Evacuate! Evacuate!
The fire alarm in my kitchen went off yet again over the holidays as the olive oil from the flatbread I was heating up dripped off the baking stone and burned on the bottom of the oven. As my 17-year old son laughed and my partner rolled his eyes, I protested that it wasn’t that much oil and shouldn’t have done that!
This was at least the third time in the last couple of weeks I had set off the fire alarm. To the boys, it was a ridiculous mistake to keep making. ”Quit using that pan! Put foil under it!” They would say, but I kept thinking I could use my same pan and the butter or oil or whatever wouldn’t drip the next time. I would try to fix the problem by using less butter or placing the biscuits in the center of the stone, not near the edge. I figured I could change up my strategy and use that baking stone I loved. Didn’t work.
I thought about the times I coached teachers–times when I thought I had just the right tool to help them, like a Kagan engagement strategy, a partner talk before raising hands, or a certain graphic organizer. It was so clear to me that changing their tool would be just the thing to make a difference. In the moment the teacher might nod their head and thank me, but then they would go back to their classrooms and cling to whatever tool they had been using.
Why were these teachers so resistant to change?
I finally learned my lesson and used a different pan, but why was I so resistant to change pans? Why did I think I could make my favorite pan work? Stubbornness? Insanity? Perhaps. I was convinced I could make what I had work. Is that how the teachers felt? Is it a desire for independence, control, agency?
Really, when I was suggesting a tool to teachers, there was an outcome I was after and the tool didn’t really matter. For example, maybe I wanted increased engagement when I suggested a Kagan strategy. In these situations, it honestly wouldn’t matter if they were using Kagan structures or not if they increased engagement.
My boys didn’t care which pan I used if I would just quit setting off the fire alarm.
IThis direct “suggesting” of strategies is discouraged as the default mode of coaching in Cognitive Coaching. The Thinking Collaborative refers to that function of teacher development as consulting and caution against it being the default coaching method. I can see why. When I went through the Cognitive Coaching training we talked about how consulting does not support self-directedness in the long run, but through my mistakes I could see how the way I was coaching wasn’t even offering a quick fix in the moment.
A consultant needs to work towards developing self-directedness in his or her colleagues. If not, the colleagues will be unable to be resourceful without the direction of the consultant. The “expert” or the consultant “informs” about these best practices, research, or policies, and hopefully offers a menu of options instead of advocating for one. The consultant might say, “Here are some possible ways to do this. Which ones sound most promising to you?”
The Four Support Functions: Consulting
the Thinking Collaborative
If one of my boys had come at me with that final question from the Thinking Collaborative to try to get me to stop setting off the fire alarm, I may have told them where to go, but I can definitely see how I could have improved my coaching by offering options and ideas not one solution.