Conflict Amid Community

Conflict Amid Community:The Micropolitics ofTeacher Collaboration

BETTn ACHINSTEINU niverSitv of (California, Sooita (Cutz

.4 nao,or reformn suhge that begin in the mnid-1 9 80s hns generated a renewed interestin fostering teacher conmnnnitY oi- collaboration as a means to counter isolation,iniprole teachelr practice and student learning, bluild a comnmon tvision for schooling,andfoster collective actionl arounfl d school reformn. The term community often con-juies imnages of a culture of consensus, shared values, and social cohesion. Iet, inpra-ctice, when teachers collaborate, theey run headlong into enormous conflicts overprofessional beliefs anfd practices. In their optimnismn a)bout caring and supportive

0o7/ninu itifes, advocates ofjen undeoplay the role of diversity, dissent, and disagree-mnie t in coninmu n ity life, leaving practitioners ill-prepared and conceptions of collab-

oration uw(derexplored. This article draws on micropolitical anld organizational theoryto .x'anine teacher comnunities. Buildingfrom case studies of tWo urban, publicmidldlle schools, this article shows thait when teachers enact collaiboraltive reforms inthe name of comnunity, zw1hat enmerges is often conflict. 7he study challenges currentthinking on conintunity b-I showing that conflict is not only cential to community,bui howi, teachers nanagLe conflicts, Uhether they sup)press o 0r embrace their differences,dejines the conmmlunity borders anifd iltiniately the potentialfor organ)izational learn-ing anfd change.

A major reformiii sur-ge that began in the rnid--1980s hias generated a renewedinlter-est in foster-inig teaclher- community or collaboration as a means tocounlter- teaclher isolationi. improve teacher practice and student learniing,build a comimiloII vision for sclhooling, and foster collective action aroundschlool refor-m (Barth. 1990: Carnegie, 1986; Johnson, 1990; Lieberman &MIiller. 1990; Lonis & Kirutse. 1995: M\cLauglhlin & Talbert, 1993; Newvmann& Associates. 1996: Rosenholtz, 1989: Sergiovanni, 1994). A teacher profes-sional commuinitv can be defined as a group of people across a school whoare engaged in comlmilioIn Work; share to a certain degree a set of values,no-ms, and orientations towards teaching, students, and schooling; and

,h,--. Cotllege Record \olum'e 104, Numilber 3. April 2002, pp. 421-455( opright C by Tetcheris (College. (Coliiinbisi Unei-esit\0161-4681

422 Teachers College Record

operate collaboratively with structures that foster interdependence (adapted

from Van Maanen & Barley, 1984).Challenging the individualism and isolation of the dominant school work

culture, current advocates of teacher professional community highlight the

importance of shared or common values in such communities (Johnson,

1990; Lieberman & Miller, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Tal-

bert & McLaughlin, 1994). Past research on teacher professional commu-

nities has often cast a picture of communities rapidly able to achieve

consensus, at times undervaluing the complexities involved in managing a

diversity of beliefs and practice while maintaining strong communities (seeBarth, 1990; Johnson, 1990; Lieberman, 1995; Newmann & Oliver, 1967;

Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sergiovanni, 1994; Sizer, 1984).

The conflicts within teacher communities that are recognized are some-

times characterized as aberrant or pathological community behavior lead-

ing to fragmentation, rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon, which

could foster growth (see, for example, Hartley, 1985; Nias, Southworth, &

Yeomans, 1987; Pollard, 1985; Yeomans, 1985; as cited in Nias, 1987). Although

more recent studies have begun to explore more of the complexities of

difference amid community, the policy and practice enacted from the research

on community often does not capture these nuances, instead offering a

simplified and overly optimistic vision of collaborative reforms. Yet an under-

standing of conflict within community is crucial to practitioners', reform-

ers', and researchers' understanding of how such communities form, cope,

and are sustained over time.This study extends the discourse of the recently emerging field of more

complex conceptions of teacher professional community, which takes into

account dilemmas, tensions, and challenges involved in building teacher

communities that impact school reform and teacher norms and practices

(Hargreaves, 1994; Lima, 2001; Little & McLaughlin, 1993; Louis & Kruse,

1995; Merz & Furman, 1997; Westheimer, 1998). These include theoretical

and empirical works, some of which offer textured pictures of teachers

engaged with struggles of collaboration, identifying tensions between indi-

vidual, subgroup, and collective autonomy. Although this body of work

critiques an overly harmonious picture of community, with the exception of

Lima (2001) it leaves the dilemma that is at the heart of community-how

members really manage conflict amid unity-underexplored.This article analyzes how teachers in community manage conflicts. It

explores how teachers suppress or embrace their differences, how that

defines the community borders and ultimately the potential for organiza-

tional learning and change. I found that active engagement in conflict, a

dialogue of differences, is a normal and essential dimension of a function-

ing teacher community. Conflict can create the context for learning and

thus ongoing renewal of communities.

Conflict A mid Complunity 423

THEORETICAL FRANME

I draw fromil the literattues on micr-opolitics an(l organizations, as well as astudy of two schools to strenigthieni this recenit research on teacher commu-nitv. The studv andc the two kindis of literatti-e examine often hiddenaspects of life in schools, exposing how teacher-s interact formally andinfornally and how that impacts school chanige.

A MICROPOLITI(:AL PERSPECTIT.

The micr-opolitical perspective arose as a challenge to traclitional-rationaltheories of organiizationis that higlhlighit clear and shal-ecd values and goals,forimial power arranigemiienits, andc an objective notion of organizationial life(such as Parsonis. 1951: Taylor, 1947). These traditional theories often donot accoun1t for- the everyday lived experiences of those inside the organi-zations. Mlicropolitical theor-ies instead spotlight individual differences, goaldiversity, conflict, uses of informal power, andl the negotiated and inter-pretive natur e of organizationis (Ball, 1987; Blase, 1987, 1991; Hall & Spetncer-Hall. 1982). Blase explainis, "Nlicropolitics refer-s to the use of formial andinforimial power by individuals andl groups to achieve their goals in organi-zations. In large part. political actions restilt from perceived differencesbetween individuals and groups, coUpled with the motivation to uise powerto influtenice and/or protect" (1991, p. 11).

Micropolitical studcies of schools, amonig other thinigs, have idlentifiedconflict d-naimics over policy and practice, organizational control bv admin-istrators, teacher resistance, ideological or normative inflienices, and teach-ers political orienltationis to stuclenits (Ball, 1987; Blase, 1991; Hargreaves,1994; Sparks. 1990). Nlicropolitical theory thuis offers a new lens for linder-standing collaborative reforimis in schools by uncovering power, influence,conflict, and negotiating processes between indiViduals and grotips withinschool organizationis. It is particularly relevant in a study of teachercomm tuinity-building initiatives becatise teachers activate micropolitical pro-cesses as they incr-ease their inter-actionis and( expectations for coordination.They gener-ate "heat as well as light," (Little, 1990b, p. 188) as thev peerinto one anothier's classroomii practices and examine one another's beliefsto form consenistis.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

I also look to school chanige and organizational theorists (ArgFris & Sch6n,1978; Ftillani, 1993: MIarch & Olsen, 1975; Martin, 1992; Stacev, 1992), whohighliglht how conflicts can challenge instittitionial norms and spark newideas, which can be transferred to other occasions-thus promoting orga-


nizational learning. Organizations can thus make meaning and learn from

past events (March, 1995) by adapting or transforming norms and practices.

Organizational learning is defined in various ways. Rait (1995, cited in

Scribner, Cockrell, Cockrell, & Valentine, 1999) summarizes four defini-

tions: using past events to transfer knowledge for future decisions (Levitt &

March, 1988; March 1995); identifying and correcting errors (Argyris &

Sch6n, 1978); routinely questioning values that guide organizational actions

(Rait, 1995); and generating new insights through gathering information

and sense making to change behavior (Huber, 1991).

It is important to note that there are different kinds of organizationallearning, some that tend to maintain stability and the status quo versusthose that result in ongoing inquiry and fundamental change. Learning

that results in reactive, adaptive, or superficial changes falls into the sta-

tus quo category. Here an organization seeks to adjust to its environment

while maintaining core norms and practices. Argyris and Sch6n (1978)

call this single-loop learning, in which members of an organization re-

spond to changes in the environment by detecting problems they can

correct and perhaps undertaking incremental changes while maintainingthe norms and practice already in place. In contrast, learning that results

in generating new insight to change behavior and routinely questioning

values that guide organizations describes a different kind of learning. Ar-

gyris & Schon (1978) call this double-loop learning, which "consists not

only of a change in organizational norms but of the particular sort of

inquiry into norms described as learning" (p.22). Suclh inquiry fosters, "a

new sense of the nature of the conflict, of its causes and consequences,

or of its meaning for organizations' theory of use" (theory that governs

action; p. 11).

MICROPOLITICAL PROCESSES ASSOCIATED

WITH CONFLICT IN COMMUNITY

In particular, I have found that three concepts, informed by my study,

micropolitical and organizational theory, cast a new light on understanding

teacher professional communities: conflict, border politics, and ideology. I

identify them as micropolitical processes associated with conflict in com-

munity because they describe the political activity of teachers as they nego-

tiate differences among colleagues, define which ideas and members belong

to their community, and make meaning of their shared framework of val-

ues in relation to their school context. I focus on these three concepts

because my research exposed differences that reflect significant variations

in how teacher communities dealt with conflict, shaped their community

borders, and defined their shared ideologies, thus expanding our concep-

tion of teacher professional community. Furthermore, conflict, borders,

(:otiflict Amid (Cotwniunity 425

and ideologp proved to he critical dimensions that impacted the nature oforiagnizationial learninig experienice(d in the schools I studlie(l.

(:CoJlict

I take schiools, in comimlon with virtually all other social organiizationis,to be (rf'lla.s o/ .stru1,1wh; to he riven with actual or potenItial conflictbetween members: to be poorly coordli nated: to he ideologically dliverse.I take it to be essenitial that if we are to unidlerstanicd the nature ofschools as orgainizationis, wve muist achieve somile uniielrstanidinlg of theseconflicts. (Ball, 1987, p. 19)

Understanding conflict is essential to buildlinig a fuller conception ofteacher professionial commiiuniities. Both within and beyond the school-house walls, the puirposes of schoolinig andl the practices of teachers arehighly contested, giving rise to coniflict. As Ball highlighits in the previousepigraph. schools are arenas of striggle. Mlicropolitical theory helps tohighlighit these struggles by addressing the goal dliversity, lack of consensus,anid the range of conflict (fromil covert to overt) within organizations (Ball,1987: BuLIrs, 1961; Gronn. 1986; Mangigam, 1979).

Conflict can be unidlerstood as bothi a situation ancl an ongoing processin which views and behaviors diverge (or apparently diverge) or are per-ceived to be to some degree incompatible. That is, conflict can be an eventwhereby individuals or groups clash, in which divergent beliefs and actionsare exposect. It is also a process whereby individuals or groups come tosense that there is a cliffer-enice, problem, or dilemma and thus begin toidentifv the nature of their differences of belief or action. In this wa',conflict is a social interactioni process, whereby individuals or grottps cometo pelceive of themiiselxes at odds. It is the process of conflict definitionthat I have come to focus on-the interactixe states, the socially constructedmeanings, the unidlerstandinigs arrived at by individuals and the group aboutthe nature of their differences in beliefs ancl actions.

Fosterinig a culture of collaborationi within a teacher professional com-munitv may sparlk conflict. Communlities are often born in conflict becausethey demilanid stubstanltial chanige in school normIIs and practices, challengingexisting norms of prixacv. independenice, and professional autonomy, andmaN questioni existing bounidaries between cultures ancl power grottps atschool sites (Hargreaves. 1994; Johnson, 1990; 1Liehermani & Miller, 1990;Little, 1990a: MIcLauighIlinl & Talbert. 1993; Talbert, 1993). Thev remain inconflict as their valuedc norimis of consensus anid critical reflection, of unitvand discord, are oftentimes incompatible. As many' have argued, criticalreflection is as essential as collaboration to strong communities (Dewey,1916;: Gardiner, 1991: Liebermaiina & McLaughlin, 1992; Newmann, 1994;


Westheimer, 1998). Critical reflection involves challenging the taken-for-

granted assumptions of teaching and schooling practices and imagining

alternatives for the purposes of changing conditions (Freire, 1983; Louden,1992; Sch6n, 1983; Tabachnich & Zeichner, 1991). Such reflection fosters

alternative perspectives and growth and thus serves to counter myopia

and stagnation in communities. Yet critical reflection, by uncovering com-

peting ideologies and interests, may result in ongoing conflicts within thecommunity.

