Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this episode, host Lindsay talks about discourse as change leadership. She dives into the research-backed best practices and theoretical frameworks that help drive meaningful change, especially when facing staff resistance.
Drawing on the work of John Morgan and adaptive leadership scholars like Heifetz, Lindsay emphasizes the importance of constructive disorientation and staff-led discourse to address resistance and foster sustainable change. Why? Adaptive challenges, as defined by Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsy, are “ typically grounded in the complexity of beliefs, values, and loyalties rather than the technical complexity and stir up intense emotions rather than dispassionate analysis." To then address these multi-faceted challenges, educators and teams must bring empathy and strategic discourse to their problem-solving efforts, rather than technical methods alone. Ignoring the intense emotions that come up only does a disservice to your team in finding meaningful solutions. What? When faced with adaptive challenges — or “messy” challenges, as Lindsay calls them — comes down to having a plan that enables leaders to lead with confidence, honor staff humanity, and stay true to the pursuit of educational justice in the face of resistance. Here are some tips that will help you begin this process:
Lindsay dives into all of these tips, using scholarly research to back up best practices for leaders and teams. And, remember, investing in this work not only helps address the current adaptive challenge at hand, but also builds capacity to address new ones in the future. Final Tip Align assessments with the organizational values of growth and risk-taking so that teachers and educators are not penalized for prioritizing change and new ideas. To help you implement today’s takeaways, I’m sharing my Reframing Discussion Prompts with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 267 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: To another episode of the Time for Teachership podcast. This is episode 267, and today we're talking about discourse as change leadership. So how do you respond when your staff resists change? We've done some blog posts and podcast episodes before on this topic, but really wanna bring it back to a blog post, um, and kinda synthesize some other things as well. But mainly, this episode is thinking more deeply about a blog post written in 2020, which is based on the work of John Morgan, who was one of my professors at Antioch University in the leadership and change program, who talks about constructive disorientation. And so constructive disorientation and staff-led discourse can help address resistance in a humanizing way and craft a better path towards sustainable change. Let's think together about how to do this. Here we go Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky say, quote, "Adaptive challenges are typically grounded in the complexity of beliefs, values, and loyalties rather than the technical complexity and stir up intense emotions rather than dispassionate analysis." End quote. I have said that quote so many times, but it's still so good. So whether you're leading a school turnaround effort, pursuing equity and belonging amidst harmful political discourse, or maybe implementing a new high-quality instructional material, change is hard. And if you're dealing with a long-standing challenge, it's likely adaptive, and adaptive challenges are gonna require an adaptive approach. We talked a few episodes ago how discourse is really critical to addressing a lot of, uh, change leadership and adaptive challenges. And having that clear approach, like, "What am I gonna do?" Having that plan when you are faced with a messy challenge is going to enable you as a leader to lead with confidence, honor staff humanity, and stay true to the pursuit of educational justice in the face of resistance. When faced with a disorienting dilemma, which is when our experience doesn't fit with our expectations or beliefs. So for example, we encounter evidence that our way of teaching has not improved student learning, right? We're like, "Oh, like I think I'm a good teacher. That is in my head. I think this is the way to teach." However, I'm noticing that none of my students, uh, improved, you know, whatever it is, their critical thinking or their reading scores or whatever that thing is. When we encounter that disorienting dilemma, research tells us that we actually learn best in the presence of others, when we can try on others' perspectives. So facilitating emotional conversations about change is gonna require intentional structure. So if it's like, "Oh, we gotta talk to people about this to be able to do this well. Okay, well, that's hard. How do we structure it?" When we have purpose-specific discourse protocols and a lot of the foundation and context built up around this, um, we can build capacity to both plan the structure to respond in the case of, uh, maybe a deficit-based comment or a conversational detour, um, we're gonna feel ready for leading change. So my goals for the episode, this is a little ambitious, but we are gonna try to, um, first, I guess, recognize that adaptive challenges require human-centric responses, and the diverse ideas of staff are actually what enable effective change. Also want you to hopefully have a spark of an idea for how to actually create that constructive disorientation for your staff, like how to facilitate it. Um, W-Worgan defines, just so you know his definition, he defines constructive disorientation as, quote, "An experience that unsettles us and sparks our curiosity both at once, and does so in a way that we perceive an opportunity to change how we see the world and for the better." I think there's a lot of, like, inviting stakeholder stories and values and imagination here. I also would invite you to consider how you might plan for a structured generative discourse opportunities, and maybe get an idea for how you wanna respond if a, like, a harmful comment or, like, a deficit thinking comment comes up in staff conversations. Okay, so let's think about what we do. Number one, I think we have to identify that we're working with an adaptive challenge, right? You likely already know this, but be open to what the problem is, really digging deeper than only looking at the technical issues. This is where we're gonna find our disorienting dilemma, as Mezuro puts it, which is, like, the starting point for our change. So Heifetz, who is an adaptive leadership scholar, encourages leaders to ask socially relevant questions that force members to clarify their values and deeply consider outcomes of oppressive actions. So we have to kind of juxtapose, like, the reality, which is often, like, this isn't working or this is marginalizing a group of students or a student, right? With, like, what are the values? We gotta surface both of those. The factual reality, here's what's happening, it's not good, and what are the values that you hold as an educator, right? And then s- then often just surfacing those, um, may create kind of that disorienting dilemma. Um, Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky, I just saw the name, they liken the adaptive leadership model to evolutionary biology's concept of thriving, where they're saying, you know, the essential components are preserved. The unnecessary ones are discarded. A new arrangement facilitate resi- resilience to future changes. So investing in this work, I think this is important to name. Investing in this work is a, a really sustainable approach to not just dealing with the one issue in front of you, but creating a culture that is adaptive. Like, building capacity for everyone to lead and enact positive adaptive change. That's gonna serve you in the next adaptive challenge that comes up. Okay, so you've identified there's an adaptive challenge. You're starting to think about, you know, the disorienting dilemma. Step two, we gotta build the foundation, and specifically thinking here the social capital. So John Morgan says there is a direct correlation between the amount of social capital in an organization and the degree to which meaningful conversations can be had. So we have to. If we wanna have that discourse, which is critical, we need to up the amount of social capital. So regular community building, story sharing opportunities, sharing appreciations of one another. Like, I like that you did this. Uh, I saw you doing this. Great work. These can be little notes. They can be verbal. They can be at the end of the story sharing discussion. Um, but utilizing staff time for this is not a waste of time. It enables you to have the adaptive conversations when necessary as you