How to Change Our Language

in the informal culture, teachers and staff must fully buy into the mindset that all students can learn and succeed.

Within a society or organization, cultural norms become ingrained in its members to the subconscious, automatic level and become static (Crafa & Nagel, 2020). An individual no longer thinks about them, but simply follows the familiar neural pathways. It starts with an individual observing the group—the way members talk, act, and carry themselves. The individual then begins to consciously use language or behaviors common to the group. Repeated language and behaviors develop neural networks. These networks then guide the individual’s language and behavior subconsciously. Every input that confirms the language and behavior more deeply embeds them into the subconscious. Once these paths are set in the brain, they cannot be changed without great difficulty (Crafa & Nagel, 2020). In the context of a district or school, when the culture dictates those students identified as “behind” will never reach proficiency, that message embeds in educators’ subconscious minds and students are subjected to lowered expectations for their academic learning and behavioral compliance.

Understanding this mechanism that engrains behaviors can help us change our behaviors. Encouragingly, even after members of a group align their behavior and thoughts with a predominant norm to the point that neural networks cause culturally acceptable behaviors to become subconscious—even after limiting language has wormed its way into the culture of an organization—that norm can be changed (Crafa & Nagel, 2020). Terms like low, behind, or red group no longer have to define students and limit expectations for academic achievement. Gripes like “they don’t do their jobs” or “these meetings are a waste of my time” need no longer sow mistrust or detract from professional collaboration in service of students. However, that change does not just happen. Change depends on reflection and new learning. Only self-reflection or intentional learning will be able to alter the subconscious feedback loop.

Simply telling staff to stop using limiting language will not make a difference. Instead, leaders must inform and demonstrate to staff how their language can subconsciously, or in some cases consciously, reveal their feelings about their students and how far those students can progress academically or their feelings about their colleagues and their professional abilities. To truly change an organization’s culture, the adults must learn about themselves and how to do better. Learning is vital to the change process because it will engage the prefrontal cortex so optimism can override the pessimism of the amygdala and the patterning and predicting of the cerebral cortex and thalamus.

Change in organizations has four distinct phases (Jones, 2021). 1. Recognition: The leadership and staff of a learning organization acknowledge an issue. In this case, leaders and staff agree that the use of limiting language causes staff to lower learning expectations for students and is a factor in why students (either the whole student body or a subgroup) have not yet consistently achieved proficiency.

Or, they recognize that the way staff talk about other professionals within the organization is a significant factor preventing them from helping students. An effective way to begin the recognition phase is for leadership (both administrators and teacher leaders) to conduct an audit of the use of limiting language directed at students and colleagues and share the results with the whole staff. Figure I.2 (page 14) shows a sample audit. In this example, school leaders sat in on collaborative team meetings and recorded instances of limiting language. This enables the leadership team to show staff what limiting language is most interfering with their work. 2. Decision: In this critical phase, the district or school makes the choice to either ignore the issue or change it. If an organization ignores limiting language, it is usually because administrators and teacher leaders do not know how to address it or opt to maintain the comfort of the adults using the language. If leaders take this path of least resistance, adults remain unsatisfied and students continue to receive suboptimal education. If leaders make the decision to initiate the change process, they move to the next step. 3. Action: In this phase, leaders provide alternatives to limiting language and train staff to use this language of possibility. The remainder of this book provides guidance for the action phase of organizational change. 4. Impact: Leaders conduct regular follow-up audits to assess the impact on students and school culture to ensure the organization does not backslide into limiting language. The impact on student learning will not become apparent immediately; there is a lag from action to impact. Sustaining an initiative through this lag is what separates strong leaders from mediocre ones. Strong leaders will continue to work on eliminating limiting language until student learning data show results (and sustain the effort to maintain those results) while mediocre ones might give up and move on to “the next big thing” when they do not see an immediate change.

Eliminating limiting language will also improve staff morale. Leaders can monitor staff retention data or survey staff on job satisfaction to assess staff optimism and collegial relationships.

Group Audited

Science Team

History Team

TenthGrade Language Arts Team

Algebra 1 Team

Fine Arts Team

Date Time Number of Instances of Limiting Language Specific Limiting Language Used

September 3 9:40–10:30 a.m. ||| Going to special ed Those kids

September 3 11:10 a.m.–12:00 p.m. You know this neighborhood ||||| They don’t care Those kids

They can’t read They don’t know anything Smarting off in my class

September 4 8:00–9:00 a.m. | |||| | Those kids They lost all that They did not learn anything You know they don’t read

I don’t worry about those kids

They are not mine, ask Mrs. Burdick

September 4 9:10–10:10 a.m. |||| Students always referred to as “they” or “them” They don’t care Teach them enough to get by September 4 10:20–11:20 a.m. | |||| They are so far behind

They don’t care They won’t listen Don’t know what their parents are doing

Figure I.2: Sample audit for limiting language.

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement for a blank reproducible version of this figure.

Leaders also need to engage with those few staff members who continue to use limiting language despite awareness of the problem and how it damages students and school culture. In doing so, follow Becky DuFour’s advice to “be hard on the work, yet soft on the people” (personal communication, November 3, 2017). Following this advice can be difficult for a leader in the heat of a conversation. So, preplanning the conversation with a potentially reluctant staff member will help keep the conversation focused and work centered. To help with this, we can turn to Howard Gardner’s (2006) seven factors in changing someone’s mind. 1. Reason: To employ this technique, the leader would work with the staff member to identify relevant factors, weighing each in turn, and making an overall assessment about the best way to help all students learn. Reason can involve logical arguments or the use of analogies. In some cases, creating a pro and con list with the teacher can make the difference. 2. Research: In this factor, the leader would look at current best practices by reviewing promising trends and systematic studies. Research can also include school and classroom data. The leader can do this side by side with the staff member or ask the educator to find research to support his or her stance while the leader finds research to support the other side of the argument. The principal and the teacher would then meet on a given date and time to compare current thinking. 3. Resonance: Resonance appeals to what feels right or fits the current situation. Before leveraging this factor, a leader needs to consider that this factor relies on the relationship between the leader and the educator. If the relationship is a contentious one, resonance will rarely be an effective way to change an educator’s mind. However, if the relationship is one of mutual respect, resonance can be very effective. When resonance is used effectively, the staff member may leave the meeting feeling that he or she is doing a “favor” for the leader. For example, the teacher may be thinking “I still don’t want to do this, but Mr. Tufnell needs me to, so I will.” 4. Representational redescriptions: Using this factor requires the leader to place the situation in a different context. For example, with a teacher who does not want to collaborate with colleagues on providing interventions, a leader might reframe “letting other teachers teach my students” as “helping even more students learn.” 5. Real-world events: In this factor, the leader ties what is happening in the world outside of the schoolhouse to teacher and student experience in an effort to change the teacher’s mind. Big-picture information such