Border Politics

A second dimension of collaborative teacher reforms left underexamined

by past research is the process involved in defining community borders-

negotiating which people and ideas belong. Borders identify the extensive-

ness or inclusivity of the community. Thinking of schools as communities

foregrounds notions of belonging, connectedness, and caring relationships(Noddings, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1994). For teachers, the metaphor of com-munity may be particularly powerful in countering their experiences of

isolation (Hargreaves, 1994; Lortie, 1975). Yet those same movements to

define a sense of community construct walls and borders that define out-sider status as well. As Noddings explains, "we tend to draw circles around

groups to which we belong" and often define those outside our circles in

disturbing ways (1992, p. 117). Putnam's (2000) distinction between bridg-

ing (inclusive) and bonding (exclusive) is relevant here. Communities may

simultaneously construct insider and outsider status. As they reinforce shared

identities, they distinguish members from nonmembers.Border politics are the micropolitical processes of negotiating the bounds

of membership and beliefs of a given community. Conflict offers a key

site for making border politics visible as members articulate insider and

outsider status (including people and ideas). For instance, Nias (1985)

writes about a professional community that defines their groupness by

"locating the opposition." In this way, as Simmel (1955) and Coser (1956)

found, conflict can be a powerful source of group cohesion through con-

struction of a common external enemy. Alternatively, other communities

may use conflicts to continually embrace outsider perspectives, expand

their borders, and reshape the bounds of thinkable thought (Chomsky, 1989).

Ideology

A third underexamined dimension of teacher collaboration is how commu-nities are shaped by ideology. Ideological stances represent "educational

perspectives and commitments of teachers" (Ball, 1987, p.2 8 1) and are a

central concern of micropolitics. For teachers, ideology defines the frame-

(Con/lic. Amini (Coiwniutit) 427

work of shared values about educationi, schooling, and studelts. It includesan orienitationi about stuident learninig and outcomes, notioins about howN,school should reform and chanlge, and conceptions about the relationshipbetween school and societv. Ideology as a political process refers to themaniagemenit of meanin1g, how individuals anlc communtaities malke sense oftheir work and ultimiatelv take action (Ball, 1987).

Although past researchers and aclvocates of teacher communitv identifythe impor-tanice of having shared values and commllitmiients, they ignore thecontenit or ideological substance of such values (W'estheiimer, 1996, 1999).For example, Sergiovanni describedl the importanice of communiities bond-ing arounld sharecl v-alues or philosophy, while findcling "the subject matterof this foctis and clarity ma'v well be seconlarv" (1994, p.100). However, notall teacher- communities are alike. For example, Westheimer (1998) docu-mented the diverse n1or-mlls and values of two midcdle school communlities,identif%ring one as "individualistic" (focused on individual autoniomy, rightsand responisibilities) and the other more "collectivist" (wvith a collectiveideology and solidarity). Teachers, individually and collectively, hold valuesthat shape their- practice. The contenlt of a teacher communitv's ideologv,especially as it pertains to valuLes about education, schooling, and studentsdoes matter. These conceptions frame howv school is enacted.

Ideologies are not solely framed within the teacher community. BothN%ithin and beyond the schoolhouse wvalls, people hold conceptions aboutthe ways that schools should be (Ctiban, 1984; Mever & Rowan, 1977).Schools cannot be understood without understandinig the environment orlarger social contexts in which they operate (Anderson, 1991; Ball, 1987).MIicropolitical theorists often find that macro- (ideologies found in thelarger environment) and micropolitical (ideologies within a communitv ororganization) factors frequentlv interact (Ball, 1987; Blase, 1991; Iannac-cone, 1975; NMever & Rowan, 1978; WUamslev & Zald, 1973). For instance,Anderson (1991) examined howv the school and district level ideology thatprized harmony and conflict avoidance influenced the ideological controlused by school principals to dissipate conflict wvith teachers. The relation-ship between the outside and inside of school ideologies may exacerbate orminimize conflict within the community and ultimately shape how a com-munitv addresses conflict.

THE STU'DY

This article examines examples from a study of twvo school-wide teacherprofessional communities located in urban, public middle schools in theSan Francisco Bav Area that are engaged in collaborative reform initiatives(Achinstein, 2002). The study explored howv each community approachedconflict between teachers and what outcomes resulted. I chose a case studv


approach using ethnographic techniques to emphasize richly contextual-

ized data to get at often hidden processes. I combined both qualitative and

quantitative methods. The qualitative work facilitated studying conflict as a

process, teachers' interpretation of meaning, and my participant observer

role in the fieldwork and analysis. The quantitative work, in the form of a

survey, enabled both corroboration as well as new lines of thinking (Ross-

man & Wilson, 1991).I chose two sites that self-identified and were recognized by outside

agencies as strong professional communities distinguished by their collab-

orative reform efforts. Through further study, I also found that they mea-sured as strong communities on scales identified by researchers on teacherprofessional community. Both schools exhibited shared norms and values,

common work and purposes, and collaborative cultures and structures.

Further, both scored as strong communities by scales developed in terms of

opportunity to learn, collegial support and collaboration, collective prob-

lem solving, culture of experimentation and innovation (McLaughlin &

Talbert, 1996; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). Both also met Louis and Kruse's

(1995) criteria of shared norms and values, reflective dialogue, deprivatiza-

tion of practice, collective focus on student learning, and collaboration.

California middle schools, with their explicit focus on supporting collabora-

tion and challenging traditional boundaries of secondary schools' depart-

mental divisions, are important sites for both community and conflict. They

were actively involved in regional reform initiatives, national reform initia-

tives, or both, that focused on collaboration. I also chose urban sites that

reflected the kind of diversity that can give rise to conflicts among teachers.

Although I conducted research at one site for more than 4 years (inten-

sively examining conflict for 2 academic years), I studied the second site

intensively for 1 academic year. I collected data through four primary

means: ongoing interviews with approximately 50 teachers and administra-

tors; 1 observations of formal and informal meetings and interactions; doc-

ument analysis of current and archival documents; and a teacher survey.2

The tape-recorded and semistructured interviews included questions about

the nature of teacher community, specifically whether or not teachers felt

a sense of community, how they defined community, how the community

dealt with differences and conflicts, and what their responses were to cur-

rent conflicts in the community. 3 I observed both formal and informal

meetings 1 to 4 days a week at each of the sites, spending time in staff

rooms, classrooms, school yards, and faculty social gatherings. 4 I collected

a variety of documents, including minutes from meetings, school portfo-

lios, report cards, policy statements, internal memos, and historical arti-

facts. I distributed a survey to the whole faculty at each school addressing

conflict within teacher communities and teachers' work culture.

(Cniflict Amin,d (Cmmtnitv 429

Based on Miles and Huhbel-rman (1994), the qualitative data was analyzedon three levels. The first level involved preliminary coding, which aided inthe development of descriptixe as well as interpretive statements that led tothe major- findinigs. The second level involved writing case vignettes andgener-atinig patternl cocles. Cr-oss-case ainalINsis repr-esentecl the thir-d level. Iadopted a 'mixed strategy" approach (Miles & Hubel-rllan, 1994) to cross-case anal!sis. writing up each case andl theni Usillg matrices ancl otherdisplays to analyze themii. These clisplavs wvere combined to form a "metamatr-ix" that I fur-tlher- condenised and compar-ed. I usedl NU*DIST, a soft-ware program for analyzing qualitative data. to develop the initial andongoinig codes, locate patternls, and create matrices for the cross-case com-parisonis. Surveys were analyzed Usinlg a statistical package (SPSS). I con-ducted descriptive statistical analyses (meanls and frequenicies) as wvell as aT-test to determinie statistical significance of specific items across sites. Ialso condtucted exploratory factor analysis to aid in the construtictioni of keyconcepts. Cor-elationis were run between the variables to assess hivariaterelationships between them. As a "member check," I sought feedback fromthe participanIts in the stud!. After I had Written a draft of each case, Ishared it with the school. I held a school-wide session in which I reportedm! findinigs. asked for feedback, ancd specifically solicitedl detailed w-rittencommllents fi-om a few key informanits.

For the purposes of this article, the data shared is primarily from twvocase studv vignettes. Displaying teachers' experiences throtugh representa-tive vignettes can help clarify tnderstanidinigs of teacherprofessional com-nunituv. As an analytical tool, a vignette is "a focused description of a seriesof events taken to be representative, typical, or emblematic in the case vouare doing" (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 81). The incidents chosen in thevignettes were representative of the conflict responses exhibited in mostother conflicts fotind at each school duL-ing the study and expose dlominanitpatterns of processes associated with conflict within each teacher profes-sionial commutnitv. These vignettes highlight the dramatic differences betweenthe two case schools, although there were many similarities between theteacher commtuities. Compared with most traditional schools, these teachercommllunities are remarkably similar in their collaborative stances. Theseschool cases shotild thus not be seen as polar opposites with neatly conI-trasting experiences, rather I emphasize the differences to help illuminatea spectrum of conflict responses. These vignettes serve to dramaticallyrepresent the three dimensions of conflict, borders, ancl ideologp to thereader. Each vignette describes the school and teacher community andtheni highlights a story of a teacher conflict abotut how to meet the neecls oftheir- diverse studenit population. For further discussioni of the entire studilsee Achinsteini (2002).


WASHINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL5

Washington Middle School is an urban public school of 650 seventh- andeighth-grade students located in the San Francisco Bay Area. Standing atopa hill in a lower middle- and working-class neighborhood comprised mainlyof ethnic and racial minorities, the school is a collection of rectangular flatbuildings and outdoor corridors. The student population is highly diverse:37% Latino, 26% Filipino, 12% Asian, 12% white, 9% African American,3% Pacific Islander, and 1% Native American. About two thirds of thestudents are immigrants or first generation citizens. Sixty percent speak anative language other than English. Over the past 10 years, white studentshave decreased by about 10%, whereas Latinos have increased by about thesame percentage.

Washington is 1 of 15 schools in its district of 8,000 students. The prin-cipal, Ted, a white male, joined Washington 12 years ago. Ted identifieshimself as "conflict avoidant," even though he often is the one to mediateconflicts among teachers and make final decisions. The school has engagedin restructuring efforts, which emphasize teacher teaming and interdepen-dent work, consensus-based decision making, school-wide standards, andhigh expectations for all students. Teachers collaborate at multiple levels:Interdisciplinary teams plan together for 2 hours on a weekly basis anddevelop integrated curriculum units, subject matter departments agree oncommon performance standards, and school-wide decisions in weekly staffmeetings involve the whole school in coordinated reform efforts.

The teachers at Washington share close ties. One eighth-grade teachernamed Karen explained, "These are my professional friends. [It is a] loving,warm, close collaboration." In contrast to their diverse student population,Washington's teachers are highly homogeneous. Its staff of 29 is predomi-nantly white and female, with 2 teachers of color and 6 men. Laura, aseventh-grade teacher, explained, "[The principal] calls us 'a white women'sschool.' " All but one teacher lives outside of the (working-class/low-income) community in which they work. Almost all of the faculty has beenat the school for more than 5 years, and some teachers (at least five) havebeen at Washington for over 20 years. Teacher turnover is low. The prin-cipal reported that one to two teachers leave a year. In many ways thereported educational ideology of the teacher community is in alignmentwith dominant local and national public conceptions of schooling. Thisincludes views about schooling that promote socializing students to beproductive members of our current society and offering equal opportuni-ties for all to advance based on individual ability. The school's vision state-ment describes how the school will help students to become "productivemembers of our richly diverse community," and their reform agenda is

(;otiflict Am7id Commttnitj 431

conceptualized in the following wax by Karen, "It's not about changingsocietv. It's about brinlginig these studenits' scores up."

