Joel Zehring

In part 1, I mentioned the characteristics of a change agent by describing who I am (or at least who I would like to be). In part 2, I’ll suggest some specific actions to move toward positive change.

What I do

Affirm the good in teachers. I’m always way more receptive to suggestions and even criticism (gasp) from people that have previously recognized my skill and value as an educator. Teachers want to know that they are worthwhile educators before they try to improve what they do.

Ask teachers what they want. There is no use pushing tools and techniques that no one has asked for. Don’t be surprised if “web 2.0 tools” is not high on the list. One trick that I use is wrapping up my suggestions in a web 2.0 package:

“I wish we had a list of behavior interventions to share with teachers before they refer their students to CST.”

“I’ve devoted an entire category on my blog to interventions. I’ll email you the link.”

Admit when I don’t know the answer. In true conversation, people run into dead ends and find new paths. A sure-fire way to close the door on collaboration is to share half-truths and opinions masked as research.

Ask how it may hurt, as well as how it may help. I heard Chris Lehman say on an EdTechTalk show that one job of an educator is to not get sued. That’s a bit hyperbolized, but the foundational truth remains: teachers must keep their students from harm as much as is reasonable.

Neil Postman said in a speech, “Technological change is not additive; it is ecological.” When I introduce a teacher to a new tool or technique, I am introducing a whole set of potential benefits and dangers. What’s more, these benefits and dangers are amplified in unique ways by a teacher’s individual strengths and shortcomings, as well as by the specific school situation and community. As a leader, I need to complete my due diligence by knowing my audience and the full ramifications of the tools and techniques I am recommending.

Big thanks to Lisa Parisi, Maria Knee, and EdTechTalk for the inspiration.