Knocking Down the Walls: Releasing Teacher Creativity to Build School Innovation

With all the ideas being shared about adopting this model or that brand of education, I had to stop and think: What was it that we really wanted out of our schools? The Big Picture, it seemed to me, was about fostering innovation among teachers so that our schools would develop their own novel character, about advancing some creative approach that would enliven the school and galvanize the community supporting it, about delivering cutting edge, 21^st Century teaching and learning. And then I remembered my own school 30 years ago… where we had this really special program.

A Free Hand

Of course, when I first signed on in East Jefferson in 1978, things were a bit different. I was shown a list of student learning objectives and asked how I was going to meet them. There were several “canned programs” available in each subject. I could choose from among them… or make up my own. I was given a free hand to design the curriculum I thought best for my students. I learned that in East Jefferson teachers were trusted to design the best program for their students. Because they were busy generating ideas to be used in their classrooms, teachers talked more about what they were doing. They wanted to know what others were doing, what colleagues thought of their ideas, or how they might work together, and what resources the principal or special area staff might offer.

I recall one particular year in which our teaching and learning just “blew up” at our school. It all began during an informal lunch conversation when I mentioned that I was planning a vacation trip to visit Florida with my young children to swim with dolphins… Another teacher shared that she had been snorkeling a couple months earlier in the Bahamas. It didn’t take long and others were attracted to the topic. Without much effort the idea of designing an “Under-sea Adventure” took shape and discussion began in earnest. My fellow staff members were enamored with the idea and its possibilities for a multitude of expressions across the school. It was suggested we talk about it at our next staff meeting.

But the idea was too attractive. The word spread and teachers began claiming “territory” in the Under-sea Adventure. I, for one, loved the idea since it would fit right in the ecology plans I had for science. The teacher next door wanted to focus on the Great Barrier Reef. The teacher down the hall had all kinds of sea-related reading material and was just about to launch into Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. That set another teacher off about distance and measurement for her math class as well as volume. The art teacher was elated because 3D paper machete animals were on her agenda.

Before long, you could not walk down a hallway in the school without holding your breath—each transformed into an underwater aqua-sphere. Ceilings and walls were covered with blue and green craft paper, strewn with darker seaweeds and glinting with sprinkles of silver and gold glitter. Brain and stag corals were sketched along one side with hundreds of intricately drawn clown fish and angel fish, larger parrot fish crunching the corals below. The opposite wall showed an old, sunken ship with cargo strewn about, one chest with a rusted name plate: Robinson Crusoe. Above our heads swam every kind of sea creature from Yellow tuna to Bottle-nose Dolphin, from Octopus to Manta Ray. All were fashioned of paper machete and realistically rendered, suspended by fishing line and swaying gently with the tide. The underwater realm was completed by a soundtrack emanating from behind the shipwreck—the low, echoing sounds of whales, the clicks of dolphins, enclosed in the wider, distant sounds of flowing tides and hissing bubbles…

Learning Outcomes

Students were invited to “Beach Day” one week, “Pirate Day” the next. Countless classroom stories were written about sea-related adventures, undersea ecosystems, and life cycles of various sea creatures. Assemblies were sponsored and sea-related reports were delivered. Older students visited younger classrooms to read their original reports on sea phenomenon. Younger students acted out the “schooling” habits of alewives as they darted in unison about the playground. A traveling zoo brought their own tanks filled with sea cucumbers, sea slugs, horseshoe crabs… even sharks and rays! Many classroom newsletters were written describing student learning and fun. Parents came to see what was going on and itinerant teachers would visit to tell stories of who, at other schools, was saying what and which were copying our ideas.

This undersea theme kept us going most of that year. Subsequent years saw other themes: the Countries of the World, Outer Space… We had found something that worked well for us and for the students, had the freedom to plan and carry it off, and the good sense to make the most of it for the learning we needed to impart and for building our community spirit.

This authentic collaboration not only set the tone for learning in our building, but it excited participation among the entire community. Students were entranced by the environment they had created and parents were proud to talk about the school-wide arts integration and all the making that was going on.