pursue change. Um, I can link to the discussion resource bank I have around some pr- particular ideas, um, prompts, formats, things like that. But a simple one I often say to start with is just like what's the story of your name, right? This can be a great get to know you activity if you have new staff members, but it also is something that maybe other people have not shared yet. Another one, who's a person you value? Could be a superhero, could be a fictional person, could be a family member, could be a student, right? Like th- there are some quick prompts that you could do a circle discussion format for and just start to build that community All right, step kind of 2A perhaps. This is like another part of building the foundation. We gotta build the discourse foundation. So to enable stakeholders to reflect on their disorientation and listen to others' points of view with empathy, there needs to be a discourse foundation. So one, that has to be like, you know, we have to have some sort of shared goal. Literally, it could just be John Morgan says, like reminding everyone we're all here for kids, right? Like, we have to have like some lofty shared goal, and it doesn't need to be super specific, um, but shared goals are, are really a prerequisite. Ideological diversity and an openness to hear contributions from all members is a second necessity. So really, we need to identify, like deep listening or seeking to understand is a core discourse agreement. So if we're coming up with how we interact with one another, like we have to seek to understand, right? And, uh, we need to focus on, um, identifying those shared goals and underlying values, of course, before we debate how we're gonna move forward, what the policy is gonna be, right? We need to make those happen if we haven't already in, in the earlier step that we mentioned it. And the third thing we need is a collective responsibility for success, says Morgan. So that literally could just mean posing a question like, "What can I personally do to help us move forward as a school?" Sometimes in strategic planning, we have those locus of control tools or activities. Like this is basically that. You could ask a question, you could use that tool with like the, the bullseye framework or whatever, but we have to have this collective responsibility where no one is opting out. Like, okay, if the problem feels too big, yeah, what can you do though? Like, what is the thing that I can take on and, and commit to? Okay, step three, spark constructive disorientation. So this is John Worgan's term. We defined it earlier. There's a blog post I will link to in this blog post, um, the one from 2020. His tip is, like, make it clear, clear disorientation, but manageable. We gotta manage it. It can't be so overwhelming that people just opt out and shut down, right? Uh, Worgan says, quote, "We don't necessarily have to wait for a disorienting dilemma to hit us over the head and force us to pay attention," end quote. He suggests the practice of mindfulness or critical reflection can surface smaller kinds of disorientation. You know, a third source he says is, like, an aesthetic experience, so, like, a piece of art. Um, it could be student created. It could be, uh, created somewhere else. It doesn't have to be in your local community. He talks about, um, how this is a way for someone to try on the perspective of an artist at low risk to oneself, in his words. And so this could be, like, a Banksy painting or something, right? Like, some sort of, like, social, um, justice-oriented image. Uh, the example he gives is Kehinde Wiley's Rumors of War statue, which was installed down the road from Richard- Virginia's Monument Ave. So something that, like, just kind of is like, "Oh, right, these two things are in juxtaposition," that is, like, making me have this little constructive disorientation moment. Um, a, a tip I would have is, yeah, bringing in student ideas, whether that's student art, videos about their experience, quotes. If you bring students onto, like, a Kiva panel and have a live panel with them sharing to staff about their experiences or family members, this could cause some constructive disorientation as well. Um, also some traditional data, like assessment data, bringing that into the space, um, as I said at the top of the episode, that can also kind of jar. Like, "Oh, I thought I was doing right by students. Hmm." Scores are not going up, right? Like, oh, that could also create the disorientation as well. Okay, step four. Now we're ready to have a group dialogue. We have had the constructive disorientation moment. Now we need to, like, process it. And this, this disorienting dilemma is uncomfortable, and it has to be, because that's what moves us to action. So having a multi-stakeholder group dialogue about the adaptive challenge lets each person be open to new ideas and perspectives to solve it. Remember, that's what the research says. We have to be able to hear other people's ideas and perspectives to try them on in a, quote, "low-risk environment." So what do we do? We set the stage. Worgan says it's necessary to have a setting conducive to deep work so that teachers can deeply concentrate and not be distracted by logistical tasks like checking email, right? So if at all possible, we take all tasks off teachers' plates, and they need to be able to be supported to be present fully in the conversation. This might mean that we are doing this, you know, in the summertime perhaps. I, I don't know. This could be, uh, like we say, "Okay, well, grading is due this week, so we're not gonna do it this week. We're gonna postpone it to next week once grades have been submitted." Right? Like, whatever way that you can take some things off the plates and make sure that we have as much focus as possible given all the things, like, that's the goal here Then as the leader or the facilitator, you need to choose a purpose-aligned prompt and protocol. I find that dialogue works best at first, because the goal there is just seeking to understand and getting a lot of initial ideas out there. We're not analyzing, we're not making decisions. So prompts could be as simple as, "What's coming up for you? How are you feeling? What does this make you think of?" So we just, like, have sparked the disorientation, and now we're just like, "All right. How are you feeling? What's coming up? What do, what are you thinking about?" Right? Very informal, like, initial thoughts. Now, if we're more ... If we're further down, if we've already maybe done that, w- we might go to discussion, where we're a little more topic specific at this point. And you could do more of, like, a dialogue. We're still just kind of, like, listening and seeking to understand, um, and we're just starting to process maybe, uh, a little bit more analytically. You might use some of the reframing discussion prompts, um, that are in the resource linked for this episode's, uh, blog post. Those encourage you to shift out of the binary, this or this, because that supports kind of this attack and defend position, into other spaces. So one might be critical analysis. So we ask about potential impacts or root causes of an issue, right? So e- let's use an example. If we are initially inclined to say, "Okay, we're gonna have a discussion. The question is, should we adopt this new policy?" Instead, if we're thinking about critical analysis, we might say, "What might the impacts of this policy be?" So we roll this policy out, like what could happen, right? Critical analysis. We also could ask about, like, the root cause, right? Like, why, why is this factual reality, this par- this issue coming up? Like, what is the root? Policy could be another framing. So narrow the scope about how to address the factual reality. Some questions are already about policy. Like our sample one, how should we... Like, should we adopt this new policy? Instead could be turned into, how would we like our community to respond to this factual reality? So for example, if you have students who are, like, very into, like, I don't know, all of, like, the misogynistic, like, stuff. Like, h- how would we like our community to respond to hate speech, for example? Like, if this is a given in our community, we are grappling with this issue, how do we want our community to respond when this happens? Because it has, right? Whatever the ha- whatever the thing is. Like, insert factual reality there. How would we like our community to respond? It gives you a sense of, like, we're talking about policy, but we are way more expansive at this point than deciding, like, decision-making, right? That's a later stage. Deciding yes or no on a particular policy. We're still generating and thinking about ideas. You could also identify values. So