Coniflict is a challeinge for the Washington teacher community. Conflictsare described as painfuil for teachers whlo perceive themselves as a tightlykInit comMunity of frienids. As Sara, an eiglhtlh-gr-ade teaclher reported, "I'venever worked in a place wvith suchi close frienids.... When conflict happens,it's not a head thinig, it's a heart thinig.... It becomes a conflict in my soul.I'm enmotionally involved in the conflict. I (lo care and it really hurts."Althoughi the school has some formal mechaniismlls to addlress conflict, suchas a leadership team consistinig of teachers and the prinlcipal and( monthlyfaculty meetings, conflict is often suppressed in these arenas, relegated tothe prixate domain or transferred to the principal for otitside arbitratioll.In public formal settings the community comes to rapid consensus (theyoften do so by findinig what the majority wants and calling it consenstis),suppresses dissentinig voices, and maintains a sense of unitv. A ltiiclhtimeconversation between teachers about a time when the staff members wereat odds over the introduction of collaborative reforms demonstrates thecommunity's stance towards conflict and consensus, which ended disagree-menit by getting rid of the dissenters:

Ellen: Ther-e are horror stories of our faculty at incredible odds.

Dan: It used to be that wva.

\'al: But people like each other here now.

Ellen: A.n approach has been implanted so wve don't see the conflict.[The principal] uses the term-consensus.

Dan: Yeah, we took those who disagreed and shot them. (Laughter)

\'al: That's true. Thev are not here. If you are not going to conform,you are going to leave. The prece(lent has been set up that thoseunN%illing to do that will not be here.

Dtiring the course of mV study, teacher debates arose about howv bestto address students who were perceived as behavioral and academic chal-lenges. The school's ptiblished vision statement and student performancestandards emphasized the faculty's belief that "all students can learn," andexpressed a commitment to high expectations for all. But manx teachersexpressed other sentiments. In formal faculty meetings, the teachers andprincipal publicly referred to certain students or grotips of students, whowere perceived as academic and behavioral challenges, as "problem chil-dren," "unreachable," "dysfunctional," and as "driving us crazy."


Teachers referred to "the 30%" as the label given to those students who

were not succeeding either academically or behaviorally (Morgan & Rizzo,

1995, p.17 ). These students received two or more D's and F's, or three or

more N's for "not-acceptable" behavior. These students were publicly referred

to as the "Nons" and denied privileges to after-school activities. To add to

the challenges of addressing at-risk students, bilingual and some special

education students were mainstreamed. Most teachers expressed frustration

at the challenges of integrating bilingual and mainstreamed special educa-

tion students within their classrooms. Finally, teachers identified growing

problems with student disruptions in classrooms, including students swear-

ing at teachers, defying teachers' orders to go to the office, breaking school

property, and getting out of their seats and disrupting the class. These

discussions of problem students often collapsed poor academic perfor-

mance, behavioral problems, and challenges of special education and bilin-

gual integration into one category.Although a few teachers privately acknowledged concern about not serv-

ing all of the students, others in more public forums saw the issue as a

problem that resided within the students. Sara, an eighth-grade teacher,

explained,

We don't feel that hard core bad students are getting what they should

get.... Some kids just won't get any better. It's a parental issue. It's a

home thing. We can't go any further. The parents don't care. The kids

need help that is psychological. It's not my job. I can't help a kid with

a horrible home life.

Faculty reported that teachers at the school saw student failure as caused by

student background and family (3.67).6

The primary solution to this conflict between high expectations and

problem students was to remove or exclude the students. Some teachers

concluded that these students should go elsewhere, "the 30% need alter-

native kinds of schooling. I don't think a regular school can deal with

them" (Morgan & Rizzo, 1995, p.20). Most advocated tougher disciplinary

measures, more counseling, and referrals to special education.Only in the privacy of their team meetings or individual interviews did I

hear a few teachers raise the idea of teachers' role in this conflict. This

voice of dissent challenged the publicly perceived unanimity that the prob-

lem lay outside of the teachers' locus of control. Eliza, a special education

teacher, identified teachers' shortcomings in addressing certain students,

"But our population is 30% at risk.... We are still not reaching a signifi-

cant part of our population." In a discussion with a group of teachers at a

team meeting, Eliza disclosed teachers' "blaming" approach to dealing with

difficult students:

(:Onflirtc 1mid (CommnunilY 433

\When [the 30)s ] is talked about as a facult, I perceive ther-e are a lott' people laving blame rathier than lookinig for change .... \'hen I

have brought it u1p in Imectings ... what I get back is that "you have tounidlerstiiand the populationi we are dealing with. These parenits don'tcommunicate with thtir kids. The kids (lou't communicate wNith theirparents. They (lo't have parentail support. So there is nlothinig w\e can

lo. So why even bother trxinig to deal with it.?"

Eliza. who as a special c(lucatioin teachier often represenitecl a maiginial-ized lperspective. privately i(leutifiecl teachers' role in the conflict aboutstudlenits in the following way:

I thinik that ever\ tinie we say things like, "look at their background;look where they- re conlinig f'romii; look at their hone lif': look at their-parents: we can't help this kid because their parenits are this wax or wecan't help the kicis because their sisters are this wa ," ... I thinik thatgoes back to [the fact that] we just cloni't know how to talk to thoselBlack kids.

Thlese are \erv brief niomienits of including themselves in sources of'conflictsabout stu(lenits. It was also one of' the only times that a teachier idenitifieclrace as a factor in this conflict andi one of the few inistances of teacher iden-tification ofdisagreemient among colleagtes in wavs to adciiess stu(ent conicer-ns.

At a November faculty meetinig teachers displayed friustration with a"problem chil(l." The episodle involved an Aftrican A.American stud(enit and

the faculty's attempts to remove her [ruinl the school. Karen, an eighth-

gradle teachie r . describedt hos this studenit who had confronited helr ref'usedto go to the office. Karen Irepor-ted that "the stuldenlt reacted v'iolentlv anld

ag-ressivelv towards Imle ... waving hel hands in a threaiteninig maninler.The studcenit was suspended for 5 days, and the faculty was extremely upset.Following another inicidci nt with the sanie sttileiit, the f'aciltv came togetheragain for (liscussioni in March. The subsequenit factiltv lisctissions inclutledlcomimiienits suicih as one f'romil Ellen who said, "we nee(d alternative classes foi-somie of the social misfit-s." Their disciussionis moved from the specific stu-denit to disruptive sttidenits in general. Maria. an eighthi-grade teacher said,

voLi send themil out because von can't cleal with thetin and thev're infectiligeverybody else." This medical metaphor of (lisease was heard againl whenteCMlhelrs idenitifietd negative studenit behaxior as spre'ading fi-om one badstti(lenit to another: "it's infectious" an(l "it's growing." The group thenimoved to strengthening existing policy and d(e\elopingr stroniger- disciplin-ary actions for "the problem sttidenits."

When some teachers began to foicus attenitioni on adult responsibilitv fordifferenit approaches to teachinig or interacting with studenits, others quickly

ttirned the focus back on studenits. O(ne stiggestedl a f'ocus on dleveloping an


affective component connected to their academic reform effort. Another

mentioned exploring some avenues for more professional development for

teachers. Comments quickly turned back to identify the problem within the

children. At the end of one discussion, teachers zeroed in on the problem

as rooted in certain students who needed to be isolated from others or

removed from the school. Cora, a seventh-grade teacher said, "We need to

have special places for these kids. They don't belong here." As a teacher

named Pam asked, "Are we really willing to suspend and expel students?"

Cora called for solidarity among teachers, "Aren't we going to support our

own?" The teachers reinforced their existing discipline policies, leaving

their own practice unquestioned. At the end of the school year, Eliza, thespecial education teacher with the dissenting opinion, left the school. Teach-

ers at Washington continue to struggle with their approaches to problem

students.The community's framing of a conflict between problem students and

teachers, and their subsequent actions to remove these students, echoed a

pattern of unity in opposition to others. This approach avoided conflict

among the adult community by transferring the problem onto the students.

In defining these challenging students as "other," the professional commu-

nity of teachers may have created solidarity within their own borders. Fur-

ther, this framing served to diminish changes within the organization,

maintaining the status quo. These debates also disclosed a rarely explored

conflict between Washington's public statements about high expectations

for all students and their ongoing practices of talking about "problem"

students. This more subtle conflict was rarely publicly debated or, when

brought up, quickly brought to closure. It was revealed in private interviews

or in brief moments in lunchrooms, and impromptu or informal faculty

meetings. In this way, the public perception of unanimity among school-

teachers was sustained.

CHAVEZ MIDDLE SCHOOL

Chavez school stands like a tower on a hill, next to a fenced-in blacktop

playground in San Francisco. The 525 sixth- through eighth-grade students

come from low-income and racial minority communities and are bused

into a middle class neighborhood. The student body is diverse: 44% Latino,

29% African American, 12.8% other white, 7% other nonwhite, 3.4% Fili-

pino, 2.9% Chinese, and 0.8% American Indian. Over one quarter of the

students are limited- or non-English speaking. Two thirds are educationally

disadvantaged youth, and 18% are in special education.The district in which Chavez is situated has experienced the turmoil of

other urban areas, including desegregation battles, budget crises, political

controversies, and problems of a large bureaucracy. In 1979, the NAACP

Coniflirt A mid (Comimoit 435

sited the district, char-ginig that Africai Aimerican sttidents received a low-quality education. The stuit was settled in 1982, when the (listrict and theN,VAAC P signe(I a "Consenit Decree," which set terns for school reform anddesegregation. As a Consent-Decree schiool, Chavez hadl to meet certaillstandar-ds each vear, (lemionistrate improvement in areas includilig studelittest scores, and mainitaini a certaini level of' racial integrationi and balance.In 1989 the district closed Chavez for not meetinig the standlaris. Chavezstudcenits andl teachers dispersed to five other schools. Then, in the middleof 1989. the school was reconistitutecl. Reconstittitioni involved hiring a newstaff. The school reopened with a new principal and an almost totally newfacultv (onli 10%C' of the former Chavez teacher-s remainedl). The entirefacultv signed on to the Consent Decree philosophical tenets, which emphia-size teacher- responsibility for studcenit achievement and equitable educa-tion. Thev incltide the following kinds of' principles: "all individuals canlearin'" and "if individuals do not learn, then those assigned to be theirteachers will accept responsibility for this failure and will take appropriateactioni to ensuti-e success." The school has documentedl improvements instudenit perfor-manice, a decline in disciplinary incidenits, lower staff tuirn-over. and better school climate since 1992, when thev unidertook numerousrefor-mlis.

Since reconistitution, the school has had four- prinicipials. The principaldur-inig the Ist !ear of' mn study was a white wooman namecl Julie, who hadbeeni at Chavez for 4 vears. Jtilie was highly collaborative and defined herstance towardis conflict as open, identifying that "conversations abouit con-flicts can create new ways of thinking and newv ways of cloing things." The2nd year of my stucdv, Glenn, an African American man took leadershiip anddeepened the reforimi work around equity. Chavez is engaged in multipleregional and nationial refor-m initiatives. In these school-wide efforts, Chavezfaculty foctised on collective inquiry and critical reflection, teacher team-ing and inter-depenidenit work, consensus-based (lecision making, school-wide standa-cls, highi expectations for all sttidents, ancl a commitment torespectinig ctultur-al diversity, Chavez has an active site coulicil with teachers,parenits, comrmunity member's, studenits, and principal engaged in consenistis-based shar-ed decision makiig. It also houses an on-site professionlal devel-opineit and youtil stipport organizationi called Project Respect, whichpromotes equitable educationi of low-income sttiulents and studelits of color.

