The following vignette models how one school’s professional development plan grew directly out of its inquiry into students’ and teachers’ needs. Such an inquiry was possible because of the school’s teacher-centered approach to leadership.

It’s like a circle of power, of leadership.
 —Josiah Quincy Upper School teacher 

Josiah Quincy Upper School (JQUS), which partners with the Quincy Elementary School to create a K–12 pathway for students, has two teacher team leaders for each grade level, and a headmaster, Dr. Bak Fun Wong, to oversee the school. According to one teacher, at JQUS “leadership is definitely shared. It’s his [Dr. Wong’s] whole philosophy. It’s like a circle of power, of leadership.” Another teacher stated, “Our school tries to have a lot of teachers as leaders.” Teacher team leaders at JQUS teach one fewer class, and take on more responsibilities that affect the direction of the school. They meet weekly with the headmaster and share information in their respective grade-level team meetings, where “issues are raised and everyone has a voice.”    

At JQUS full-faculty meetings, the shared leadership is evident as teacher-leaders take on different aspects of the agenda. On a Wednesday afternoon, faculty gathered for a whole-faculty meeting from 1:30–2:30, then held subject-team meetings from 2:30–3:30. Conversation filled the room as staff caught up with one another and sat down with food in the cafeteria of the Washington Street building. The meeting schedule for the 2006–07 school year consisted of monthly whole-faculty meetings that incorporated study groups for professional development. Subject team meetings (math, science, English language arts, history, arts, and world languages) and grade-level team meetings (grade 6, grades 7 and 8, and grades 9–12) each take place two times per month. 

Gathering data to design professional development experiences
“We’re going to launch our PD [professional development] groups today,” announced Steve Watson, English language arts (ELA) teacher and curriculum leader, as he opened the whole-faculty meeting. He first gave some background on how the study groups had been developed for this year. Last year, a curriculum committee of about 25 teachers from all grades had formed to examine what teachers and students had to say about teaching and learning at JQUS. Subcommittees began to explore the school schedule, educational values, student experience, and teacher experience. With the assistance of a researcher from CCE, data was collected from student and staff surveys and focus groups. All this work “helped inform the schedule and PD decisions,” Watson explained to the faculty. 

The power of listening to students
After the meeting opening, faculty broke up into three groups to “process what we found out last year” through responses from the surveys. In the student experience group, social studies teacher and grades 7–8 team leader Jim Heffron reviewed that there had been seven focus groups total, covering all grades. He passed out a summary of student responses, grouped by the question themes (curriculum, instruction and assessment, overall success in school, student advice, classroom demographics, and classroom climate), and a small group of four teachers and staff reviewed the responses. In their focus groups, students had talked openly about what they experienced in their classes. They discussed what they could remember about what they learned, how the material from one class related to another, what motivated and supported their learning, and what got in the way.

As the teachers reviewed the student responses, they talked about their reactions. Tim Kelleher, a social studies teacher in grades 9 and 10, commented, “This has made my teaching better. I completely cut things out because of this.” “The kids were ruthless,” agreed a student support staff member. 

Another teacher found, “Students want work that’s relevant to their lives outside of school. They want connections. They want input into what they’re learning about, and they like being able to work together in groups.” Teacher Pamela Chu, a grade 8 teacher of ELA, history, and media literacy, stated, “They like making their own decisions and choices. I think students just want to know what to expect, too.  If a teacher is clear and organized, then the student knows what to expect.”  

As the small groups reconvened into their larger group on the student questionnaire, faculty took turns sharing their discussions. One teacher found that “hands-on learning is most memorable,” while another stated that “students do forget a lot” between grades and “teachers have to re-teach ideas.” They discussed the need for summer work packets, differentiated instruction, and relevant curriculum—“We have to make sure we’re teaching something they can relate to”—and that strong teacher-student relationships exist. The teachers noted that the “students’ comments are sophisticated and observant.”

After engaging in spirited conversation, the whole faculty reconvened. “The quotes from students are very revealing,” said one teacher, “and on the whole we agreed with them.” The teaching practice group was hopeful about this year’s professional development, and the educational values group agreed: “We really want the professional development to land in concrete places that tie back into our teaching.”

Study groups to extend teacher learning
Based on what was learned from the data collected, the study groups for the year were announced. The topics speak directly to student and teacher concerns: 1) the Teaching for Understanding framework—an educational pedagogy that provides a language and strategy for enhancing efforts to teach for greater understanding; 2) differentiated instruction—varying instructional approaches to meet the diverse learning needs of students in a class; 3) cooperative discipline—an approach to discipline focused on collaborating with students and families to solve problems; 4) the International Baccalaureate (IB) program—an international education organization that offers rigorous curriculum and assessments; and 5) issues of race, ethnicity, language, and class—conversations and research relating to students’ cultural and economic backgrounds. The whole-faculty meeting came to an end with Heffron asking teachers to sign up for their top three study-group choices and then to break into subject-team meetings. The meeting was run entirely by teacher-leaders and was convened through the teacher-leaders and principal.