Things do not change; we change. — Henry David Thoreau
Several years ago, Highland Elementary School in Richmond seemed to have a "revolving door" for new teachers. They stayed a year or two and left.
For the past few years, however, only one or two new teachers a year have been needed at this inner-city school, and most of them have ended up staying.
The reason for the low turnover, say members of United Teachers of Richmond, is that teachers now have a voice in decision-making.
"This has created a much more stable environment at Highland," says Diane Draper, a third-grade teacher at the site.
At Highland, teachers help decide how their school day is structured and how the site's money will be spent.
Teachers have voted on how to structure their time for grade-level meetings and helped set up a master calendar for the school year that includes collaboration time on Wednesdays with students dismissed early.
Now that teachers design and structure their own professional development, teachers have developed the expertise to conduct training rather than having to hire outside consultants.
Teacher feedback was influential in setting up the "consistent discipline system" that's now in place — as well as the hiring of a vice principal and preserving the position of school curriculum specialist to support teachers in the classroom and provide professional development.
Teachers attribute gains in student achievement and test scores to their success with shared decision-making. The Title I site is the only one in the district that has met both API and AYP targets.
Shared decision-making didn't just happen at Highland. It was the result of planning and hard work.
After teachers expressed a desire to participate in how their schools were run, UTR and the district co-sponsored a workshop. CTA provided much of the curriculum for the two-day training session held nearly a decade ago.
After shared decision-making was bargained, Highland teachers wrote bylaws to put it in place.
UTR members elect five representatives to serve alongside administrators on the school's shared decision-making committee. Meetings are open to all staff members, who may either speak out on a topic or put anonymous comments in an envelope to be read later.
After researching and discussing agenda items, committee reps make a formal recommendation to all of the faculty members, who then vote to accept or reject it.
"We can only recommend. We can't impose anything," says Tom Cuffe, a fifth-grade teacher and committee member. "This way everyone gets a voice and everyone has a say in what happens at our school."
"It takes a little longer to make decisions because we have to get input from everyone, but it's definitely worth it," says Christina Lambie, the school's curriculum specialist. "More teachers are involved in the school, attend workshops and know how a budget works."
Before shared decision-making came into practice, teachers at the site were often frustrated, says Francesca Mann, a third-grade teacher at the school for 20 years. "We would be told what we had to do in a top-down way, and very often there was not teacher buy-in. The staff did not know how site money was spent or why certain decisions were made. Things are very different today."
"Years ago, our district would plan all of our professional development for us on Wednesdays," recalls Jim Broadstreet, a sixth-grade teacher. "They would tell us we had to meet and discuss X, Y or Z and planned the whole agenda for us. It wasn't helpful at all because our issues were very different from the things they wanted us to discuss, which were not relevant to us.
"Now we can actually sit and talk about how to present units, how to look at assessments and how to plan for next year. It makes us more effective teachers. I feel I can be a much better teacher when I feel good about coming to work. And students benefit from that, too."
Not every administrator at Highland has supported the philosophy.
A previous administrator felt threatened by the shared decision-making process and tried to dismantle the program, which staff went to battle to save. Sara Danielson, the current principal, was selected five years ago by the district because she was supportive of shared decision-making, even though she had never worked in that kind of setting before.
"When great minds work together, you reach good decisions," says Danielson. "I have great faith in teachers as professionals doing what is best for the kids — and I have never been disappointed."
She cautions that such a transition needs staff development and may not always be smooth. But she encourages administrators to give it a try.
First-grade teacher Kelli Meeker, who has been at the school for six years, feels fortunate to have shared decision-making in place after she hears some of her classmates in San Francisco State University's master's program describe how their schools are governed. "They tell me about their top-down management, and it really makes me appreciate my school."
When she first started teaching at Highland, she found it eye-opening to hear staff discuss such things as how to divvy up the funds budgeted to the school. "It never occurred to me that teachers could make these kinds of decisions. It's very different from other schools where you take what you're given."
"It's very empowering when you get to help decide what your students need to succeed," adds Meeker.
"I think it increases motivation and energy among staff when you are trusted as a professional to make the best decisions for your students."
