1  

I  have  spread  my  dreams  under  your  feet  … Tread  softly,  because  you  tread  on  my  dreams.

-­‐W.B.  Yeats   As  educators,  we  spread  dreams  of  the  image  evoked  by  Ron  Berger:  ““The students were walking on the sidewalk with their arms around each other, the girls holding hands and skipping. Black, Hispanic, Asian and white kids, Deaf and hearing, city and country” (2003, p. 61). When I came upon this line, the author struck a chord. Within these words, he paints a picture of all children sharing not only their own dreams of opportunity, possibility, and confidence, but also of togetherness. And yet, in the 2006 AERA Presidential Address, Ladson-Billings draws our attention to the hard truth that almost “three-fourths of Black and Latina/o students attend schools that are predominantly non-White” (p. 9). The image evoked by Berger symbolizes the promise inherent in Brown vs. Board, but it requires that we take a real look at the costs of continued segregation in our schools.

Integrating students is a key tenet at High Tech High schools where the belief is “that heterogeneous groupings benefit students at both ends of the academic spectrum” (Riordan, 2010, p.3). The social and academic benefits of diversity are affirmed by HTH students who “repeatedly testify to the value of working alongside peers from widely different backgrounds.” Growing up in DC, I saw privilege and poverty. I decided that I would work to ensure that what was possible for some children became possible for all. But how would we begin to forge a better educational future in the face of an education debt explained by Ladson-Billings as resulting from centuries of historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral disparities across subgroups (2006)? In her address, she urges us to find the place where we “could go to begin from the ground up to build the kind of education system that would aggressively address the debt” (p. 10). She elaborates that this would need to be a place where, both, “the schools weren’t very good to begin with” and regulations “would not keep us from proposing aggressive and cutting-edge research.” In essence, Ladson-Billings is asking us to clear the drawing board and try again when it comes to designing the type of education system that will serve all of our students, regardless of background.

Mehta and Fine (2012) point to High Tech High as having “a different vision of schooling from what prevails today” (p. 33). This vision rests in an approach that prepares students to “engage in complex challenges that professional work at its best entails.” In a project-based learning environment, students “develop projects, solve problems, build things, and present findings to community panels” (Riordan, 2010, pp. 2-3). And so, in answer to Ladson-Billings’ urging, HTH is a place with both an urban school setting and a determination to rethink school as we know it.

Only through actually participating in a project slice did I come to understand just how engaging, motivating, collaborative, and authentic this learning environment could be. I found myself captivated by each component of the project as it was skillfully unveiled by our facilitators. There was an air of mystery surrounding our assignment, and we were hyper-attentive to each nugget and task offered by the facilitators. In an interview with 2nd grade teacher Lauren Obregon, she likened this experience to being a wide-eyed lemur. And although the expected products continued to accumulate, we eagerly took on each new challenge. Remarkably, it never felt like work, but more like heartsong. We were tasked with hand-crafting toys with accompanying story cards to be

  2  

used in play therapy with preschoolers who were affected by domestic violence. And with such a meaningful purpose, we worked with gusto and we committed to beautiful products. The quality of those products continuously improved through peer critique. Our backgrounds, races, strengths and difficulties were all sidelined in the face of such important work and supportive community.

In the words of Jeff Robin, “when we simply create situations in which student activity integrates the hands with the head and heart, the outcomes for student learning become amazingly complex in ways that are beyond what a teacher could possibly plan for.” This is school reimagined, a place where all students have “the capacity to do interesting and valuable work now” (Mehta & Fine, p. 33) through encouragement “to pursue their interests and passions” (Riordan, p. 2). Through this emphasis on integration and authentic learning, HTH reports that 100% of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch have been accepted to college. This success seems to say that we are on the road to understanding educational models that bring students together across a range of demographics, all with dreams spread under their feet as their teachers tread lightly (yet fiercely) nearby.

Now that I have developed a better understanding of equitable learning environments, I turn to the question of how this becomes a reality. I am learning that creating a culture rich with opportunity for all students relies on first creating a thriving community of adults. Time and again, both Odyssey and GSE facilitators have communicated a commitment to ensuring that all participants feel safe in order to allow for risk-taking and vulnerability. This aligns with Weissglass’s (1990) assertion that the ability of a group to make sustained change relies on a culture of empowerment where educators are willing to identify problems, examine their beliefs, develop new understandings, and follow through (p. 365). I have worked in schools that believed in the power of a professional learning community, even sharing book studies on the topic. As an instructional coach, I understood that my effectiveness rested squarely on the solidness of the relationships I developed. And yet I am amazed by how quickly connected and open relationships have developed throughout the Odyssey and GSE sessions. It seems that HTH knows real, lasting change depends on the learning community’s willingness to “[engage in] on-going cycles of inquiry, action, and reflection …[focused on] critiquing, challenging, and ultimately altering elements of schooling that perpetuate inequities” (Callier, 2008, p. 1). An initial investment in the safety of adults is essential in order for these goals to be met.

