social capital |

In a recent article in the Shanker Blog, Esther Quintero discusses how teachers are coping with the increased uncertainty in the education world that is a result of the lack of “coherent education infrastructure” in the U.S. In response to this uncertainty, teachers are becoming more reliant on collaboration and close-knit social networks from which to draw strength and resources.

These reflections made Quintero draw connections between national security and teaching: in recent years, security has become less about heightened protection and more about resilience. New computer simulations and training modules have been implemented in the armed forces to stimulate an awareness of and appreciation for the “nine key resources that can foster social resilience” (i.e., the ability of a group of people to turn adversity to advantage). The training modules for soldiers emphasize how differences among group members can be assets and make the group more adaptable, and how team chemistry can be more important than the talents of individuals.

So, Quintero asks, can this framework help design training for nurturing social resilience among teachers? She thinks so, and in fact believes that this is exactly the type of training teachers are demanding. Not only do teachers want to collaborate, but the data shows that everyone, especially students, benefits when they do.

The problem with this scenario is that current policy debate is going in the opposite direction of social resilience-building. The dominant view is that schools can be improved by attracting and retaining excellent individual teachers, rather than fostering and nurturing the development of an excellent group of teachers with good team chemistry. Some districts, heeding advice from the US Department of Education that instructional time should be expanded, have reduced the amount of time available to teachers for collaboration.

As diverse fields of research, from social capital theory to organization studies, begin to coalesce around the education debate, it is becoming clear that the problems in America’s schools cannot be addressed without paying attention to the social relationships in which individuals function. “We may aspire to be self-sufficient and celebrate our individual achievements, but our remarkable accomplishments as a species are attributable to our collective action, not our individual might.”

To read the full article, please visit http://shankerblog.org/?p=5778

In an article published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, author Carrie R. Leana argues that education reforms have yet to identify a major component to boosting student achievement: teacher collaboration. She calls these patterns of teacher interaction “social capital,” the quantity and quality of which can measurably affect school improvement.

Leana asserts that the three more common areas of focus in school improvement—human capital (teacher knowledge and effectiveness), the value of outsiders (consultants and pedagogy experts), and the centrality of principals as leaders in instructional practice—are “rooted more in conventional wisdom and political sloganeering than in strong empirical research.” Together they constitute what Leana calls the ideology of school reform. Leana does not dismiss these factors as key to school improvement, however, the research she and her colleagues have done “strongly suggest that in trying to improve public schools we are overselling the role of human capital and innovation from the top, while greatly undervaluing the benefits of social capital and stability at the bottom.”
To illustrate the difference between human capital and social capital, Leana offers the following scenario:

In response to the question “Why are some teachers better than others?” a human capital perspective would answer that some teachers are just better trained, more gifted, or more motivated. A social capital perspective would answer the same question by looking not just at what a teacher knows, but also where she gets that knowledge. If she has a problem with a particular student, where does the teacher go for information and advice? Who does she use to sound out her own ideas or assumptions about teaching? Who does she confide in about the gaps in her understanding of her subject knowledge?

In her research, Leana found that teachers do not usually turn to experts to get information or advice on how to do her job, and even less frequently turn to their principals. Additionally, when relationships among teachers have high levels of trust and interaction (i.e., when social capital is strong), student achievement scores improve.

After conducting research at 130 elementary schools in NYC public school system from 2005-2007, Leana comes to the following conclusions about current policy objectives and initiatives:

1. The current focus on building teacher human capital will not yield the qualified teaching staff so desperately needed in urban districts. Instead, policies must also invest in measures that enhance collaboration, rather than viewing such teamwork as a sign of teacher weakness or inefficiency.

2. There is not enough emphasis on the value of teacher stability. There are direct, positive relationships between student achievement gains in mathematics and teacher tenure at grade level and teacher social capital. Therefore, current efforts to undercut teacher stability “may come at a very steep cost.”

3. Principals spending their time on instructional activities and teacher interaction had no effect on teacher social capital or student achievement. Principals who spent more of their time collaborating with people and organizations outside the school delivered gains to teachers and students alike.

To read the full article, please visit http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_missing_link_in_school_reform/