The 42-member staff at Chavez is 61.9% other- white, 14.3% AfricanAmnerican, 16.7% Latino. 2.4'c other- nonwhite, 2.4%c Filipino, and 2.4%Chin-ese. The teacher-s are 64% female and 36% male. Many teachers remarkon Chavez's highi turnover rate as a source of instability in the school.Turnover was more than 30% in the early 1990s and 17% in the Ist vear ofmv studv. Teachers are engaged in multiple forms of collaboration: weeklygrade level "family" meetings to coordinate curr-ictilum and student sUp-


port; weekly subject area teams that work towards common performancestandards; weekly extended full faculty meetings, where they actively engagein consensus-based shared decision making around their focused school

reform; twice-monthly restructuring council events that include community

members, students, and staff; weekly student/staff dialogue groups; after-

school "praxis" and reflection groups; and teacher-parent action groups.Even with all of this school-wide collaboration teachers identify differ-

entiation, individuality, and strong subgroup identities at Chavez. Ben, aChavez faculty member, explained that such individuality was a critical part

of their collaboration, "I think that's one of the key aspects of collabora-tion, that it isn't about doing it one person's way.... That should alsoinclude a nurturing of and a recognition of their individual creativity,

expression and priorities. There's plenty of space for dissent here." Teach-ers identify multiple and shifting camps representing a diversity of views

and group identifications throughout the school. Such camps are fluid and

seem to shift over time, making them more like temporary allegiancesbased on a particular issue than entrenched parties.

Chavez teacher community's educational ideology is in line with critical

theorists such as Giroux (1988), who see the purpose of schooling as socialtransformation. Ben explained, "I think that we have, here, a lot of peoplewho come from political activist backgrounds in some way, shape or form

so their critical thinking skills and capacities are pretty well developed." Aneighth-grade teacher named Sam explained that he saw education as "chang-

ing the society, changing attitudes, changing issues of power, and makingsocial change.... I see schools as change agents. What education should beis liberatory; it's to challenge the existing social system, to change it." These

values are linked to the school's consent decree, social justice, and equitymission. Chavez makes their focus on race and equity explicit and central.They identified their reform and inquiry work around targeted groups-African American, Latino, and English language learner student populations-

that have not experienced the same overall improvement in academicachievement as their other student populations.

Chavez teachers actively engage in public conflict about ideological andprofessional differences. A common refrain of teachers is to "get real,""push hard," and confront one another. Sam explained, "When conflict is

brought to the surface, people are uncomfortable with it. That's when itbecomes real ... it will go somewhere." Another staff member, Sara, explained,"It may be uncomfortable when we have conflicts. But we may need con-flicts to resolve things. We can't just have the status quo." Norms of self-reflection and collective critique bring conflict and action to the core in

public settings. The school has a broad repertoire of mechanisms to solicitand address conflicts publicly, including a formal and well-practiced school-

Co?iflict.l1 id (Am idC immuit 437

wide consenistis dlecisioni maakinig protocol. mtiltiple teamlis ancl comrmittees,inqtiry and critical reflectioni protocols at weekly faculty meetinigs, a numn-bcr of' professional support providers. and1 a principal whO haolIas conIflictsback to the f:aculty to resolve. The teachers tendl to confr-onit (lifferenicesdirectly and publicly. Btit sucih open conflicts also increase levels of dis-comfor-t amonig teachers. The teachers identified stress associatecl with thelevel of conf'lict at school (3.58).' Some teachers withdrew from responsi-bilities, and others considered leaving the school froim a sense of' burnout.alldi frustr-ationi.

At the healr-t of' man teaclher- conflicts at Chavez is how to address theirdiverse stuident population. Conversations about approaclhes to teaching adiverse sttident poptilation. incltilinig concer-nis of' curriculum and pedla-gogv. standar-ds, discipline, assessmenit, special education incltusioll, bilin-gutal imim1er-sioni, and racial integr-ationi, are occasioins for teachler controversy.In factilty meetinigs in the 1995-1996 school \ear, the fiaculty began toaddress the issue of teacher accountability for low studlenit achievement andhighi rites of' disciplinary- referr-als of Alricin American stuldents. Peter, aseventh-grade teacher, clescribed hows teachers puiblicly expressed concernsthat "we are sendinig too manm African Aimericani boys to the couinselinigoffice." Gary another teacher expriessed. "we are not meetinig the needs ofotiur African American youtihl whom we are supposedl to add(lress as a consenit(lecree school.'

In r esponse. the faculty began a dlisctissioni about piloting a dlistrict-initiated experimental program calledl IRISE (iIftisinig Responsibility forIntellectuial and Scholastic Excellence), which involved African-ceniterecdcturriculumll and pedagogy. The assistant principal was active in creating the

progr-amii at thie district level and stipportedl a pilot at (havez. Two teachier-snamiled Sam andc Larrv, both Africani A.mer-ican1 males, were trained dirl-inlgthe stmmii1er- and proposecl trying the program in four- classes of 15 AfricanAmiier-ican. low-achieving sttidents, Who Would spenld hIalf the day in anAfrican American-onl1v setting. The program's goals included language Icquli-sition. disseminating cultural precepts. andl mathematics proficiency uisingAfri(an-centered contenit.

In the sprinig of 1996. contflict and heated puiblic dlebate arose at afaculty meetinlg. Some teachel-s saw the conflict as one of resouir-ce alloca-tion. For them, the conflict was over equitable fundiciing for African Amenr-ican sttidents or fair allocation of class sizes (as IRISE classes would have 15studlents rather- thani the nor-mii of 30). Beyond a battle over r'souirces,teacher-s openedl tip a putblic (lebate over ideological issues. Teachers acknowl-edged that the IRISE conf'licts were over basic values andl goals aboutintegrationi, trackinig. segregationi, and desegregationi. As Tanya, an eighthl-gradle teacher. expressedl. "we have not vet agreedl on philosophy."


In the discussion that followed the faculty meeting, some teachers voiced

support for the program in terms of meeting the needs of underserved

African American students who were targeted as part of Chavez's consent

decree mission. Chavez teachers disagreed on methods for integration.

Some found segregation a means for greater long-term integration. Some

teachers began to question their stance on segregation and integration

because of Chavez's inability to reach some African American students.

Tanya explained that she turned to IRISE as a way to address this lack:

Are we really segregating the kids? Well, yeah, we are. People see

segregation as a totally negative thing. I don't necessarily see that'strue. I definitely am an integrationist, but at the same time I don't feel

like the structures in this school work for a certain population of the

African American community. I think that this program has a chance

of doing that if it's done well.

In opposition, other teachers expressed concern about resegregating

students after legal desegregation had occurred. Peter, a seventh-grade

teacher, said, "That's tracking and that's segregating, and what are the

implications of that?" Such opinions were shared publicly in faculty meet-

ings. One teacher named Kati in the eighth grade team said, "We worked so

hard to integrate and have heterogeneous classes and now you want to go

this way?" Uncovering even deeper roots behind the IRISE conflict, some

teachers (including both white teachers and teachers of color) identified

racism and low expectations among their colleagues. Teachers' discussion

of how to create equity and support the achievement of all students extended

beyond the school walls to the larger society. Sam explained his support of

the IRISE program as part of "liberatory" form of education that chal-

lenged the "existing society."After much discussion in full faculty meetings, Restructuring Council

meetings, and informal gatherings, the faculty came to consensus that they

were interested in trying IRISE as an experiment. There was a recognition

that the status quo was not working, that as Anna a seventh-grade teacher

explained, "we need to try something different with this group of kids."

They agreed to pilot the project in two classrooms and evaluate its impact

throughout the year. Peter explained, "I think there was some trepidation

but I also think ... that people said, 'O.K. let's try it.... Yeah, but let's see

if it works. Let's try anything. What's been going on certainly isn't work-

ing.'" There were still ongoing public and private debates about the pro-

gram, as well as frustration and stress associated with these conflicts. Issues

of race, professional practice, and resource allocation were not easily resolved.

At the end of the school year, the staff as a whole reviewed their stu-

dents' standardized test scores and found that although all groups of stu-

('(,i,/7ir, .1,i,1 (Am n C nmm itx 439

denits showed improvement fi-oim the previous yea r, African American andctEnglish language learner stticlenits showed the least amiouinit of' improve-mient As thev geared LIUp to apply f'or meihbership in a regional Ireformiinitiative. the\ planinlecl to focus their- ref'oriml efforts on the achievement ofthose undicer-performing groups. The IRISE program, particularly its instr-uc-tionil practices focusing on African Amer-icanl sttu(denits, was one of' thepieces of the refor-mi. Althiotigih it would lose its structtiu-e as an AfricanAmerican-onl1 intervention, its new incarinationi involvedi more teacherstsilin African-centered instructional strategies alonig with other- pedagogi-cal strategies. The school also hired more teachers of color to ref'lect theirsticlenit population andc engaged in mor-e extensive professional develop-men t about examininig beliefs ancl practices to improve achievement withintheir- diverse sttdlenit popUlation. The success of the pilot program wasnever formally evaluated, one of the originial piloters pullecl out, and thelatem incarnations of the programil were clifferenit from the original pro-posal. Yet, the efforts arounid addressinig equity and uinderserved studenitsof color remilainied centr-al at Chavez. Teachers in different grotips contill-ued to debate the ''riglit" wav to address the neecis of' theirdiverse studenitpopulationi and to work to close the achievement gap.

The communitv's acknowledgment of adult responsibility for stuclentswho were not achieving acadlemic or behavioral sticcess, and their- sub-sequenit debates about aciciressing clixerse students' nee(ls, echoed the pat-ter n of' critical reflectioni andi ownership of conflicts seen in their responsesto other- conflicts. Chavez had many mechianiisms for openly raising andaddressinig conflicts about studenits' race and culture. Throughout the xearther-e were multiple professionial development opportunities that fosteredadult reflection about racial attittides and( teaching that promilptedl teachers'confr-onitinig each other to "own" their- own racism as a meanis to chaniginigbeliefs and practices. The ottcomiles of' sucih activities resulted in sonmeorganlizationa.tl changes (itin-iig the COuIrSC of mny studCy, incltudilng introcluc-ing an African-centered pilot program: hir-inig mol-e teacher-s of color: orga-nliZilng stidenlt-teaclher- dialogtue gr-otipS: dcesigiiing a new school-widestandlardlized test plrepariation plrocedutire to adicdi-ess slower gainis in Afr-icaniAmiier-icani test scor-es: and focutsing a school-wide reform initiative arotundclosinig the achievement gap.

The conflicts at Chavez. debated in the faculty meetinigs andic expressedin multiple interviews. opened tip conversations abotit how teachers shouldteach. how schools shotilcd be structured, adi(c even how societv should]c bechaiged. The conflict abotut meeting the needls of' theirdiverse sttmdlenitswas never completely resolved, thoighi a new progr-amil was pilotedl. revisionsinstated and a school-wide focusedl ef'fort around issties of' eqtity established.The debates would con tilLiue at Chavez.


DISCUSSION

These case vignettes reveal how teachers engage in conflict amid commu-

nity, how communities can navigate disagreements in vastly different ways,

and, ultimately, how these different approaches impact a communities'

capacity for organizational learning.

COMMUNITY AND CONFLICT FORM AN UNEXPECTED MARRIAGE

Although the teacher community literature promises greater consensus and

shared values, these cases reveal that community and conflict formed an

unexpected marriage. Collaboration and consensus-critical elements that

build community-actually generated conflict. Not only did the teacher

professional communities experience multiple conflicts, but the core norms

and practices of collaboration that define teacher communities promoted

the conflicts. At both schools, the search for consensus paradoxically raised

the level of public dispute. By airing diverse perspectives in a collective

setting, by raising expectations for teacher input, and by allowing teachers

to debate what and how to do schooling, these schools generated new

conflicts because of their commitment to creating community. Structures

that fostered teacher-teacher collaboration, such as school-wide decision

making, made public collective decisions about practice that were at times

at odds. Whereas, historically, teachers could retain their private and diverse

beliefs behind closed classroom doors, innovations that supported collab-

oration opened up such differences for scrutiny and often resulted in con-

flict. The adoption of consensus-based decision making meant the faculties

had to come to agreement on values and practices. Thus, differences among

colleagues had to be addressed. Ultimately, conflict was neither the antith-

esis of community nor aberrant. Rather, it was an essential component of

community.