In modern terms our adventure would have been dubbed by many labels: project based learning, authentic involvement, interdisciplinary learning, STEM or STEAM, and would have been recognized as a model of multi-aged collaboration. The project was sustained by the passion of the teachers and the interest of the students. The work transported us to another place and evoked deep learning for all involved.

This was not an effort of “special teachers” by any means. It was a just a collaborative venture of teachers who felt free to listen to each other and play off the ideas and suggestions of their peers. It was self-reinforcing and cumulative. The more it developed, the more possibilities we saw for drawing out educational experiences. And the more the students learned.

My bias is that this phenomenon is not unique to those teachers at that time. I believe that every teacher has this latent capacity… if only by the nature of who we are. We entered the profession because we had something to say. Teachers have talent, and they enjoy the adventure of leading learning.

The question then is why it not happening at this time? Why are East Jefferson schools not morphing into centers of art and creativity, science and tech, or art and drama depending upon the individuals and talents of the staff in our schools? Why are our schools so crystalline in their structure and offerings? So uniform?

The Curriculum

For one, specified programmatic content has supplanted the individual teacher’s creativity. Nowadays it seems that in every subject matter there is intense pressure to deliver content. Those schools that adopt particular programs by which to deliver, usually expect teachers to obey a delivery schedule. That leaves the teacher most concerned about doling out certain information at certain times… and not concerned about relevance to any larger picture. The focus becomes: “Did you hear what I said?” not “What does this mean to you?” Student interest flags, motivation drops, and learning suffers for many.

Evaluation

Over the last decade, as the teacher evaluation process has become more politicized, teachers have become more anxious. If staying “on message” is the perceived attribute of an effective teacher, then that becomes the standard. After all, a teacher receiving repeated “ineffective” ratings realizes lower status and certain dismissal over time. It is obvious then why most teachers would defer to the Master Pacing Schedule over striking out on one’s own, no matter how creative or effective the innovative effort might be.

High Stakes Testing

Although there is much controversy over Value Added Modeling (VAM) for evaluating teachers, legislators the country over have seized on this as a method of having impact on the educational system. VAM is the theory that states that the performance of students on standardized tests is directly attributable to the teacher’s effort with those students. That students must be tested yearly and those test scores will then be factored into the teacher’s evaluation.

Although everyone will agree that teachers have influence, there is much to suggest that it is very limited and that no one teacher can perform miracles with students who face poverty, poor nutrition, and family insecurity. Nevertheless, VAM is here for the time being. And with it teachers have even more reason to toe the line on programs that teach to the test or profess to be effective in preparing for it.

Knocking Down the Walls

I do not mean to say that we don’t have teachers exercising their passion and creativity in their classroom performance. Nor that all teachers are cowering behind their Teacher Manuals in fear, delivering prepared lines on the appointed day. Below the veneer of compliance and a genuine desire to serve the system, every teacher still hears that distant drum, some more than others, calling them to follow their instinct, to knock down the walls that limit them, and to encounter students where they live— to meet their needs, interests and passions.

I believe, even in this modern age, the impediments to teacher autonomy and creative collaboration can be removed—and still maintain order in the system. But it will take the village to do it, to make sure that all stakeholders have a voice and believe in the change. With high standards in mind, teachers can design their own programs to meet the unique needs of their students and work in collaboration with the district to be sure standards are met. Evaluation can be recast to be more positively presumptive, more collaborative and trusting, so teachers do not have to be guarded, can try out new ideas, really focus on their talents, and explore better ways to meet the needs of students. Even high stakes testing can be put in its place, first by knowing the standards are being addressed by the teachers in the classroom curriculum, next by monitoring with authentic formative assessments devised by teachers, and by making reasonable preparations to help students feel comfortable with the format and tone of tests they encounter.

If we can knock down these walls, establish trust among staff and our school leaders, and encourage creative collaboration within and without the schools, there is no doubt in my mind that the result would be the growth and budding of the unique talents and abilities of our diverse staff… and subsequently the flowering response of the students under their care. We would see more authentic manifestations of teacher-to-teacher collaboration and more innovative student learning outcomes. If given the freedom, we would see our schools developing their own unique “personalities” under the banner of East Jefferson Public Schools.