invite participants to name their values and the community values that you all hold that should inform a policy or could inform a policy. So for example, should we adopt this new policy could get translated into What values would you want to inform our policy? Right? So again, we're speaking more from the "I." We're, we're being able to listen deeply to other people's ideas. A final pivot could be civic imagination, which is always a favorite of mine. So this is where we're inviting a brainstorm of alternative policies affirming dignity. So maybe we had this initial policy, and your thought was, "Okay, should we adopt this or not?" But instead you say, "Okay, how could we move forward in a way that advances our key values?" Right? And you could name the key values. So for example, if you're coming up with, um, like let's say you have kids who are, I don't know, wearing-- Let's just... This is not a good example, but, like, wearing headphones, and some people are saying, "Well, it's a safety issue. They need to be able to hear, you know, whatever in the hallway." And other people are saying, "Well, it's a freedom issue. Like, let kids just be expressive, and, like, what's the big deal? Like, you need them to have a little bit of autonomy in school where they have none." Right? If you have safety and freedom as two identified values that are in tension with one another around a particular policy or issue, your question could be, "How could we move forward in a way that advances both safety and freedom?" Right? And then insert whatever the key values that are in tension are at the end of that question. All right. Once you have figured out the prompt y- and the protocol, like are we doing a circle or are we doing small groups, and then are we journaling and then we're coming, right? Like whatever it is, you need to make sure that you are facilitating intentionally. So make sure we're gonna tell us to be aware of anxiety levels. We wanna keep people at the edge, but not let people fall over it, so they're just like completely overwhelmed, then shut down or, like, completely overwhelmed and, like, yelling, right? We want to maximize autonomy of participants as well, and everyone has different entry points and comfort zones around style of participation, and so we might provide different ways that teachers can participate in conversation. Examples, writing. Maybe we do a journaling activity, so it's completely private at first just to get ideas, right? Some think time. We might do a write around or a collected display where actually it will eventually be public, but it might be anonymous, and they're writing quietly and the verbalizing is not the, the method of communication. Then or/and addition, um, in addition to the writing, we could do a mix of maybe it's small group at first and then it goes whole group, or maybe it's just small group for a little while, or maybe it just goes straight to whole group. But you know your group, and you wanna make sure that you have a... Over the course, I always like to think, like, discourse is not one day. I think a lot about Matt Kay, who wrote Not Light But Fire, and he talks about threading a conversation. We can't just like have one conversation, uh, about a thing for the rest of, of eternity, right? We have to thread the conversation. So we're gonna come back to this discussion. Maybe one day it is writing in a small group conversation. The next day it is a whole group conversation and a small group conversation to debrief it or something. Um, a, a tip that working chairs is to Um, or was this my tip? Now I can't even read my notes. Embrace a human first approach that values the stories and emotions of students and their families. And so we wanna move beyond the off-the-shelf solutions to craft responsive initiatives. I think that's a blend of a lot of people. So, uh, Heifetz, again back to adaptive leadership, urges leaders to connect to members' hearts, not their heads, in order to elicit adaptive change. We cannot ignore the heart work and the feeling of this. We cannot just, like, intellectualize our way to a better solution to a highly emotional adaptive challenge. All right, and finally, step five. We wanna affirm learning and change behavior. So we are asking people to take big risks, right? We are asking them to change longstanding beliefs and loyalties and habits. That's hard. So we acknowledge the hard, we attend to the whole human, we think about the emotions, we respect and honor those, we give space for those, and we want to prompt participants to note how their thinking is shifting, right? I'm thinking a lot about Maria Nichols, um, and her work on, like, building ideas. And so she talks about students need to value different perspectives, and then the facilitator or the teacher in that case can nudge to be like, "How has your thinking changed?" And then students can have their own little disorienting dilemma like, "Oh my gosh, my thinking has not changed at all. I must need to seek out a new perspective," because their thinking should change and evolve. That's the point of talking to other people, right? So that is something that you can do, just nudge, "How has your thinking changed?" Right? Subtly encourage that valuing of different perspectives and have people seek them out. Highlight and validate when a participant evolves their thinking publicly. So if they verbally shifted, right, and they're like, "Oh, you know what? That made me think, actually, I do believe in this initiative," or whatever. Gr- oh my God, like, validate that. Be like, "Wow, that's incredible that you just took in new information and, like, shifted how you thought, and you, like, held it up against how your past thinking was and then you evolved your thinking. That's really cool." They might not do that publicly, but they might do it in other subtler ways that are not, like, verbal or they're not in that meeting. We also wanna highlight and validate that, right? We also wanna narrate when that's happening for us. So modeling is huge for discourse. That is very present in the research on discourse. Okay, encourage teachers to share their successes. So again, this is that positive deviance idea. Um, where is it working? If it's not working, it feels like it's not working anywhere, but it actually is working in one class. So, ugh, all ELA scores are down, or ELA scores are down for all of our multilingual learners except this one class. Actually, they are doing awesome. Okay, great. Like, what can we learn from that, right? It's not like I- I'm gonna discount right away if they're, like, different kids. I do not ever like that argument. Like, something is working here. What is working, right? Let's learn from it and try it out in other spaces. It might not work perfectly in other spaces. There might need to be some adaptation. But let's seek out the positive deviance. Where is it working? Or it might be even bigger, so our district scores are down. However, this school or this grade within the school is doing something right. Let's go visit them and figure out what it might be, or let's have them come to us and share some of their strategies, right? We wanna encourage that positive deviance, and we also want to encourage the people who are learning from that positive deviance to try things. Say, "Hey, this didn't work for me. I'm gonna try that, and I'm gonna report back the learning." That is huge, and so we wanna celebrate teachers for doing that and being committed to growth. We also wanna ensure that any teacher evaluations are aligned to that goal. So our evaluation rubric should be celebrating and commending informed risk-taking, not promoting the opposite, right? Not promoting compliance and rigidity. So we wanna measure what we actually value. If we say, "Hey, we value informed risk-taking. We want you to try this thing. We're gonna pursue change," we have to make sure that we're not penalizing that during evaluations. Okay. This was a very dense episode. Would love to hear your thoughts on how this is relevant for you, what your takeaways are, any tips to add. Would love to hear them. Feel free to comment on the blog post. Again, that is lindseybethlyons.com/blog/267. And again, the free resource for this episode that you can find there is the reframing discussion prompts resource. I am a firm believer that how we language the question up for discussion is critically important for how effective that discussion and discourse opportunity is. So that is a new resource. Please give me all the feedback on whether that feels helpful for you as a leader. Your staff can use it with students. Would love to get some feedback on that, 'cause that is, um, my new passion project, all things discourse. All right, until next time.
