How to Use This Book

as what employers are seeking in future employees or projections of student earnings if they are not successful in school can be convincing. 6. Resources and rewards: This factor is a simple quid pro quo, which may work with those who are less open to the previous factors. The leader has tried many strategies to urge the individual to voluntarily stop the bad behavior; the goal at this stage is to mitigate damage. Offer something the teacher values in exchange for adopting the desired behavior. For example, the leader might prioritize getting the teacher the grade-level or course assignment she wants if she consistently brings her data to collaborative meetings. While the hope is that the teacher will finally see the value of the behavior change after trying it out in exchange for a reward, the caveat to this factor is it may not actually impact the staff member’s beliefs and may only last if the reward is there. 7. Requirement: If the individual has not responded to the previous six factors and is resistant simply because he or she does not want to change, then the only answer the leader has left is to make the change nonnegotiable. If needed, a leader in a supervisory role can require a resistant staff member to change his or her practices. If the educator chooses not to do what is asked of him or her, the administrator needs to follow up with whatever discipline the district has deemed appropriate. This is a last resort and why this factor is number seven, not number one. If the leader has given every chance for behavior or attitude change and the staff member has refused, the leader has no choice. The leader must ensure that the culture of the district or school does not lose sight of the most important thing, which is the students’ learning.

Figure I.3 is a sample tool to help a leader plan and track conversations with reluctant staff. This tool can serve as documentation of conversations with staff members and what helped them change their minds. When recording these conversations over time, key insights into staff members can emerge. For example, if a leader has had several conversations with a staff member about changing and the factor that has always worked has been research, the next time a conversation is needed the leader can start there. This tool can also serve as documentation for the administrator if reaching the requirement stage.

This book aims to make K–12 educators aware of how the words they use are important to the operation of a district or school and the success of the students they serve. It is a resource for identifying and eliminating limiting language and

Staff Member: Mr. Schmidt

Topic: Unwillingness to share students for interventions and extensions

Technique Date Did it work? If not, why not?

Reason October 5 No Schmidt felt his knowledge of students outweighed all the positives on the list. Research October 26 No Schmidt dismissed the research as not applicable.

Representational redescription November 24 No Schmidt feels that the other teachers need to be responsible for the students in their classes.

Real-world events

Resources and rewards

Requirement December 13 No Schmidt feels like the four examples provided did not include a grade level or demographic that matched his class exactly. January 16 Yes Schmidt will work collaboratively with his team to share students during interventions and extensions. In exchange, he will teach one period of biology next year.

Source: Adapted from Gardner, 2006.

Figure I.3: Tool for tracking factors to change a staff member’s mind. Visit go.SolutionTree.com/schoolimprovement for a blank reproducible version of this figure.

replacing it with the language of possibility—language that helps build more effective teams that support academic achievement and social-emotional well-being. This book is most applicable to learning leaders, though I believe anyone choosing to tackle the issue of limiting language is a leader regardless of job title. Each chapter will guide you to listen carefully to colleagues and think about what educators are really saying about their expectations for student academic success and their opinions of effective teaching. For each instance, I provide alternative language that can rebuild teacher efficacy and battle perceptual predetermination. Perhaps even more important, The Language of Possibility will support a culture change in schools and districts.

While any school or district might choose to undertake this cultural change, the concepts in this book are perhaps best applied as part of the Professional Learning Communities at Work® process, “in which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016, p. 10). This approach to organizing the work of schools begins with a focus on learning, a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and a results orientation (DuFour et al., 2016). The first two of these foundational ideas correlate precisely with the two parts of this book: (1) What We Say About Students and (2) What We Say About Colleagues. The way educators talk about students reflects their beliefs about whether all students can and will learn to a high level. The way educators talk about their colleagues directly affects the development of a collaborative, interdependent culture within a school. Language sets the foundation for action. A school where that foundation undermines high expectations for students and degrades professional interactions for teachers cannot achieve its goals. If, however, a school develops a common language that unlocks student potential and promotes teacher collaboration, that school is well situated to provide high-quality education.

The chapters of this book each address specific instances of limiting language and how to replace them with the language of possibility in daily conversation. In part 1, chapter 1 addresses limiting language about vulnerable groups of students. Chapter 2 explores how certain phrases inadvertently lower expectations for students, to their detriment. In chapter 3, we will see how educators’ language about motivation can give students “licenses to fail” (Muhammad, 2018). To conclude the portion on limiting language about students, chapter 4 considers how teachers speak about student data.

Limiting language does not only exist when members of organizations discuss the students; it also rears its head when staff discuss colleagues. To open part 2, chapter 5 investigates the toxic practice of blaming other educators when students are not yet proficient. Next, chapter 6 dives into how educators react to research-based best practices. Continuing with the challenges of changing one’s instructional practices, we review fears about losing individuality when teaching a standards-based curriculum in chapter 7 and skepticism about teacher collaboration in chapter 8. Finally, chapter 9 discusses the importance of trust—both self-trust and trust in other educators.

Each chapter begins with a learning target and related success criteria because learners—including professionals reading books on education—assimilate and retain information best when they know the goal and how to tell if they’ve reached

it (Brown & Ferriter, 2021; Buffum, Mattos, & Malone, 2018; Hattie, 2009; Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2006). The chapters all conclude with discussion questions to help learning leaders in teams spark conversations and apply the content of this book to their own situations. For individual readers, they provide an opportunity to assess your understanding and reflect on your organization. Throughout the book, you will find scenarios based on real schools and real people. Names and nonessential details have been changed. I use the stories of these organizations and professionals not to shame, but to represent the countless others who talk and act in the same manner.

On behalf of the students you serve, thank you for taking on the complex issue of limiting language in education. Let’s get started! © 2023 by Solution Tree Press

© 2023 by Solution Tree Press

Part 1

What We Say About Students

The human brain is set up to take in the world of infinite possibilities and organize it in a way that is manageable and understandable for us to operate in. The words we use reflect the world as we see it. For most people, this is not an issue. However, those of us called to the profession of education need to be intentional about what we say and how we say it. This is especially true when it comes to the students we serve. When we fall into the trap of speaking about students’ deficits as their identity, we cue our brains to limit expectations for that student. “He’s a low baby.” “She’s sped.” Phrases like these can sentence students to thirteen years of academic struggles. Yet many educators use them without thinking as part of regular discourse. The goal of the first part of this book is to challenge this limiting language and prompt educators to slow down and really think about the words they use to describe the students they work so very hard for. Because what we say about students really does matter.

© 2023 by Solution Tree Press

CHAPTER 1

Talking About Underserved Students

Begin by making a more careful study of your pupils, for it is clear that you know nothing about them.

—Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“Sure, that school has an A rating; they don’t have many . . . you know, sped kids.”

I was walking across campus with a high school principal, and she was expressing her opinion about why other schools in the district had achieved the highest rating on the state report card while hers had not. This comment came as we walked by several students lounging on the grass during their lunch period. I asked her for clarification, and she explained that this group of teenagers had just come from one of the special education classrooms. She said that the special education population at her school was 7 percent higher than the state average and those students never performed well on the state assessment that state report cards were largely based on. She continued that the district’s other high schools had lower numbers of special education students. Her message was clear: the makeup of her school’s student population was keeping her school from getting a higher rating from the state.

Learning Target: I know I have met the goal of the chapter when I can explain to a colleague how limiting language can keep students who belong to underserved subgroups from being successful academically.

Success Criteria

• I can identify commonly underserved populations of students and explain how limiting language harms them. • I can offer examples of the language of possibility to substitute for terms that limit students.