A CONTINUUM OF MICROPOLITICAL PROCESSES

Given the presence of conflict amid community, how did each community

respond to its conflicts and what were the results? These cases demon-

strated that communities manage conflict quite differently. Through this

research and a review of the literature, I have come to see a spectrum of

micropolitical processes associated with conflict within teacher professional

communities. The cases helped bring to light a continuum that demon-

strates variation in how communities manage conflicts, negotiate borders,

and define ideologies. Ultimately, exploring the spectrum of each dimen-

sion of the continuum helps reveal micropolitical processes that shape

different kinds of organizational learning within schools (see Figure 1).

Conflir, 1,n l (Amid lC717unity 441

Avoidant 4 -* EmbracingI m t771,, '-. filpid7IN i,/b7 ,lh,. *,, A\ ki, ncld cd( c. Soli(i/ . .,//l 7777/ (7 /-n tt illstt (-7 /fli .: xeck hI/ ' o/, x flit / 1,% u /itiri,l 1 -I7 7 fIt7/in/g up7 ll/

(id linI/ II7i/77ir \: 777 It.('.Is of dlifitci /i(es of hcli<cf /t1/(I [prac7tice;

dlis,.'t: li///iltcd ,<pt,7to/i,-c *,f ,m(riN (iis<t'lit ,mi/d opp)oltuirlitics for/nc7l /,(h /im ///'. f170 p hhi/li c dI7'.7t/ ;/1I1;It /i%c 7ic 7s7: hr/,Il/7I r'c)p'c tOiu/c

M ilt/ 7l/id! inl7/7' 7 7 1/r <c(hi1/7- of 7 777/Illmis ms / o l7gh/ (pu li dc 7i77 /

1/isill p/li/ 7lli/4 / o7 lil7 i(t /.11/,., 7 77'/77'7 7, / I ' riought o th1 , s/ l (/w/e/

/.177/7 77/77 1 b//1 7(7 1 t implaited . . .'ht7 w ei7i it be777p. - I'/ '. t1 wIill

u. 1' , {/' & m '/' t1w { l /}lli/ /I{' / /ll,, g,, w '/hr .'

s itlm //l "'s "1l {e lh l/l I l/ /1 , 1'1Z'. ''-(cm.i, 1 ,(ler

-k%iI,>}.i,.gl,,T I<.,-M lt-1-

L'ni/ied/ESt-lulsizNe * Diverse/liclusiv'eI ij.lI , , I)7 d/d('7 m.7l/ ti/ / s: I11(fi/idtl/ill ikl/I StIhg/- 7

Io p i(-Ic<lliticS1l7 rIl7/7 g7-/c'i77 %ti/Ihill (()1111111- l7pIl7/'(I: hc7tc,-,g 7'o<ci/x of1 I)t'-1'fs7/ill: /'igi(i *,,- ir7p)c< , .ll Ithl ./id/I I)mit-uipil/ .lit/s f,.,<l cd(1: ltli(I

1,7/(dl7 th7.lt Im1 ,. /77 i -,777ic( 7s , lo /o.ii / imt./g/// t'//l /7I1s: op 1) 7 7ollrl(d-

777/7d/I7'7. .s77'. /it 77 t 1hi ,l i itlgc'.: sorri/ tfirric7

"11, (ok fl,,t i,h' i iw , /77 // ) d t7717," 7c1 7o(117/ h77 1/7777." '' " 777 /1/, 771/'8 /// S/l/77' /w1 d/ii7n777/

1w,77 77,,,1 //77777 777/ / 77,1'szI/77' 1777/

,,,/, ' 1/7711 7l / ith M1o7ll ""/I t17"' 7' 117 a/77' 7777/ n777'7/ling/ /ho' 7/77717 ,7/ ,,,/,77 i/. ,,7 7 ,i !/77h ''1". .1/, i,,,/, -I,,,7,',,,/ /7o7th1.

-%N.ilshinigtll 1<.<-i<l-es -(Chi.uNc Tc IwI<lels

Ala instreamn/Conigruent * - o Critical/CounterM\i.lin7 7ll.'.ll ide71- logx .717))t1/ /17h ' ( li/iu 7ll idIco7Iog i .711)/11 III(- p Il'r-

/....1 - -s/ (A (I ./ .. I 7lin lg- t- po- 77S of 7 (77- o7ling- 7o /-t il/d c iiia-

7 ',7illi/c Stuld 'ents il7 7o c/llevit /.Iii )kc< -s ;m id ,ict7or-s to 7/ an7s (or-m7 .,77o 7'/ic : 7.7l(7 177" lof7t7 ' is so-i.iL- 7'.lilth'r I177an 1-7'.[)7o(/ IIC( '. <'/11''<'11

i/.lli-,,.: ir7/id1t (71777771 idti-,I,7/' s7 7(it': /77771 777,7 its 7hln/llgt' sig nt177 :7 7777 g 7'7/c'7/7 777717 7177777 77177/7 77777- i777i 7It' 771 777771 id t-o lo g ill c o /f lic t,iig(s f1-,,r, th,- emilmnlment %,ith (lolilill.lill mc(>>.lges f,-,,,, tll,(

It', d d,/ 'i Is " 11i 1 t o/777 li /77/7l7 h' I, lib,ml7/ 7 7 7 7 .

/ _ /t'% ,, ,/,,//,.R,%, {//~l, ,'Votill-J -(mi/l %\\-

- W7%.I771 llng rl()l 17l,7 177'l /7,7, /II (/-) / 7 to ' 7/. -

-( 1hilxc'/ c'I 1'i< llcl-

Stability/Static * -* Change/Learniigio lit7ions 77 ,u7 t il, mi.lim cn/ .1 7t(- (.777/fli t 7 cs /Ilt in quest7j ,,,/jio i g (/ol7 -71 (7'\i7ti7lg 7777i7l7 clI,itiO nls .i1nd 77orm77: 77g17im il)lm ml/ C I7l1/g<:

7777 Ill/ p 7Oltt1 iI 17,7 777 g.7g i 1.ni/i7tio nl7 Il l7'.77'7-

-,,,, I i i,, r,wl,, to s 11/1 .. II" 1 I"l - I V /I /77/ 7i 7l / ,7 7 77/77/7Xl77

7 1/,, 7, 7 i l7 7 ,7 7 ' i71/' 7 7/ ,7 /777 /i77'

\W'ilshinglogzll 1cil( 11to,'

liT,1 III it,1AL .lzS: . lli(il', bJeen

, /,m ll ,, 7777 7.' '/ /7 7 ! 7777 / 7i'777/: i777m .-

-( C1h,l7c/ 1c 171l

Figtu'.' 1. (;on1ti1Inltll- of Nficropoliticatl Processes aboit Conflict withinTeacher Comnmnunities.'`

Conflict

Stances

BorderPoli tics

Ideology

OrganizationalChange andLearning

I


The purpose of having a continuum is to represent variation. The two

cases I studied fall on different places on the continuum, rather than at

opposite ends. It is often tempting to dichotomize, placing the cases at

polar opposites of a continuum, but this would not represent the complex-

ity of the similarities and differences between the two teacher communities.

Further, in no way should communities be seen as static, fitting in one

place on the continuum at all times. Because teacher professional commu-

nities vary and the same community changes over time, members might

find themselves at different points along the continuum at different times

or over different issues.

Conflict Stances: From Avoiding to Embracing Conflict

Conflict stances represent a community's processes to negotiate conflict

among its membership. The continuum depicts a range of responses to

conflict. At one end of the spectrum lies an avoidant stance, identifying a

community's ability to rapidly absorb, exclude, or transfer conflicts and

thus maintain a unified community and stable school environment. The

avoidant stance includes approaches to conflict that sustain a highly bonded

and harmonious community through the exclusion or suppression of dis-

sent. A limited repertoire of mechanisms for public debate exists, while

active informal systems tend to privatize conflict. At the other end of the

spectrum sits an embracing stance, which involves a community acknowl-

edging and critically reflecting on their differences of belief and practice in

efforts to foster fundamental change in the school. Active dissent and

promotion of alternative perspectives are sought. A broad repertoire of

mechanisms for public debate is developed

In general, Washington's stance toward conflict remains closer to the

avoidant side of the continuum and Chavez's closer to embracing. Although

Washington's teacher community raised some conflicts, its culture of strong

consensus, norms of minimizing dissent and transferring conflict outside of

its borders, and its tendency to privatize differences all served to exclude

other conflicts. Their conception of consensus was unanimity where "we

don't see the conflict" or "if you are not going to conform, you are going

to leave" and served to submerge conflict. In contrast, Chavez teachers

acknowledged diversity of beliefs and practice, found space for dissent in a

public arena, and at times critically reflected on and accepted a variety of

conflicts. They founid that when "conflict is brought to the surface," when

it "becomes real," then transformation could occur because "we can't just

have the status quo."The two contrasting responses to conflicts over students demonstrate the

different stances. In Chavez's case teachers talked of how "we are sending

too many African American students to the counseling office" and publicly

(Co,iflict .A4id (Comm iuity 443

debated philosophiies of integrationi and equity. In this way, thev owned andembr-aced the conflict amonig the adult communitv. Alternativelv, Washing-ton teachers attributed the conflict to "clefiant" students and sought ways toexclude themi. Rather thani identify a discrepancy between their own visionstatement and practice in reachinig "all studenits," Wasilington teacherslocate(l the souice of difficulties in "problem studenits," transferrilig theconflict and thtis avoiding teacher-to-teacher disagreement.

Border Poli(irs: F roC? Eonity to I)iversity

The responises to conflict expose and shape borcler politics as communitiesnegotiate membership and acceptable beliefs. Borders delineate inclusivityancl permeabilit-, both within the bouLidaries of the community and inrelationi to those outside, suchi as students or parents. The two cases illus-trate contiastinig kinds of border- politics that resuilt in exclusive andc inclu-sive boulidaries for their- communlities, thus demonstiatinig points along aCon! inlnIum of bor-der negotiation.

Washington's teacher professional community dlefined its border bv iden-tifViing Lulified memilber-shiip in opposition to others. Border negotiationsWere heardi in the community's laniguiage of exclusion: "resistors," "problemstutlenits or parenits." and "nionls," all of wvhom in some way or anothier"don't belonig here." At times they used medical metaphors for students"infecting' others that resulted in quar-anitiniing strategies, building wvallsbetween the "us" and "themil." In an extreme example of ouitsider status,teachers resistanit to the collaborative reforms were not just described asexcluded btit (albeit jokinglv) eliminated-"We took those who clisagreedand( shot themi." This pattern was echoed as teachers sought to "supporttheir own." defendinig their borders. While the teachers maintained soli-claritv. thev mav have dlone so by unwittingly excluding 30% of the childlrenilabeled "problems"). Thus the higih walls that forimledl their- communlityborders kept out a large group of students for whom they were responsible.Ultimately, outsider-s (i.e.. teacher-s resistant to the collaborative reforminitiatives, the dissentinig special education teacher who alignecl herself withmarginialized studeits, andl problem studelIts who were suspelided) left. Yetthis constiuctioni of outsidlers was not simply a searchi for an enemy. AtWashington, I saw an ethic of care between teachers and certain studentsand among teachers. This ethic of care wvas definecl by "a world of relation-ships [that] ... gives rise to a recognitioni of responsibility for one ano)ther"(Gilligan. 1982. p. 30). However, this ethic was ci-cumilscr-ibed by the bound-aries of the perceived carinig community. Those who fell outside of it orthreatened the community were excluded.