0 Comments
Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this episode, we chat with Dr. Annalies Corbin about the nature of “wicked problems,” which are complex and multifaceted challenges without singular solutions. She emphasizes the importance of fostering agency among students and educators to promote engaged learning environments.
Additionally, Dr. Corbin highlights the significance of understanding and incorporating students’ cultural backgrounds and passions into teaching practices to create a lasting impact. The Big Dream Dr. Corbin envisions an educational system where students and educators discover their passions and find freedom in learning. Honoring our passions and our collective humanity will bring solutions that we’re often looking for. She believes that embracing individual interests and encouraging deep engagement can transform both the learning experience and the education system as a whole. Dr. Corbin is passionate about bridging research and practice to solve pressing educational challenges collaboratively. Mindset Shifts Required Dr. Corbin defines “wicked problems” as big, bold, complex, global problems that have many small pieces that are so intertwined and, because of that, there are numerous solutions. There are no singular solutions. They’re great for learning and teaching because they serve a societal need as we solve them. With this in mind, Dr. Corbin recognizes the necessity of shifting the mindset from traditional siloed education to an integrated, transdisciplinary approach. This requires educators to focus on the intertwining of systems and human aspects, considering broader socio-political dimensions when tackling educational problems. Action Steps When embracing your “wicked problems” and finding solutions that work in your context, Dr. Corbin recommends educators take these steps: Step 1: Invite your students to start thinking about something bigger than themselves. You start with something about the student — what matters and is relevant to them — and then expand it beyond themselves to bring the learning deeper. Step 2: Foster agency by inviting students to co-design learning experiences and engage them in collaborative problem-solving. When addressing something so big and broad, start with what you and your students are passionate about, engaging in it together. Step 3: Scaffold the collective set of experiences in your classroom by understanding your learners and their cultural contexts and incorporating those insights into the curriculum to make learning relevant. Step 4: Prioritize what Dr. Corbin calls the “five threads” of effective education practices: agency, cultural responsiveness, mastery, transdisciplinary teaching and learning (to stop teaching in siloes), and problem-based. The things that stick have those five elements. Challenges? One key challenge Dr. Corbin discusses the difficulty in transitioning from a disciplined school structure to a cohesive, transdisciplinary model. Often, educators are hesitant to leave the safety of subject silos due to systemic constraints, but when done, it leads to a more authentic learning environment that reflects real-world complexities. One Step to Get Started Begin by integrating agency in your classroom by giving students the opportunity to voice their ideas and choose how they wish to demonstrate their understanding. This approach not only empowers students but also begins to shift the educational culture towards one that values both learner autonomy and diverse paths to mastery. Stay Connected You can learn more about Dr. Corbin and her work on The Past Foundation website, or grab a copy of her book, Hacking School: 5 Strategies to Link Learning to Life. Stay connected by email at [email protected] or follow her on Instagram, X and LinkedIn. To help you implement today’s takeaways, our guest is sharing their page on The Past Foundation website with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 266 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: Dr. Corbin, welcome to the Time for Teachership podcast. Dr. Annalies Corbin: I am so happy to be here. Thank you for having me. Lindsay Lyons: Yeah, I am, I'm really excited to dive in. So I certainly have on my mind some of the things that we corresponded, uh, about prior to this show. So thinking about, you know, wicked problems is on my mind. Mm-hmm. And thinking about the airing of this episode being right at the start of, of school for many places- Yes ... across the United States, and thinking about, you know, all the things that we talk about on the show, like a kind of a collaborative approach to learning and, and leading, and just our capacity for resiliency, I think has been of great interest to the podcast recently. So those are the things on my mind as we enter this conversation. Is there anything that you have on your mind that you wanna share to frame the conversation today? Dr. Annalies Corbin: No, but I think that that's perfect timing. Actually, just before our conversation here, I've been editing three years' worth of research that we're getting ready to, to let go of, and we talk about these very things as so impactful and how we can actually see them be the things that move the needle. So I'm really excited to talk about it. I think the timing's perfect, so yeah. Lindsay Lyons: Oh, that's perfect. And I am such a research nerd, so I'm very excited. Yeah. Like, the fusion of research and practice will be a great thing. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Exactly, exactly. Lindsay Lyons: So I guess big dream-wise- Mm-hmm ... so thinking of the idea of freedom dreaming, Dr. Bettina Love talks about it as dreams grounded in the critique of injustice. Mm-hmm. And I'm curious to know what that big dream is that you hold for education. Dr. Annalies Corbin: So for me, it's all about, you know, students and educators finding their passion, finding the freedom in learning, right? Just the act of engaging very deeply and spending time, energy, and effort in the things that I'm curious about, that I'm interested in, and that I can then translate whatever that happens to be that I have the opportunity to dig deeply into, into who I am and why it's meaningful to me. And we have to do that both for our learners and for our teachers, right? We have to allow that freedom of expression, and it's not just one or the other. And oftentimes the conversations are about, "Oh, well this is broken," or, "It's so-and-so's fault," or, "This is about, you know, this issue." And the reality is it's, there's systems issues that we're working on collectively and collaboratively, but sometimes when we roll up our sleeves and we do that deep and meaningful work, I think that we forget, we forget about the humans in the middle of all of this. And that if we just honor those passions, that humanity upfront, it would actually solve many of the things that we're working on. Which is why I like wicked problems to come full circle to how we started this conversation, so. Lindsay Lyons: Oh my gosh, maybe now would be a good time to define wicked problems. Do you mind going into that for us? Dr. Annalies Corbin: Sure, sure. And I, and again, I love, love, love the idea of wicked problems, and I do feel like the, the global education system is a, is a, is a big old giant, hairy, audacious, wicked problem, right? Um, so wicked problems are problems that are big, they're complex, they're bold, they're incredibly meaningful, um, because they stretch literally across a collective set of ethos, or I like to say they're planet wide, they're global. And they have numerous solutions because they're so complex. They've got all these small pieces and parts that are all intertwined, and I can solve for one of those. If I'm super lucky, I can solve for one of those. And the other thing is, a wicked problem