David Kirp recently led a discussion of his new book “Improbable Scholars” at the Center for American Progress in Washington.
One of his findings is that schools can be improved by collaboration and sound ideas. No charters. No school closings. No TFA.
Here Esther Quintero of the Shanker Institute explores the social science that supports collaboration rather than the disruption favored by the reform crowd.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I agree. Good collaboration and mutual respect is key to grade level, intra-grade level, content level and district program success.
The problem is that real collaboration can’t be forced. As long as there is even one who won’t willingly contribute, share, or change, the efforts and gains will be stalled. Unfortunately, there are too many situations where thay one person stands in the way of allowing the group to move
Yes, and it is the people with power and money standing in our way. It doesn’t benefit them for us to work together. They want to divide us and watch the system crumble. It is Bill, Eli, Michelle, Arne, etc standing in our way.
Forward. I have been involved in too many collaborations that became all about allowing that one out-lier to have to have it his way or no way. These bullies shut out creative contributions of others since they believe that the only good ideas are their own.
This can also happen with a bully principal or curriculum person. They ask you for hours of thought and ideas only to do what they planned all along. I sometimes think that thet have these meetings for their own purposes- to weed out those who think for themselves.
This is called the Delphi Technique.
http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm
Doesn’t the description sound like every faculty meeting or PD workshop ever?
Great thoughts and I agree about “not forcing” collaboration. I think we sometimes put staff and students in situations which require collaboration, assuming they have the skills to be successful. So, providing learning around skills necessary for collaboration along with expectations will ensure success.
I think it is fair to say that the developers of and investors in the so-called “disruptive technologies” have a winner-take-all approach wedded to a “smartest-person-in-the-room mentality.
I haven’t seen an interest in collaboration with educators. Only politicians.
Our district has recently shifted to a more collaborative philosophy. This happens at various levels. Many of our initiatives have included people at all levels of the hierarchy with respect given to all parties and consideration of ideas from all parties. It has improved morale and commitment in my specific building without a doubt.
Unfortunately, we are in a state (Michigan) with a declining school age population which means layoffs will hit greater frequency than usual. We are also a new RTW state. It will be interesting to see if the collaboration model can withstand these forces.
Will potential layoffs and the new evaluation laws create a mode of competition that disrupts an otherwise good model? Will RTW create friction between dues paying teachers and those who do not?
I think I know the answer. It’s too bad that legislators have all the wrong priorities in school reform.
I am pretty sure that we all have our collaborative horror stories. However, I believe the author is suggesting that we collaborate with community groups who support public education. This is far different from the collaboration done at staff meetings.
This would provide a powerful front against the hostile reformers, Duncan, Rhee, Broad, Gates, Waltons, Anschutz, et al.
Personally, I would rather collaborate with members of the public trust instead of collaborating with the Billionaire Boys.
Right now, we have a choice: the collaboration model or the hostile take-over of public education by groups who want to dismantle it. Which side do you want to be on?
In our district, we have what might be called “disruptive collaboration”: Teachers are forced into documented collaboration (more formal meetings); the numerous informal collegial exchanges “do not count” unless they are logged. This practice of “prove to me that you are really doing your job” undermines professionalism and adds senseless work.
Stein/Merrill: “People. People who need people. . .are the luckiest people in the world.”
This is why I have been telling you to do the “Parent Trigger” with parents, students, teachers and community and lock out the corporate privatizers. Turn their own law on its head and use it for good not bad purposes. Don’t you all think you could do a better job than the so-called “Parent Revolution?” We are driving ahead here in L.A. it is now up to you to use or abuse the situation.