WNashington's was a community that oftentimiies sustainied its uniified bor-der by achieving rapid public consensus, privatizing differences, or trans-

444 7eachers College Record

ferring disagreement outside its bounds. The community's conception of

collaboration as unanimity that lacked dissent or alternative voices meant

borders were often impermeable and unshifting. The dominant group's

beliefs were rarely challenged.In contrast, Chavez teachers' responses to conflict defined a more diverse

community with more open boundaries. These teachers often included

students as part of their community, particularly when they took ownership

for not reaching African American students. They used "we" language to

include students within the community-"we are not meeting our students'

needs." Less projection of conflict upon outsiders meant Chavez teachersoften identified with historically marginalized stakeholders in schools, suchas students and parents. Multiple and shifting camps of teachers within the

community allowed for more fluid borders as well. This may at times have

raised some sense of fragmentation and less clear unity within the community.

Chavez teachers' conception of collaboration with an openness to dis-

senters and alternative voices, including students' perspectives and minor-

ity teachers, made their community a more dynamic one, with inclusive

and expanding borders. "There's plenty of space for dissent here," explained

the teachers. Their acceptance that "we have not agreed on philosophy"

and their openness to hearing and experimenting with different solutions,

such as IRISE, also demonstrates how permeable the boundaries are to new

conceptions. It was a teacher community expanding its borders-

acknowledging and, at times, embracing conflicts for the purposes of change

and learning.Although dissent and diversity were the norm at Chavez, there was still a

unity of commitment found in their shared ideology of schooling for social

justice and equity. This shared ideology served as a common framework

that united the community, while debate and dissent remained about the

means for achieving such ends.

Ideology: From Mainstream to Critical

Stepping back from the microprocesses of border politics, I am left with the

question of what explains such different approaches in the two schools.

How come one community tended to avoid while the other embraced

conflicts? Micropolitical processes are not separable from the ideologies

already present and working within and beyond the schoolhouse walls. The

content of such ideologies, and the relationship between the macro-level

and the internal school ideology, shapes how conflict is received and man-

aged. Any given teacher community could hold ideological values that are

in concert with or in opposition to macro-level messages, thereby increas-

ing or decreasing levels of conflict experienced among the teachers. Thus,

the degree of consistency in ideological stances between micro and macro

(COniu,1 -I pniil (A mi Commimily 445

icleologies iifluenices the natur-e of the micropolitical processes associatedwithi colnf-lict

lhe conltitiiii depicts an icleological spectrum f'romil mainistr-eam con-ceptions about schoolinig for socialization that are congruenFt With cliloi-nan t messages fromil the environment to critical conceptionis of schoolinigfor transformation of society that conf'lict wvith local and national messages.Icleologies of' schooling shaped contrasting experienices in the two cases.WN'ashinigtoni teachiers tendecl to uphiold mainistreamil notionis of eciLcation,identifiving school as a site to socialize studlenits into the curr-enit societv andiltimilately serve as a stabilizing influenice for- societv. This icdeologp aligns

with reigiiing messages and mocdels of' schooling, thus (liminisililig conflictwithin the walls of the school. In contrast, thte Chavez teachers tendled tosupport a more critical view of schooling practices. a notion of schoolinigfor social justice. anic a transformative vision of' the role of education insociet\. Stich views challenged dominianit, mainistreamil i(leologies and thuspromilotecd acceptance of continiLal conf'lict. These contrasting insidler idle-ologies are captured in the following teachers' comimienits fromil each school.

It's not about chaniginig society. It's about bringing these sttidents'SCOrtS tIp. It's about mIeetinig the goals of' the clistrict in raisinig testscores. We hope thalt by makinig the curricilum ... coherenit fromkinider-gar-teni thiotighi 8th grade, the stticlents will improve. (Karen, aneightlh-grade Washington teacher)

Education is an instittitioni of chanige. Changing what, Changing thtesociety. changinig attitudes, chaniginig issties of' power, makinig socialchanige. hopefully beneficial social change. [G;ei'rally,] people clon'tsee it like that. my per-ception is that they see it mol-e as a job andlthey-'r-e goodl people and they're helpinig to ediuicate voting people andthese sort of' platitticues buit when it comes to helpinig themi, eciatiniigthemii to (to what? It's to mainitaini the statuis quo. I see what ec(ln-cation shotil(l be as liberatorv. it's to challenge the existing socialsystem andl chanige it. Becatise it's evil ancl it's coritipt. (Sar, aneighth-gr-ade Chavez teacher)

Chavez comiminiliities ideolopg placed conflict at the core. Thei- concep-tion of their roles as critically transformative educators within a diversecommunity supports their approach to embracing conflict, ipholding dlis-sent, and explorinig multiple perspectives. If their valties challenige(d school-ing As it existed, theni contintial struggle anid the expostire of inequity and(difference needed to be at the center of' thieir work. ThIs conflict becameinherent within their comimunitv, andi conflict was embracedl as positivecoMMunity behavior (e.g.. a capacitv for "getting real," a challenige to the"stat tis quio )


Furthermore, Chavez is linked to an ideology for which there are no

prevailing models in the macro-mainstream environment from which to

draw. Chavez is trying to invent a different way of doing school-a socially

just and transformative way. There are no robust conceptualizations or

determinate ways to doing school this differently. Teacher conflict is fur-

ther exacerbated as they struggle with competing conceptions of how to

construct such a school. As teachers collaborate to invent something new,

they run into more conflict. For example, they chose IRISE as an experi-

ment, finding that they would have to debate about whether this was the

"right" way to go because there is not a given answer to creating an equi-

table school. Having to invent through collective work, within the contextof counterpressure from the macro environment to reproduce current

models of schooling, increased conflicts.In contrast, the congruence between Washington teachers' values and

the larger society's expectations for schooling elicited less conflict. The

teachers organized around less critical notions that saw education as pro-

viding opportunity for social mobility within the current system. They saw

the function of schooling as a socializing mechanism for students and a

stabilizing influence for society. Conflict played a lesser role in the com-

munity, and they tended to minimize dissent or divergent perspectives.

This ideology aligns with reigning macro messages and models of school-

ing, thus diminishing conflict within the walls of the school.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

Of all the aspects of a teacher community, why focus in on conflict, border

politics, and ideology? The kinds of organizational learning purported to

result from building community among teachers are cleeply linked to how

they manage the differences amid their collaboration. The processes of

conflict are critical to understanding what distinguishes a professional com-

munity that maintains stability and the status quo from a community engaged

in ongoing inquiry and change. In the cases, the micropolitical processes

played an essential role in organizational learning that impacted structures,

reform efforts, norms, and the whole school community. In one case these

processes fostered a kind of learning for inquiry and ongoing renewal

through challenging deeply taken-for-granted norms, whereas the other

case showed how the community used these processes to maintain harmony

and the status quo.Washington teachers scored high on teacher learning community factors

in the survey (with a mean score of 4.08 out of 5-point scale).9 Current

research on communities applauds unified or "bonded" communities (Siskin,

1994), such as Washington's. Such communities counter the kinds of isola-

tion and individualism endemiiic in schools. Bv diminishlinig conf lict, reasser-t-ing consenistis within their comminitv, clearly delineatinig borders, andaligninig ideologically with the macro environIIIment, teachers reaffir-im their-bonds and sustaini harmony.

Oine of the dilemmas of sucih harmoniiotis comiminiiiities is that whilepromilotinig positive otitcomes, they may become static settings with fewmechianiisimis for reflection, change, or tranisforimiation. In underplaying dis-sent in favor of conseisus, sucih comniuLiities limit inquiry and chanige andeasily fall prey to myopia, losing an outsicle perspective. By transfel-riligconflicts onlto outsiders, commrurnity memiibers never challenge their assump-

tions anIc practices. Lima's 1998 studx founid that suich bondecl comimiuini-ties based on friendship limit teacier-s' opporttiunities for professionaldevelopment as frienidis redtice access to alternative perspectixes and clo notaddress impr-oper- professional condtuct. Moreover, organizatiolnal theorists

report that conflict stippression, concuri-renice seeking, and homogetneotus

groLlpilngs redtice innovation and the quality of organizational decisions(De Dreu. 1997: Rtibin, Pruitt, & Kiim, 1994). Extremile consenstis seekinig ispredicted to lead to collective rationializationis, stereotypes of otitsiders,limited explorationi of alternatives, and impaired clecision makinig (Ttirner& Pratkaniis, 1997, p. 54).

In Washinigton's conflicts over stticlents, teachel-s strengthened their- dis-cipline practice, leaving tinexplored teachers' expectations for sttucdents,

dlifferenices of teachers' beliefs, and a potential to chanige teacher practices.This allowed teachers to relinqtuishi responsibility for up to 30% of theirstuctenit population. Further, by constructing impermeable borders, chal-lenginig ideas, alternative perspectives, and new thinkinig were diminiliished.The congr-tience between micr-o and macro i(deological stances toward schoolfurthier limited any questioiniig of the status qtio.

l tis the verv commniLlities currently higihlighite(d as suiccessfutl by theliterattire max not be as generative or capable of organizational learningfor ftiuidamenital chanige as other more conflict-r-idcleni ones. Critically ref lect-ing on conflicts within a school enables the potential for the kind oforganizational learinig anid chanige advocated by reformers. An embracinigstance towvards conflict involves a comn'1l11liity in aan inqtiir process thatexplores divergent belief's and plractices of the commiiunitv: acknowledgesand owns responisibilities for conflicts that may result; opensl the border-s todiverse member-s and perspectives; andI, at times, questioins the organiiza-tion's premises to chianige themi.

Conflict played stich a role in changinig strictuires, refol-rl elforts, andnor-ms at Chaxez. Reviewing, critiquiig, and challenging themselves, particu-larlv arotind equity issues, meait there was a climate that suipportecd orga-nizationial chanige. Open borders, collective responsibility, and critical ideology

enabled teachers to learin fromil conflicts andl miake changes in the school.

Cwillict Aund Commumij 447


Conflict and diversity were situated as central to the working of the commu-

nity, to its future growth and transformation. In response to conflict about

reaching African American students, a concerted effort was made and achieved

to hire more teachers of color, to pilot the IRISE project, to continue to

work on professional development for racial awareness, and to develop a

school-wide reform effort to address their students' needs.At times, Chavez's teacher community demonstrated a potential for double-

loop learning when critical reflection about conflicts exposed challenges to

the core norms of the community (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Questioning the

nature of desegregation and consent-decree mandates challenged theoriesin use at the very foundation of the reconstituted school. Teachers deeplyquestioned the very premise of an integrated school by experimenting with

IRISE and segregation patterns within the school, while at the same time

continually revisiting questions about the purposes of integration. Althoughactively engaged in conflicts, Chavez still maintained a high degree of

consensus about their ideology of schooling. Without that framework of

shared purposes, they may have been too conflictual to change. Within this

context though, Chavez teachers were endeavoring to challenge, negotiate,

and renegotiate their beliefs and practices. This enabled greater risk taking

and flexibility. In this way, Chavez was potentially a more responsive orga-

nization, and for some organizational theorists (Argyris & Schon, 1978;

March, 1995) this flexibility makes organizations such as Chavez more

viable over time.These cases thus reveal an important lesson that communities that can

productively engage in conflict, rather than those with low levels of conflict

or those that suppress their differences, have a greater potential for con-

tinual growth and renewal. Reflection and conflict offer a community the

opportunity for change. The ability to engage in critical reflection and

openly explore dissent is vital to fostering a renewing and learning com-

munity. Dissent, the voicing of alternatives and the challenging of the

majority, offers a great stimulant for inquiry and organizational learning.

Nemeth's (1989) study on minority dissent found that the quality of group

decision making and performance was raised through dissenting views.

New types of learning are possible because dissent fosters divergent thought

processes, opens up possibilities, and questions the previously unquestionable.

The open dialogue of opposing views that makes cooperative settings pro-

ductive has been characterized as constructive controversy (Tjosvold, 1985).

Constructive controversy allows individuals to begin to doubt the adequacy

of their own perspective and seek to understand one another more. Ulti-

mately, this can lead to greater creativity, a higher quality decision, and one

the group is willing and able to collectively implement (Tjosvold, 1982;

Tjosvold & Deemer, 1980).

(CnIfiict :Ipm i(d (C,mmull 1 ity 449

A CAUTION

A.lthotighi the evidence demonstrates a greater potential for inquiry andongoinig organiizationial learn-inig at Chavez, this is not a simple story w0herew%e can coiiclude that onle communitv's ctilttiue is better thanl the other's.