I have observed a number of ways that facilitators here work to grow healthy and collegial adult communities. First, there is a culture of what my church community in DC refers to as ‘radical welcome.’ Many current HTH faculty members made a concerted effort to introduce themselves and others. This established a code of conduct, and new colleagues joined in the rhythm of introduction. I comfortably chatted, lunched, and collaborated with dozens of new people over the course of the week. Quickly entering into the fold of the HTH network was also made possible by the many partnerships and groups with whom I learned. The vast majority of learning experiences occurred with partners allowing for widespread relationship-building, with even transition activities calling for shared conversations. The benefit of the ongoing partnerships was that they allowed for real safety and vulnerability with a known ally, while the benefit of short-term partners was an exposure to many perspectives. Across these activities, I

  3  

experienced only one collaboration that was less effective than the others. In contrast to the more successful collaborations, in this activity, adult learners did not have the added supports of group roles or protocols. As my slice facilitators shared, although at times protocols can seem awkward and stilted, the HTH community has found that they are an important tool for promoting productive conversation and combatting unspoken privileges in conversation.

Facilitators are intentional in the ways they lay a foundation for robust collaborations. Here, group norms serve as more than an icebreaker and room décor. Norms are rooted in the hopes and fears of participants, ensuring that structures are in place to protect these needs. In framing the purpose of norms, facilitator Paul North explained, “We believe that relationships are very important, maybe the most important thing of all.” In service of these relationships, over the course of the week certain norms were called to our attention, with facilitators nudging growth in or reflection on these commitments. Growing relationships was also made possible by contemplating and sharing our personal and professional stories, with a real emphasis on responsive listening. During the slice, facilitators would promote listening by preparing participants to be ready to share their partner’s ideas.

It is because of this groundwork that HTH educators are prepared for roles as action researcher, teacher as designer, and critical friend. They know that they need partners, and this commitment to a flat hierarchy is a stark contrast to the “lone warrior myth of leadership” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002, p. 100). HTH is a place which has truly committed as deeply to the learning environment of adults as it has to the learning environment of students by “invest[ing] systematically in the development of distributed facilitative leadership” (McDonald et al., 2003, p.12). By the end of the Odyssey, Lauren Obregon compared herself to the Tasmanian Devil, so energized by active learning, peer critique, and genuine support that she could not wait to begin.

In the name of creating a healthy professional learning community, we acknowledge “what a blessed if painful thing, [is] this business of being alive” (Joe Hill). Most striking to me were ideas presented by Heifetz and Linsky (2002) regarding the real cost of change. The roots of resistance, according to them, are loss, uncertainty, and disloyalty to the beliefs and values of their culture and loved ones (p. 30). No wonder, then, that Weissglass (1990) implored us to consider that “reform programs must include methods that address educators’ feelings” (p. 352). In his Cautionary Tales, Ben Daley was diligent in acknowledging the feelings associated with the tough work of transformative schools as well as the range of perspectives within the audience. This is aligned with Heifetz and Linsky’s reminder to think politically by engaging inside allies, outside stakeholders, and even opponents, for “relating to people is central to staying alive” (p. 100).

In addressing the role of emotions, I am compelled by Heath and Heath’s (2010) analogy of the Elephant, Rider, and Path. In short, the Elephant represents our emotional side and the Rider our rational side. They exist within an environmental context referred to as the Path. I arrived at the HTH GSE with a strong desire to unpack the leadership moves that help to light a fire within rather than under. The Heath framework provides me with a three-part check when influencing change, and I know that I will have to pay increased attention to motivating the Elephant in order to appeal to emotions, foster investment, and influence sustained energy. In my residency, I hope to bear witness to a

  4  

director who leads, not by enforcing compliance, but by inspiration coupled with clear direction. As I have the opportunity to gauge the effectiveness of change leadership, I will be sure to heed Benjamin Zander’s suggestion to ask, “How many shining eyes are around me?” What a wonderful sign of relatedness, investment, and heartfelt emotion. In the short term my goal is to be on the hunt for bright spots and to build trust and relationship by exercising unconditional positive regard. In this way, I will tread softly while coming to know the multicolored dreams harmoniously spread underfoot.

REFERENCES Berger, R. (2003). An Ethic of Excellence: Building a Culture of Craftsmanship with Students.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Caillier, S. (2008). Transforming schools one question at a time. UnBoxed, 1, 1, retrieved from

http://www.hightechhigh.org/unboxed/issue1/transforming_schools/. Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2010). Three Surprises About Change & Find the Bright Spots. Switch.

Broadway Books: New York. Heifetz, R & Linsky, M (2002). Leadership on the line. Harvard Business School Press: Boston. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From achievement gap to education debt. Educational Researcher, 35, 7,

October 2006, 3-12. McDonald, J. et. al. (2007). The power of protocols: An educator’s guide to better practice. New York:

Teachers College Press, Second Edition. (Chapter 1.) Mehta, J. and S. Fine (2012). Teaching differently…learning deeply. Kappan, 94, 2, October 2012. Riordan, R. HTH: Three integrations. Unpub. ms. Weissglass, J. (1990). Constructivist Listening for Empowerment and Change. The Educational Forum,

54(4), 351-370.