Difficult conversations with school staff

I use the narratives of three school leaders (Stanfield, Kirkpatrick, and Thompson) to come demonstrate the uncompromising commitment from not withdrawing from the challenge of engaging teaching staff in difficult conversations. The three school leaders describe how they specifically elevate and target a component in the district’s teacher evaluation rubric that requires educators to “implement lessons equitably” with their teachers. Overall, the district’s teaching evaluation rubric has 24 components spread across four domains. Impartial school leaders in this study reveal something of their heart and emphasis by choosing to hold teachers accountable for the one teacher evaluation component that targets implementing equitable practices. Dr. Thompson believes that addressing equity cannot “be an option” because “teachers, educators, adults can't choose whether or not to address issues of race. They could no longer choose, because if given a choice, they can always choose not to address it. It's comfortable not to have to address it.” School leaders who ground their work in supporting students of color and of low- SES knowingly and willingly engage in the uncomfortable work of fairness and justice. Moreover, the school leaders reveal two particular forms of procedures for accomplishing their engagement with teaching staff: frank and warmhearted.

Ms. Stanfield reveals how she engages in frank conversation with her teaching staff about the equitable implementation of lesson plans. Ms. Stanfield expresses how she uses the component centered on equitable practices in the teacher evaluation to support her work toward impartiality. Ms. Stanfield recognizes that the equitable component in the teacher evaluation

rubric does not “encompasses everything, but it’s a start” to be able to engage in conversation with teachers around equity. She tells of a tool provided within her district’s teacher evaluation assessment that school leaders can choose to use in their leadership practices:

But, I think it goes back to if we value it and if we do engage our staff in that way, and elevate it as a priority. And we also have a responsibility through our teacher evaluation system . . . So, as part of [the teacher] evaluation each year . . . when [I am] going in, observing their instruction and interaction with students there are three elements that [I] look for: specifically acknowledging and affirming multiple perspectives in the classroom, how they enrich the curriculum to meet the needs of students, and how they foster efficacy and advocacy in their space. And so, there is an expectation that principals are evaluating that. Giving teachers feedback around it . . . And I think it goes back to if the principal [is] comfortable being in that space, do they value it, and do they support teachers in growing their practice.

Ms. Stanfield reveals the recognition of using something in the district’s mandate in teacher evaluations to support her work towards impartiality. She further explains how she uses the teacher evaluation:

I have individual conversation with teachers after every formal observation that I do—we have conversations specifically about elements of strengths in growth in their practice. And then specifically I try to elevate . . . equity. [I] try to help them . . . through our conversation uncover . . . in this particular lesson what did you do that was equitable. . . . And let's look at, “Well how did you honor and elevate multiple perspectives?” “What did you do specifically?” “What did you do to allow students to socialize their intelligence?” “What moves did you make?” “How did you structure that?”

Here, Ms. Stanfield describes her engagement with the difficult conversations of equity during conferences with individual teachers. Ms. Stanfield does not withdraw from the challenge of participating in difficult conversations with staff.

Dr. Kirkpatrick is another school leader to reveal her engagement in frank or what she calls “real deal” conversations with her teachers who she perceives to not making the appropriate professional progress to educate all students at her school. As an elementary principal, Dr.

Kirkpatrick describes both her motivation and justification for not withdrawing from the challenge of engaging in difficult conversations with her staff based on the future outcomes of young children who are not properly educated. She tells of the frank conversations she has with teachers,

So you [are] either going to get with the program or you’re going to leave the program. It’s really simple. You pick. I’m giving you the opportunity . . . I’m going to tell you. This is not working anymore. This does not work. You are not educating kids. You’re doing [a] disservice to kids. I’ve supported you. I’ve done this, this, this, this, this, this and let’s look at this last year. This, this, this, this . . . and yet you’re still not bringing it to me. Here’s the data that tells you that—so now you make the decision. Learn how to do it or get out the field . . . But stop hurting kids. And that’s a heart thing. . . . [Students] are not going to be all right. The pipeline for prison starts with kids not mastering at third grade. We all know that that research is so old. Yet, we perpetuate it.

Above, Dr. Kirkpatrick does not shy away from communicating with her teaching staff that are not making improvements. Also, Dr. Kirkpatrick demonstrates how those impartial school leaders not only have frank conversations but also support teachers in order for teachers to improve their practices.

Dr. Thompson, on the other hand, demonstrates how she uses a warmhearted approach in her efforts to not withdraw from the challenge of engaging in difficult conversations with her teaching staff. And again, Dr. Thompson uses the district’s teacher evaluation assessment to engage in what she believes are courageous conversations. She tells the following story about a difficult conversation she had with a teacher:

Just recently, I had to have a conversation—I had to have a courageous conversation— with a teacher here at this school, who had been teaching for about three years here. She's new to our district, new to the city, so she's just been with me. And what I've learned about this young lady is that she really wrestles with feedback, so when I give her feedback about her practice, she often becomes defensive in her stance—her body language—and kinda retreats. And I believe that because of relationship, because of

being an equitable leader, where I am building individual relationships with each of my staff members, I was able to have that difficult conversation with her.

Had I not modeled for her what it looked like to practice equity with students and other staff, I don't feel that she would've been receptive to the feedback that I had to give her. But I think she could literally see—it burdens me when you are disgruntled or displeased, because that energy translates to kids. And so, I need you to be okay. So, I'm gonna stop what I'm doing, I'm gonna take the time to bring you in, and have that difficult conversation and recognize that these are our norms for engagement. And it may not always be comfortable. We may not walk away on one accord, but because students must be at the center of all that we do, we have to have that conversation about these brown lives in front of you. And you've gotta receive my feedback, and your practice has got to change, because this is a best practice for kids, it's a non-negotiable, and I still love you— right?

But if I weren't walking the walk, she'd have walked out of here and blew that off. But we were able to hug, embrace, and she apologized for some things and some misunderstandings. This work is . . . this is important work. So, I don't know that that's equity or just a best practice or just leadership, but I can frame it with equity because I'm talking about the lives of the brown children in the classroom. And that it's important for me to build relationships with my teachers beyond the class, to ensure that they are centered and grounded, and at a place where they can offer their best selves to children. And if they can't, if there is any barrier, anything in the way of that, then it's my professional obligation to interrupt it.

Dr. Thompson has cultivated a school culture through her direct modeling of the equitable expectations that allow how to engage her staff with difficult conversations about pedagogical practices. Dr. Thompson sees her responsibility is to interrupt instances where she observes inequitable practices being committed by her teaching staff. She supports her focus on balance in teacher practices through the evaluation process. Finally, Dr. Thompson raises the following sentiment about school leaders and other educational stakeholders:

And I talked about this before, but my work here isn't done until I know that I've done all that I can for every single child that walks through those doors, to provide them with an equal opportunity to be successful in this life. And so, I often feel that for some leaders, if they are not mandated to make some changes, they won't . . . folks still have the option of choosing whether or not they want to deal with racial equity. Some don't believe in it, and some of these folks are educators, right before our children every day.

Ignoring inequities is not an option impartial school leaders in this study consider. Here, Ms. Stanfield, Dr. Kirkpatrick, and Dr. Thompson purposely use a resource by the district to support their work towards fairness and justice; in spite of the intensifying of turbulence such action precipitates.