The costs are siggnificanit in 1oth cases. lust as previous researchei-s pathol-ogizedl conflict, I clo not want to fall prey to pathiologizing consensus.There are lessons to learin fromi \Washincgton, and there was a toll to pay forChavez's approach. In most school settings, foster-ilig a sense of' caring he-tween teaclhe-s is a chaillenige becauise of' their- isolation in their- own class-IroomIls anid their- Inor-mIs of autonomv and( individualism (Noddings, 1992).Washington's stanlce towards conlflict, onie sensitive to relationishiips and

bonds of community, serves an impor-tanit ftnctioni f'or teachers. The schooloffered a powerftil vision of str-onig ties. harmony, andCc close collaboratioin.

Somiie organizational theor-ists may glorify emrb-aciing conflict, paradoxes

and chaos, fluidt borders, and clritical stances, ignorinig its impact on prac-titioner-s (Boliani &' Deal. 1984; Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1976). Sucil ambi-guitv man be less appealing to the very teachelrs who experienice it. Instead,Chavez teachel-s idlenitifiedl as painftil and frtistr-atinig what some theoristsadvocate as momiienits of' creativity and clhanige (Hargreaves, 1997, p. 3).Manyv teacher-s were frustrated with repeated conf'licts, with not getting tosolve the problemils. Str-ess, burnout, ancd teacher tturnover max have beenhigh plices to pay for sticil an openiness to conf'lict. Ftu-tiler-, a lack ofattention to the ties of' the community, to that which is shared, mavx createfi-agimienitatioin as jndlixividual anld Subgio-oUps foir-mi islanicts oiito themselves-

titis contribttinig to. i-athier thani cotinteriig, the isolation that collabora-tive refor-mils wvere initiated to adci-ess.

The challenige theni is how to conceptualize a community that maintailisthe ties andc coninecteciiness of'a carinig and stable communitv- while sustain-ing the constructive contr-oversy of'a leariniig community. Gardner's (1991)-wholeness incorporating diversity" is central to this new understanding of

comlmunitv. "The play of' conf'lictinig inter-ests in a firamework of sharedpurposes" is the image neecled for our schools (p. 15). Examininig, ratherthain overlooking, the role of confilict amid commiunity is critical to thisendeavor-. Conflict gener-ates opporttinities to strengthen commlltmniities, for

in the conf'lict lies an occasion to examiniiie clif'ferenices of' belief's, solicitalternative voices, bridige acioss (liffeieices to find(i comlilmionl gr-ouinid, anid

seek opporttiniities for change andl growth.

CONCLUSION

This sttudv stiggests that coLitter- to the consensus-based literattiu-e on teachercommunitvi. teachel-s engagedl in collaboration gener-ate anicl at times thrive


on conflict. The conflicts and the teachers' responses to them played acrucial role in defining the boundaries of the communities, and commu-nity and conflict formed an unexpected marriage. Moreover, how the com-munities navigated their differences resulted in contrasting potentials fororganizational learning and change. A micropolitical analysis of conflictprocesses proved critical in understanding the nature of the teacher col-laborative reforms in these cases.

In drawing conclusions, it is important to note some limitations of thiswork. Case study research can generalize to a theory, not populations (Yin,1989). Further, the study is limited because of the primary focus on teachercommunity, with lesser focus on the experiences of student.

It is time to reframe notions of conflict amid community. To engage inconflict and question one's beliefs with the possibility of deep change isfundamentally a positive and hopeful act rather than a problematic onewithin community. If conflict processes are a natural, inevitable, and attimes fruitful part of teacher professional communities, then conflict talk,deliberation about ideology, border negotiations, dissent, and disagree-ments over practices can no longer only be relegated to the domain ofunprofessional or dysfunctional.

The three concepts of conflict, border politics, and ideology drawn frommicropolitical and organizational theory offer a way to explore phenomenainherent in teacher collaboration. Research should no longer ignore orpathologize these micropolitical processes but explore them. Policy makersshould reconsider naive initiatives that put teachers in groups and expectthem to learn and grow, disregarding the complexity of the collaborativeprocess and the time needed to navigate differences. Practitioners whounderstand the micropolitics of collaboration also may be less alarmedwhen conflicts do arise, learn to navigate them in more overt ways, andmore explicitly discuss the kinds of communities they want to maintain.

The reason it is important to focus on the micropolitical processes inteacher communities is that different stances provide different opportuni-ties for organizational learning. One of the dangers of collaborative reforminitiatives is reinforcing a type of groupthink, uncritically accepting groupbeliefs and perpetuating false assumptions that stagnate organizations. "Group-think," coined byJanis (1972), refers to going along with group decisionswithout questioning or allowing dissent (Fullan, 1993, p. 82). Open debateand conflict prove vital to the growth of some professional communities.The micro and macro ideologies can interact to foster or inhibit learning aswell. Communities with a greater congruence with reigning macro concep-tions of schooling could serve to perpetuate the status quo, often leavingassumptions unquestioned and the organization unchanged. Finally, how acommunity negotiates its border politics also raises questions about issuesof learning within collaborative reform efforts. Do some collaborative reforms

(Conflict .Amid (Communith 451

foster "gated commun nities" that bar-icade out those ideas and people deemed.outsiders," or clo they generate a sense of openniess to newcomers andoutside perspectives? These micropolitical processes help disclose the real-itt of teacher professionial communiiities, clemonstr-atinig a doutble mean illgof "the ties that bind"-how group bonds can both unite and restrain.

Porutions of this article Weve adapted b y permission of the publisher- froyn Achinstein, B.,

Comimunitv. Diversitv. andl Conflict Amonig Schoolteachers: The Ties that Blind.(Ve- vork: 7Teachers College TPhess, copyi-ighit 2002 by 7Teachers College, Columbia 1 niversity.All rights reserved.) To or-det; please visit Zt'7ZI7Z .teacheIscollegepr-ess.com. I wLou1ld like to thaniikthe teacherS Who shar-ed their lives and stories with me. Somne of this research was cond/ctLedIIuInderL the auspices of the Center for Research on the Con1text of 7Teaching, Stanford U'niversity

School of EductioLa. I thau1k Milrey McLaughlin, an1d colleagues at the CRC for theLir

support. I am deeply indebted to my mento1; Larry Cubani. I thaLnk Lanror Stokes and C.yn1thia

Coburn for their on1goin1g writing guidance aLnd Chad an11d Adin Raphael for tiheir personal5 uppor-t.

A otes

I Participaits %ere selected via snwhball sanmpling.- whereby key iniformanLs were referred

thiougil other iniforimianits hascer oni their perspe(tioe or participation in coiuf licts. I also tried

to s(clect teachers w% ho mighit bring differenit perspectiVees, inclidinig miale and feimale, new and

experienced. as w%ell as teicliers of differenit races. ethniicities, anin fromil differenit sLIblect ainid

grade levels. At each school I chose a stibgrouIp of 7 target teaclers who comprised an eighith-

gracte-level team iwith which to condtict a imiore intenisive series of interviews aund observatiois.2 1 adapted a survey fromni McLaughlin anid Talbert (1996).

I also used a hypothetical scenario of two schools, which handledle( a specific conf'lict

differentl, ats an elicitinig device. I then asked if there w%ere conif'licts of this kinid or others at

thei- school. I also askedl aboLIt the otttcoimes of' sttcI conflicts A sample of a few% of the

inter%iew% qttestiouis i nclttdes the following:

1. How would sotj lescribe how% teachers work togthtier at vour school?

2a. M\itat issttes of diffei-erece or coinflicts have arisen bet%wen teachers?

2b. Can y.ou thinik of 2-3 e%ents. w%hichl represenlt howv iott- staff rleails s-ith dlifferences

or conf'licts amonig teachers? (Ca n ott tell me abhoit themi?

5. What w%as the oItco1ime of thiose conflicts? Ho(- did tlhey iminpact the teaclhercOtinitin t itv

6. How% does the stafl deal with those w%ho disiagree with decisions that a majorits

of the staff endorses? Can sott think of a time that happened? Can you tell me

abotut itt

Th err we r-e some imloitan t et hical conside rat ionis iiNoilNd in nloi og a sttt v oit ((in flict

in s(chools. I main taimed str-ict confiiden tialitv to as\oid exa(e rlbati ng coiflicts or clisrtlptil g the

teacher commnit\v. This %uork reqttired good jUdgimient and a syrmpathetic ear to respect

inlidUaIls and the lIrIge coin mi IDitv m1iNith whom I iltem-ilctert. M\ goal was to uinderstand

more about the processes of conflict, not to cause it. I came to this topic as a former teacher

and refor-m coordiniator atnd tiide rstood well the experiiciie of coitflict within cornitunitv.

452 7eachers College Record

5 Both school names are pseu(lonynis and all respondents were given pseudonyms tomaintain confidentiality. All direct qtuotations were taken verbatim from participants.

6 This represents a l.ikert scale valtue from the teacher stirvey. The scale ranged from Ito 5, where 1 represents strongl4 disagree and 5 represents strongly agree. The n - 28, or 97% ofteachers.

7 This represents a likert scale value from the teacher survey. The scale ranged from Ito 5, where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represenlts strongly agree. The n = 33, or 79% ofteachers.

8 Figure I is adapted from Achinstein, 2002, pp. 102, 115.9 The scale ranged from I to 5, where I represented strongly disagree and 5 represented

strongly agree. Eight items from the survey were used to create the variable teacher learningcommunity. Exploratory factor analysis was used to demonstrate that items measured the sametunderlying concepts. All had a factor loading of at least 0.62. The survey items addressedcooperative effort, conitinual learning, collaboration, collective critical reflection, idenitifica-tion of whole school community, regtilar meetings to discuss common challenges, sharedbeliefs and vision for school, belief that all students can sticceed.

References

Achinstein, B. (2002). Community, diversity, and conflict among schoolteachers: T'he ties that blind.New York: Teachers College Press.

Anderson, G. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers: Ideological control in anelementary school. Inj. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation(pp. 120-139). L.ondon: Sage.

Argvris, C., & Sch6n, D. A. (1978). Orgganizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ball, S. 1. (1987). The micro-politics oJ'the school: Towards a theory of school organization. New York:Routledge Press.

Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: 7eachers, parents, and principals can make thedifference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blase, J. (1987). Political interactions among teachers: Socioculttiral context in the schools.Urban Education, 22,(3), 286-310.

Blase,J. (1991). The politics of lite in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. L,ondon: Sage Ptiblications.Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1984). VlWodern approaches to understanding and organizing organizations.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administration Science Quar-

terly, 6, 257-281.Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: 7eachers for the 21st

century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.Clhomsky, N. (1989). N\ecessary illutsions: Thought control in democratic societies. Boston: South End

Press.Cohen, M. D., March,J. G., & Olsen,J. P. (1976). People, problems, solutions and the ambi-

guity of relevanice. In J. G. March & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), Ambiguity and choice in organizations(pp. 24-37). Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

Coser, L. (1956). TheJunctions of.social conflict. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Cubani, L. (1984). How teachers t(aught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1980.

New York: Longman.De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and

coniflict issue. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations(pp. 9-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conflict A.mi/d C(omunit 453

Dees. ol ioh. 191161. De,nocracv and education. New York: Fi-ec Pr-ess.

Friere. P. 1 983). I'eldagog of the np,/ s srd (INlv-ri Beigman Rni iios Tr-ans.). New York: Cnontinti in.FU II ani. N l. I 1993). (Ch ngefl /mn.s: Piobing the depth s/ educational ne/o'm. I ondoni: The Fal mer Press.

Ga-drclnI. 1- W. (I1991 1. Building, communiti. Sitan Fiincis(o: Ind 1 iilep cride it Sector.(.ilitgin. ( 1982). In ai diteyrent vnice. (Cambhridge. 'A: Hiu-Nar-ad U ni%ersits Press.

0( .i ro . H . 1988 I. 7Irheis ah i ia t tellect uits: low 'ald ai rritireal ledagog) of learning. New lo rk: Be rgi nGa ( e. .

