.

In writing...

Learning about students as readers helps you to know them as writers (and vice versa).  You also need to find out what your students know as writers, particularly as you start each unit of writing across the year.  Ask students to write “on-demand” pieces before we begin teaching a unit.  This allows us to use our time wisely to teach to students’ precise needs.  As Matt Glover says, “We can’t know…” exactly what should be in a unit plan (and for how long) until we meet our students and assess their needs--that includes pre-assessing and assessing formatively as an ongoing practice.

In spelling...

To know what a student needs in spelling, teachers need to look students’ writing to determine application.  Teachers should also assess where each student (and the entire class) is on the continuum of spelling stages and features.  Donald Bear’s WORDS THEIR WAY or Kathy Ganske’s WORD JOURNEYS provide the best resources out there for this process. 

Let’s look at an actual spelling list from a second grade basal text for the third week of instruction:

· stop

· strap

· nest

· hand

· brave

· ask

· clip

· stream

· mask

· twin

· breeze

· state

· browse

· straight

· skeleton

What do you see as being emphasized?  Are there patterns that can help the brain learn?  How many different features do you see?  Is there an obvious focus or pattern?

By my count, at least TEN different levels of features appear on this list.  The features found in this list range from A-N on Bear's or Ganske's developmentally appropriate continuum.

If a child were working at a “Feature N”, this would be acceptable as a review list, perhaps.  In second grade (for whom this list was designed by a textbook publisher), a list like this will be inappropriate use of time for most students.  Even those studying feature “N” would do well to focus on that feature vs. a random mix of everything that came before.

A teacher who takes the time to gather information about students’ spelling development can intelligently modify this list into something that will make sense and actually increase learning by her students—differentiating based on what the student actually needs to learn. 

Simply handing out a spelling list and adding or subtracting words based on students’ abilities is insufficient; common sense dictates that in order to teach my students what they need to learn, we should focus on the feature we are studying and that s/he needs to study. 

At the very least, we could work within the spelling stage of each student, meaning four would be the maximum number of spelling groups in any classroom, though more homogeneous groups might only have two.  One size fits all is grossly unfair, particularly in classrooms with diverse learners.   Though a published list might seem convenient and easy, we must know our students’ needs and ask ourselves if any given list attempts to provide practice with those precise patterns.

What one class needs is not likely to be exactly what the class next door or down the hall needs.  Though we can collaborate to discuss our lists and approaches, we cannot conform to the exact same spelling list within a class, not to mention between classes.

So…

When pressed to match (conform) to what your colleagues are doing in precisely the same way and maybe even on the same day, we would be doing well to ask ourselves some questions:

·       Is this what my students need?

·       How do I know?

·       How can I adjust the plan, timing, and feedback so that I am meeting them where they are as learners?

Maybe conformity isn’t such a dirty word… maybe it’s about HOW we conform.  If we conform by:

·       agreeing that we should differentiate,

·       collaborating about how that might look for various learners,

·       allowing each other to teach in sync with our students’ needs

·       celebrating our own passion for teaching

and

·      honoring our individual teaching styles, permitting them to be joyfully visible and heard…  

THEN I could be a conformist. 

I leave you with some Langston Hughes for inspiration as you consider this topic:

Crossing

It was that lonely day, folks,

When I walked all by myself.

My friends was all around me

But it was as if they’d left.

I went up on a mountain

In a high cold wind

And the coat that I was wearing

Was mosquito –netting thin.

I went down in the valley

And I crossed an icy stream

And the water I was crossing

Was no water in a dream

And the shoes I was wearing

No protection for that stream.

Then I stood out on a prairie

And as far as I could see

Wasn’t nobody on that prairie

Looked like me.

It was that lonely day, folks,

I walked all by myself.

My friends was right there with me

But was just as if they’d left.