P. in P. 1986t . Politics, p acer and the mianagcment ent shools. 1n E. Hoile i(Ed.) 7The Zworld

e111book so educationI 1986: I-ie ma nagemen t of school (pp. 45-54). L.ondon: Kogani Page.

Ilali. P. NI.. & Spencer-Hall. D. A. ( 1!982). Tl e social conl ditions otf negotiatedl or(ler. U rbain Life,

11 3). 328-3419.

Harl rras.es. A. 1 19941. (:haig-ing teachers, (changing ti,nes. New \York: Teachlers College Press.Halrgreawse. A. I 1997). ( nirlurcs t teawiching and educationn al chiainge. In B. Biddle, T. Good, &

1. i(isodsoni I Eds. . Intern ationail handbook of teac-lhers ci nd teaching. Bostonn: Klnver.Hartle\. 1). ( 1985). Uidrtandling thie primar school. I.oni(loln: (r)oomi Heilm.Huhbei G. ( 199G. ()rganuiaiontal lear-ninig: The (oiiniributinig priicesses anid the literatIres.

Igra it i:ation Scien ec. 1. 88.- 115.

Ian na.lccotie. 1-11975). Idiircltionicl polinc smstlem s .4 it tuls gi ide forccl- dccitioncil cialinin istrcition. FortLanlderdale. FL: Nisa Unnt se rism.

Imis. I. 11972! . V ictimsi cf gqcpshtitittk. Bostoii, MA: Hotigliton Mlifflin.johnson. S. \1. (199()). cihechs cit work: .Ic/tievig sic(eis il citic sc-hooIs. New Nork: Basic Books.

Ic\ it. B.. & NIarcI.j. 1 1988). Organ izaitio nal learning. Auntniul RIein'i of .Soeiolog-. 14. 319-340.I hebrnian. A. dEel. 1(1995). lIh'e iuok of rchtctic ig ichools: Buildinig from the gc-otinmd tip. NeW

York: Teache rs College Press.Lieberman A.. & MIcL.aghlin. NI. W. (11992. Mla\s. Networks fon- change: Poswerful and prob-

lemnatic. I'Phi 1)Delta Kla c(isi, fi3-677.

Iichberma. A.. & Miller. 1.. ( 1984). 7iachec s. theii wocid. ctici their woisk. Alexanel(ria. VA: A.ssoci-ation for- Super\isiont and (CAl-YiicIlUIm D CselilmtneIIt.

Ijbere rnanA., N Miller. L.. I t190i . Teciclht- dewelipimen in proufessionial pr-actice schooils.

Iierach-s CiilleI.g,e Record. 92. 1015-122.

Liita. I. A. (1998. Apr-il). Imtpcnving thie stiidt of teacheri collegialitt: .MIethodological issues. Paper

presented at Aniual Mleeting ot' the American E(diicatiounal Research .AVssociation, San Diego.Li al. J. A. (201101. june I. Foit rgettiig ahoit fci-ifie(lsliip: losinig coiiflict itn tea(cher commminities as

ai catalst sor schiool change. oonatal of Fducational Change. 2(2). 97-122.Litt]e._J. W. (199) Ia). The persistetce of pJrsaQ: Auttonorm anrd itnitiatti\e itn teachers profes-

siotal -elItionis. cicarhecs College Re-ord. 9/14). 509-536.

titt-e. 1. W. (199) bh. Tea licrs as col leagues. It A. I.icherman IEd.). .Sc/tools as collaborative,ul1ttuues: C(aitinig the Iiittile) now (pp. 165-I 93). Netc York: The Falmer Press.

I.ittle. 1. WV.. & NIcL.anghlini. NI. 1'. (Eds. ). ( 1993). 7Iac-1hers' iWosk: Indiv idtualc.s. colleaguies, anidon texts. New- York: Teiclhets (Coillege Press.

Ioriie. D. (C. (1975 . Srhooltiewhri: .1 sociculusgiccal st id(e. ( oiciago: Uinis\ersit\ of it'(icago Press.

I oticleni. W. 1 I992). ntclderstancdinig reftlectioi tl ii-oiglt collahorafise research. In A. Hargreases

Ž- NI. Foll it IEels. ). IUstdu' stoitndcing teaiche dletelopment (pp. i78-215). Netc York: Teachers

iollege Press.

L ouis. K. S.. & K-rtise, . 1). I 19H 5). Pirfrssic,nalis in antud coti inipiit ifi: P'espectiies ont reforming urban-choots. Thtotucisant (O)aks. (A: (Co srin toi-'ss.

Mlai,ghlarn. 1. u 19791. Ihe / oslihcs o/ nici gnizationacil han tge. Wctstport. (CT: (,reeios-ood.Nlai elm. J1. G. (19195 I. earnitig priocesses ar-e pose rftil tools oft orgaizi ,ational adaptation. Tvon

uittili A.ikakaiiskirci tHelsimtki . 28-37.

lalcl.j. G.. & Olseno. j. P. 11975). The unicerltairmi of the past: Orgaitizatioioal learninig underarthigtuit%. It nt/tefa lo Jisn1ria) of Political Reuscirch. 3. 147-1 71.


Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: 7hree perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert,J. E. (1993). Contexts that matterfor teaching and learning: Strategic

opportunities for meeting the nation's educational goals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Cen-

ter for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1996). Teacher survey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University,

Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.

Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. New York: Teachers

College Press.Meyer,J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and

ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.

Meyer,J. W., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In J. W. Meyer

& W. R. Scott (Eds.), Environments and organizations: Ritual and rationality (pp. 71-97). San

Francisco: jossey-Bass.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, J., & Rizzo, L. (1995). Breaking down the classroom walls: A case studT of teaming. Unpub-

lished manuscript.

Nemeth, C. J. (1989, April). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. Invited address

to the First Annual Conference on Group Processes and Productivity. Texas A & M Uni-

versity, College Station, Texas.

Newmann, F. (1994, Spring). School-wide professional community. Isstes in Restructuring Schools

(Report No. 6), 1-6.

Newmann, F., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual

quality. San Francisco: jossey-Bass.

Newmann, F. M., & Oliver, D. W. (1967). Education and community. Harvard Educational

Review, 37,(1), 61-106.Nias, J. (1985). Reference groups in primary teaching: Talking, listening and identity. In S. J.

Ball & I. Goodsots (Eds.), Teachers' lives and careers (pp. 105-119). London: Falmer Press.

Nias,J. (1987). Learning from difference: A collegial approach to change. In W.J. Smyth (Ed.)

Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge (pp. 137-152). London: Falmer.

Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1987). Primary school staff relationships [research in

progress]. Cambridge: Camnbridge Institute of Education.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Chicago: Free Press.

Pollard, A. (1985). The social world of the primary school. London: Cassell.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: T'he collapse and revival of American community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Rait, E. (1995). Against the current: Organizational learning in schools. In S. B. Bacharach &

B. Mundell (Eds.), Images of schools: Structures and roles in organizational behavior (pp. 71-107).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Teachers workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.

Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Numbers and words revisited: Being "shamelessly

eclectic." Fvaluation Review, 9 (5), 627-643.

Rubin,J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalationi, stalemate, and settlement.

New York: McGraw-Hill.Sch6n, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic

Books.Scribner,J. P., Cockrell, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., & Valentine,J. W. (1999). Creating professional

communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improve-

ment process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 130-160.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Si m cil, (1 H9551. Conflict anrd the, web of g7oup-a/diiatisOn (K. W\oIli & R. Bendix Trains.). NewYoyk: The Fr-ee Pr-uss.

SiskinL. L 1994). Rea/ms of knowle'dge: A(ademir deitmen ts in seconday ! schooln. London: The

1allilml- Pr-ess.

Siter. T. 1984). Horace' compiom i se: Ihe dilemnma of the A merian higih school. Bostoll: I-HloLghto

\Mifflin.

Sparks A. C. H1990). Pow-er. dhomin ation anId resistaricc in tht priocess of teacher-inlitiated

0ri omationt. Reseachi Ia/pes in Edtucation. 5 (2). 153-178.

Sta cv. R. I 1992). lanaging the unknowable. San Fraincisco: j osse-Bass.Tabachnich. B. R.. & Zeichier. K. M. (1991).I lssies ind preictires in inquiiy-oriented teicher

.-ducation. I.ondon: Falmer- Press.

Talhert 1. I 19931. ( onstru icting a school ide pri ofessimnal commit iniwv: The negotiated order ofa performini-ig a-ts school. In J. Wi. Little &- MI. W. MlcL.ausghlin (Eds.), iecerhms Work: Indi-'id(ulstio. colleaaus aiid coit-exts (p)p. fi64-184). New -ork: Teachtrs (ollege Press.

Talhert. J.. & MIcL.aUghlill. N. WV. (1994). Teatchel professionalism in local school cointexts.A1 mri-can j usrut7al o/ EIducation. 102. 12>-153.

la% (or. F. W. [ 1947). S(ientific management. New York: Harper.

Tjos\old. D. 1982). Effects of the appro ach to colltrosers\ onl supeiiors iicor-por-atioin ofsuibordi nates in foriiationi it (lecisioti malkinig. Jotzrnal of Applied Peichology, 67, 189-193.

Tjos\old. D. i 1985). Implicationis of conitr-oe rs\ esearcc Ior matsnagemen t j-otrnla of,lllenage-'nent. 11. 21-37.

Tjos\old. D).. & D)eernei. D. K. (1980). Effects of contrioversv ithitn a cooperative or compet-

iti\ e context oni organizational decision-milakinig. loc-nol of Applie(l PMcholo/gn 65. 59(0-595.

Tnir-vet. NI. E.. & Pratkatsis. A. R. (1997). Mlitigating grotipthink by stimnilating constructive(tinflict. In ( . K. WV. De Dreiu & E. Van De Vliert (Eds.) U sing (onfli(t in aonig:ation.s

(pp. 53-71,. Thoosatid Oaks. CA: Sage.

Nan Mlaaneri. J.. &- Barley. S. R. i 1984). Occupationial comimititnities: CUlture andI conltrol inorgan izat ions. Research in Organi (itionail Beheasvior, 6. 287-365.

Warrssle. . G 1... & Zald. NI. N. ( 1973). 77ie political ecoinomy of pub/ic o,aganiztions: .4 critique a,,dapproich to the studs of psib/ic oigani izeations. .ex in gton. NIA: I.exingtoni Books.

Nestheirsler. J. (1996i). Visions of cornimicnit itisad edlitations in a diverse societv: Essa reviewoIf Thoimas Sergitanni's Bai//diiig C.ommunity in Sc/hools. Harvard Edducotioncal Revinteo 66 (4),853-857.

Westhetiler.J. H 1998 (Anong sc/hoolteac/e,:s: Coo u n ith. in div 'iduaa/ih aN i( ideo/ogs in tea(heros - ork.New Ytsrk: Teachel (Coliege Press.

Westheirimer. J (199). ( :orlinfnit s it d icatr cOltsequit'1lCes: An i rnq s it ito ideologp atid pritctiCe

tl teacler-s prolessioital stork. F:dalcctiona/ A linistratioi Qll(lttrtle. 35.) U, 1-1I(5.Yeotsmans. R. H 1985). At primtsar teachels pri mankIs peopl)er Education. 1/3 (2). i-1l lYi t R. K. 11989,. (Cat,e td\ riseara ch: Design ncIed me/thod. Neshi cv Park. CA: Sage.

BETTn ACHINSTEIN is programii director of research and teacher devel-opmeint at the University of' California. Santa Cruz's New Teacher Center.She studies professioilal commii uniities and teacher development and teaches

on issues of educationi and diversitv. She is authlor of Commun ity, I)iversitly,aIn(I Cowflict Among .Shool/eachers: The Ties thitt Blind (Teachers College Press,

2002).

Coiiflict Amid Commilplity 455

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Conflict amid community: the micropolitics of teachercollaboration

SOURCE: Teachers College Record 104 no3 Ap 2002WN: 0209100447002

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited..

Copyright 1982-2002 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Documents

Conflict Amid Community