doesn't have a singular solution. That does not exist, and that's the beauty of them, right? Because solutions have to be tailored to the place in which the problem you're trying to solve is going to be applied. And if we don't do that, then it's not gonna work. It might work for me, but it's not gonna work for you clear on the other side of the world or in another neighborhood even. I mean, they can be close proximity and still not work because we haven't collectively, um, internalized the culture, the community, the environment, the constraints, the joys in which that solution is going to sit. So wicked problems are fabulous. They're great learning, they're great teaching, and honestly, they, they, they serve a societal need. We solve a thing that needs to be solved. Lindsay Lyons: Thank you for that definition. I often think of adaptive challenges, and I've heard these- Mm-hmm ... used interchangeably. Is there a distinction there, or can those be used interchangeably? Dr. Annalies Corbin: They can be used interchangeably, but I do think that you have to be mindful, because whatever somebody has in their head, you just need to understand that as the outset, right, of the way you're going to approach it. But, but the reality is, the wicked problem also, I think, and this is my opinion, has one sort of step back, right? And that step back for me is that it's really comprehensive of recognizing that there's often this massive sort of policy, geopolitical, sort of s- systems-driven thing. It's so, it's, it's not just about the human, right? It's about all of the interplay of the bigger, broader systems piece. So that's the other reason why I sometimes will, will think of the wicked problem as just being one step removed. Lindsay Lyons: Oh, I love that. Okay, now I'm gonna be all about wicked problems. 'Cause we can't disintegr- or dis- aggregate the system- Correct ... from the human, right? Yeah. Dr. Annalies Corbin: You... And, and every time we try, that's when we bump up against these really giant roadblocks. And those are real roadblocks, right? But if we would step back from them and re-sort or evaluate the way that we're thinking about or even seeing it as a roadblock, and again, we connect the system and the humans with the environment, with the geopolitical, with, you know... If we, if we design or try to problem solve with all of those elements in mind from the get-go, we will see a very different picture, and the narrative, the narrative and the journey that goes with that narrative will be very different Lindsay Lyons: Okay, this is really cool. So now I'm thinking about, I usually ask about mindset. So you kind of touched on, you know, you have to approach it in this particular way. Is there- Mm-hmm ... some advice you could offer us or, like, a, a question or prompt- Mm-hmm ... that kind of cues people to think about things in this way that would lead them to be successful with a wicked problem? Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah, so I would tell, I, and I tell teachers this all the time. So as you're getting ready to, to go down one of these roads, and let's just, um, use one that's simple that everybody talks about, either sustainability or the environment, right? Whatever, right? You know, that favorite salamander in the pond down the street is suddenly disappearing, right? So your conversation with those kiddos needs to start with somebody else, right? Because this is that big sort of global skill. We're always constantly trying to relate the content, what it is that we're doing to our kids, and at the end of the day, that is absolutely necessary, and it needs to be foundational. But if we really want our kids to work on something that's much, much, much deeper, we have to get them to think beyond themselves really quickly. The easiest way to do that is to say, "Hey, you know, we're about to lose the salamander in our pond on the edge of our elementary campus here. How do you think that that's gonna make the kid in the next state over feel? What do you think somebody else would think about that?" And that cues that sort of, I'm going to really think about something that's a little bit bigger than just me. And, you know, as a great educator, we're gonna bring it right back to the kids in our classroom as quickly as we can because that's gonna then give them the reason why they care about it, right? You start with the thing that's about the kid, but you immediately take it someplace else, and you bring it right back to do the work Lindsay Lyons: Oh, that's really cool. I like that it's, it's a both/and, right? That you Dr. Annalies Corbin: were- Exactly, yes. Yeah, yeah. Lindsay Lyons: Okay. This is super helpful, and super tangible- Mm-hmm ... 'cause anyone can apply that as- Dr. Annalies Corbin: Right ... Lindsay Lyons: to whatever lesson. Okay. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah. Lindsay Lyons: Great. So I love how tangible that was, and I'm wondering if there are other tangible kind of actions that teachers or even leaders- Mm-hmm um, can take as we encounter wicked problems in education systems or in, in lessons delivered to children. Like- Dr. Annalies Corbin: Sure ... Lindsay Lyons: yeah. Dr. Annalies Corbin: So one of the things that I will often talk with educators about, especially educators that are... Like, they're frustrated or they're tired. I mean, our incredible teachers are exhausted, absolutely exhausted right now. And so one of the things I hear from them frequently is, like, you know, "I really wanna change what's happening. Perhaps, you know, I don't really like this lesson," or, "My district has chosen this particular curriculum, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't... I'm not excited about it. My kids aren't excited about it." And I will often tell folks, and this is, this relates to the wicked problem because when we're gonna tackle something that's so big, so broad, so overly meaningful, it's really, really important that we, we, we tag it to something that matters to us. And so I will use the phrase teach your passion or help your kids find the things they love. What's their passion? So whatever that thing happens to be, tie it back to something that you care about because as soon as you care about it, your kids will care about it, right? And so I always want people to start there. Yes, I have to teach this unit about X, and I'm, you know, I'm interested in it. It's in my topic area. I trained for this. But do I love it? Maybe not. So how could I translate that into something that I love so that I can lead with the enthusiasm and the wonder that I wanna model for my students? They will pick up on that Lindsay Lyons: That makes so much sense. And I, I'm thinking about topics that if I were to teach them and be like, "Hmm, I don't..." I- if I could- Yeah ... connect it to my passion for like criticality and like- Yeah ... collective justice, right? Like, it would always make every single thing better and more interesting to me, and like- Dr. Annalies Corbin: Exactly. Lindsay Lyons: Oh, love Dr. Annalies Corbin: it. Exactly. And then the other thing that you're doing when we're doing that is you are fostering agency. And we know that classrooms that lead with agency, the, the level of engagement in those environments is, is exponential, right? There's so much incredible research that shows that, and yet we are often back to that wicked problem. The system that we're functioning in often does not let us either incorporate or honor or celebrate agency in ways that, as a practitioner on the ground, we know is just gonna make it all better. So by sort of s- shifting that narrative again, it's that journey we talked about earlier, let's shift the narrative a little bit so that you can in fact pull those things in even under the constraints that you have. What might it look like? It could be small. Doesn't have to be huge. Lindsay Lyons: Yeah, that makes me think of, you know, the intertwined nature of all this stuff, too. Right. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Mm-hmm. Y- Lindsay Lyons: you started at the top of the episode really talking about how wicked problems have no like one clear solution, and we have to have- Mm-hmm. Right? I think about adaptive challenges all the time. We're talking about the community members in that community working to offer the solution. Correct. And so how are we not leveraging the brilliance of the students and the teachers in these educational systems to adjust the system? Dr. Annalies Corbin: Right. Lindsay Lyons: Mm-hmm. And how do we design that system to be more, you know, offer more agency, provide more opportunities for agency? Is there any insight you have around how we do o- offer opportunities to kind of co-construct or, or collaborate to find those solutions and ways forward? Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah. Well, I get to ask this question a lot as well, and what I could tell you is that every opportunity that you get as an educator to sit down and co-design with your students, take it, right? I mean, it can be as simple as, "Hey, you know, we need..." I'm just gonna choose a very generic, we study the solar system K through 20, right? Um, it comes up over and over again, right? So whatever, whatever area I have to touch, where- wherever we are in that progression of my students, high school students, middle school students, elementary students, we're looking at that. You know, sit down and start with a simple question to your students, right, that is related to that lesson or that unit that I have to teach, and ask them what they know. And if it's crickets that you get, which sometimes it is, and it's not really because they don't know. We all know that. It's because they don't want to say, right, oftentimes, especially as our kiddos get a little bit older. Um, and so, you know, as we think about some of those things, you know, if we just step back and ask what we know, and when we don't know, just grab one of the things we have to touch on and say, "Okay, we have to learn about this. How would you propose we get there?" That's agency, right? And it doesn't t- you know, have to stray you too far. Other educators who are really, really comfortable with that co-design, man, it's as simple as here's the standard I have to hit, here's the topic we're trying to explore, here's how, you know, it's going to play a role in our bigger universal sort of queries that we're engaged in with it, whatever the topic or subject area happens to be. How are we gonna get there? What do you wanna demonstrate? What are you gonna show me? What do you wanna learn? And then, you know, those, those students are y- they're really learner-centered, right? They're student-directed in their entirety, and that's really, really freeing. But we have to scaffold not just our students, but we have to scaffold ourselves, and we have to scaffold our community to be willing to take and embrace that type of instruction Lindsay Lyons: For sure, right? 'Cause it's, it's totally a different way of teaching than many educators themselves were taught, right? So there's a shift. Correct. Correct. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Mm-hmm. Lindsay Lyons: Right. And I'm also thinking about all the work, uh, that I've been doing with history teachers in an inquiry pedagogy around- Yep ... like, how do you, when you launch a question or an inquiry cycle, and you say, "Okay, what questions do you have?" And then there's crickets, right? To your point- Right. Mm-hmm ... sometimes it is just, "I've never been asked, so I'm, I'm nervous to even say, 'cause that's not a typical question I get." Right. Right. But also, how are we scaffolding, to your point, right, of can we connect to background information? Can we leverage the experience that's already in the room, and can we expand- Dr. Annalies Corbin: Right. Right ... Lindsay Lyons: our connection, our connections. Yeah. So I think there's so much pedagogical, like, scaffolding that we can do as teachers to present that to students, but it's the possibility that you're painting is very exciting, that it happens. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Sure. Lindsay Lyons: People are doing it. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah. And, you know, there's all kinds of strategies, right, which is a completely different conversation. But there's all kinds of strategies to get students to engage in conversation, right? So if you've got a room of crickets, right, there's lots of things that you can do to sort of change that dynamic. And if you use those tools on a regular basis, your students will just get used to this is how this is gonna work, and we're going to engage, right? Because the individual teacher is not gonna let up until suddenly there's, there's a room filled with, you know, amazing conversation. So again, those are those little scaffolded opportunities, but they grow agency. Yeah. Lindsay Lyons: Absolutely. And I think another related thing, I think, is the kind of culture of appropriate levels of challenge, and what we do- Mm-hmm to coach resiliency in classes. Yeah. Right? Because if I'm a leader that says, "Okay, I want all of my teachers to make sure there's student-led conversations- Right ... and, you know, the students have all this agency," and then there's this challenge they're confronted with. The go-to for my classroom was always like, "Miss, Miss," you know? And I would have to run over and support. Right. And then I realized that's not helpful. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. We can coach resiliency. So can you tell us a little bit about, about that, about how that works or what we can do to, to grow resilience or how that's connected to what we've been talking about? Dr. Annalies Corbin: You know, again, I think the, the, the scaffolding is really important, right? And I also think that the other, the other thing is making sure that we know who our learners are. That's part of agency, but it's also part of that cultural responsiveness, um, that as an educator we also wanna roll in. Um, you know, and so- Some of that is we have to scaffold the collective set of experiences. It's not so-- You know, it's not scaffolding one thing or another. It's not, you know, transitioning my classroom to be entirely problem-based pedagogy, for example, right? That's big. That's a huge, huge lift, right? Especially if all I do all the time is nothing but wicked problems. That's, that's a lot. It can be overwhelming for everybody involved. So I think that the, the, the, the really key is to say, "We're gonna take this in bite size." Is we're gonna start by knowing who am I learned... Who's in this class? Who's, who's sitting in front of me? Who am I trying, um, to be that facilitator of learning for? Um, and if I understand who's, who's in here with me, right, then we can start to build the small building blocks that will lead to resilience. But if we just l- l- leap in, you know, o- one big thing, too many, it, it'll crash and burn really hard. I, I always tell people, you know, I-- Folks who, who hear me speak frequently, they, they know the different pieces and parts even that I'm connecting here because I, I feel so strongly about them. I call them the five Kevlar threads. Um, you know, and these, these pieces and parts. And I tell folks, "If you're not doing these things automatically in your classroom, it's just not innate for you, don't try to do them all at once. You'll drown. Your kids will drown." Um, and so, you know, if you wanna build resilience, start with the small pieces that you can just do right out of the gate. And practice. Just do it often Lindsay Lyons: Can you tell us more about those, those threads that you just referenced? Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah. So the five Kevlar threads. Uh, that's t- that's tied to, um, I have a book called, um, Hacking School: uh, Five Strategies to Link Learning to Life. And, and all that that really is is, like, about 25 years of going and working with really, really incredible schools or teachers or programs around the world, and just trying to understand the ones that are really, really phenomenal. Something happens. Either they sustain, they're around 10 years or so later, and they just keep going, and they get better and better. But most really amazing innovations tend to die pretty quickly, and that happens for a variety of real and tangible reasons, but I was really curious about the ones that, that really, really stick. Are there some commonalities? Are there some common threads? And what I found is that the ones that really last a long time, they have, they all have these five things. They have other things because they're all locally derived, right? They're, they're, they are about the community in which they're, they're functioning, but they have these five. So the first one is agency, right? That it is, uh, agency led. The second is that they are culturally relevant or responsive, whichever term you prefer to use. But basically, it's, I know, I know who my community is. I know who my kids are. My kids know who I am, right? We have this mutual respect about the humans in the middle, right? So I'm gonna give you autonomy, agency. I'm gonna help you build resilience and grit and all of those pieces and parts, but I'm also have a deep understanding of who you are, and you understand me, right? Um, and the things that we're gonna teach, we're gonna find a way collectively to make them relevant to you And then the third one is mastery. That idea of competency. We're gonna let go of that, that old school traditional seat time and say, "Hey, you know, if, if Annalise needs, you know, uh, extra time to understand this concept, then I'm gonna honor her need to dig a little bit deeper to understand." So mastery, which is defined lots of different ways too, most of these terms are. Um, the fourth one then for us is transdisciplinary. Uh, transdisciplinary teaching and learning, and that's just the idea of stop teaching in silos, right? That's not how the world works. It is one of the things that students today are pushing against the most, even if it's not articulated. We're not having it in traditional education conversation necessarily. But it is the thing when you actually sit down and do a lot of research with the students, with the learners, you hear them. They don't use that term, of course, but what they'll tell you is, "I don't understand what this has to do with me. The world doesn't look like this." And that's exactly what they mean, right? We don't go to math class and then to learn math, right? Solely for... I mean, that's not what the world looks like, and then somebody rings a bell, and I move on to something else. That's not authentic in any way, shape, or form. And then the fifth one for us is problem-based, and that gets to that wicked problem sort of structure. And it's that idea that if we could take all of that and we can roll it into a very applied, hands-on, deep opportunity to spend time with something, that it's gonna be meaningful because it will address all those other four things we just talked about, and it will. Um, and so there is a progression if folks don't have those elements in that we recommend, but that's just what I've seen over many years. And it was just really that realization that the things that stick, they have all five, and they're doing them. It's part of their DNA. It's not, "Oh, I forgot about mastery today." Lindsay Lyons: Wow, okay. Those are so good and comprehensive and connected to so many things that we talk about on the podcast. Yeah, yeah. I'm curious, is there, like, a particular one that is most challenging for folks? Or is there a challenge in general that as people are trying to do this work that you're- Mm-hmm ... noticing, "Oh, this one's, this one's big"? And then what do you tell them when- Yeah ... you notice that? Dr. Annalies Corbin: It, that's an interesting question because what, what educators will tell you who are like, "I really wanna do this, but I don't know where to start," it's fascinating. They'll tell you, "Oh, I can't do mastery. W- uh, you know, we're not allowed to do that. It's not acceptable here. You know, we still issue grades in the traditional sense." And so the, the internal perception is that mastery is the hardest because it requires a policy change, but that's not actually true. Yes, comprehensive mastery will more than likely in most places require some type of policy shift. But in your individual classroom, you could do mastery, you can be mastery-based in your classroom and still give a grade, right? So, so that's one of those disconnects that I see a lot. The one that's truly probably the hardest at implementation is transdisciplinary, and that's a systems problem. Um, educators will often be more than happy to embrace that. I find that it gets more difficult as you move up in the curriculum, so the closer you get to high school, because we love our silos in high school. We love them. I cherish it. You know, I'm the science teacher. I'm the English teacher. Don't you dare touch my content. And that's a huge, um... it's a mistake, and it's a disconnect, right? But that's a structural thing, right? We've built that. We've created that haves have the nots, wills will not sort of ecosystem, and we're, we're, um, we're continuing it to our own detriment, honestly, because that's not saying that there's not value in all of those individual topics or content at all. That's not the case. What we're saying is do them together, right? You know, why don't you have an integrated, you know, science and social studies or science and ELA? Teach them together. The minute you do that, it changes everything, and it, it saves a ton of money at a systems level, right, when you do that. It's super, super more cost-effective too. Lindsay Lyons: Oh my gosh, there's so, there's so much possibility here. Yeah. And I know that schools are, some schools are doing this too- Yes, Dr. Annalies Corbin: yeah ... Lindsay Lyons: that it is viable, and it's just- Yes, Dr. Annalies Corbin: yes ... Lindsay Lyons: we are stuck so much in how we've always done things, it's hard to break out. Mm-hmm. And, and you mentioned that if, if people didn't have, uh, these five elements, that you said that you recommend things to, to do- Mm-hmm like a progression. I'm not sure if that's, uh, at, at the start, or that's to kind of counter not having any one of those. Is that, like, what they would do immediately to get started? Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah. I mean, basically, you know, I have educators ask me all the time, "Okay, I wanna make this shift, but I don't even know where to start." And I'll, I will tell them, "We're gonna start with agency." Mm-hmm. You know, I wrote them in a particular order in the book for a reason. You know, if you don't do these things, just start, start at the beginning, and just work your way through, because they truly do build on each other, right? Agency says, you know, I'm gonna, I'm gonna give you cho- you know, voice and choice. We often talk about it that way. It's, it's more than that, obviously, but that's, that's the phrasing that lots of folks are familiar with. Just start right there, because suddenly now I've empowered an individual. And then the next thing is I'm gonna understand who that individual is and why that's powerful to them, right? And so that gets you into that sort of cultural relevancy, if you will. And so there is a progression to it, so if you're not doing it, just start, start working your way down, right? Lindsay Lyons: I love that, and I love just the tangible nature of, you know, get to know the pe- your people, right? Mm-hmm. So if you're a teacher, get to know your students. I also love the, um, I used to work for a network that talked about one learning model for all, so the same things teachers do with students, leaders can do with teachers- Mm-hmm ... and teachers can do with one another. Right, Dr. Annalies Corbin: right. Lindsay Lyons: So this idea of, like, leaders get to know your teachers, right? And it's the whole- Dr. Annalies Corbin: Exactly, exactly. Well, you know, for years I, I used to, and I, I do it every once in a while, I still get asked to do it, but y- I don't, I don't see it on the same scale anymore. But I used to do this program, I called it Cultural Baggage. I'm an anthropologist and an educator, right? So it's my background. And so I used to do, do this program, and we would do it with kids, we would do it in the summer, or we would do it during the academic year. And several times over the years, I had, uh, either a building or a whole district say, "Hey, would you come and run Cultural Baggage program with us? We wanna do it at the beginning of the year. We wanna do it as just part of our onb- you know, our, our launching of the new year with, with our teachers." And I would go into these places, and the first thing that I quickly discovered is teachers didn't know each other's names. Right? So if I only know you, right, as Ms. Lyons or Ms. Corbin or Mr. Smith or whatever, and that's what the expectation is that the kids call their teacher, fine, whatever works, right? But I have no idea who you are, then how can I possibly know who my learners are? I just have never bothered, and you've been teaching across the hall from me. But it was remarkable how many teachers didn't know the first names of the other teachers in their own buildings, much less across a district. And I said, "This is a systemic problem It's things like that, right? It's things like that. Lindsay Lyons: Wow. That blows my mind a little bit, but that, I could see how that could happen with- Yeah the mind that you do. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Mm-hmm. Lindsay Lyons: Wow. Okay. So we have talked about so many things. Thank you so much for all of the, the wisdom that you- Sure ... brought, like big picture as well as tangible, like, what can I do today? Love that. Yeah. Um, I am curious, especially because you're a researcher, I bet you are actively just learning lots of things. Mm-hmm. So what is something that you have been learning about lately? So I know you said you published your book. You're just starting to- Mm-hmm ... like bring all this- Yeah ... research together. It could be related to this. It could also be not related to work at all, it's just something you're learning about. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Yeah, so I mean, some of the things that... So I love technology, love technology, right? I- it's one of those things. I love the tools. I love the application. I love trying to understand, A, how does it work? How could I use it for something it wasn't designed for? Um, and so of course, you know, there's so many conversations right now around AI, especially in schools. And so one of the things, so I am trying them all, like everything, and not just like tangible, I'm gonna try it, but I'm gonna use it deeply and understand what I can do with it and what I can't do with it. Um, because I think that's really, really important, you know, in a space where, you know, educators and, a- and administrators are saying, "We don't even know what to do with this thing. We, we believe that it's about to cause this sort of rampant dysfunction somehow." And I think about it, you know, in, again, that researcher brain, I think back to when the internet showed up. Well, we had the exact same conversation then that we're having now. It was, "Oh my gosh, you know, students aren't gonna go to the library anymore. They can look anything up online. It's gonna be rampant cheating. It's gonna be," you know, so on and so forth. And we have to approach all of these things with great caution, absolutely, but we also have to approach these things with an understanding of what it actually is, right? And the world is changing, and our kids are deeply enmeshed, deeply enmeshed. So we need to understand that from their perspective. So for me, like, that's one of the things that I'm, that, uh, you know, I'm spending a lot of time just trying to understand and learn, and I love to learn, so. Lindsay Lyons: Yeah. Thank you so much for that. I think there are a lot of people grappling with that as of the time. Oh, Dr. Annalies Corbin: yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Lindsay Lyons: Yeah. Okay, so people are gonna want to maybe get your book, connect with you- Mm-hmm ... learn more about you. Where can people go to do that? Dr. Annalies Corbin: So the easiest way to get information is gonna be at pastfoundation.org, P-A-S-T foundation.org. Um, and you can go there, and you can get information about me. You can get information about the things that we do, um, uh, about, about the book Hacking School: 5 Strategies to Link Learning to Life. You can also get that at, you know, Barnes & Noble or Amazon, wherever you, you wanna buy books. Um, but we also have a whole, um, asynchronous, um, as well as, um, some, some non-online options around. Like, if you wanna do a deep dive into some of those, those pieces and parts as an individual educator, you can do that. You can we- you can join our research community, um, our community of practice that we- We have around all the Hacking School ecosystem. Um, you can, we can come, you know, to your school or your district. Um, we engage very deeply in lots of different ways, um, across the educational spectrum. So just reach out. Um, you can find me anywhere @AnaliseCorbin on pretty much all the different social channels if you're so inclined, so . Awesome. Lindsay Lyons: Dr. Corbin, thank you so much for today. Really appreciate your time in this conversation. Dr. Annalies Corbin: Oh, thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed it. 
Listen to the episode by clicking the link to your preferred podcast platform below:
In this solo episode, host Lindsay explores change leadership theories and their implications for educational settings, including staff discourse around change initiatives. She focuses on how these strategies support transformative growth towards educational equity and justice.
Lindsay draws on her work experience with the Department of Education in Massachusetts to support turnaround schools that are designated for support, as well as her scholarship background through her PhD research in leadership and change. Why? Change leadership is critical in any strategic planning conversation, especially for schools with turnaround status. Understanding change leadership theories and practices can enable schools to navigate complex challenges while fostering equity and justice. What? Lindsay draws on her 2018 PhD dissertation to compile this curated list of education-related change theories that can support educators in your unique context. You can access her entire published thesis here, in which these four frameworks are expanded on in pages 36-41. Noting that adaptive leadership is an important framework embedded into the following — and expanded on in podcast episode 267 — these are four frameworks that help educators navigate change leadership.
Drawing on these theories — each of which are expanded on in the episode — Lindsay concludes that there are three critical components that any leader needs for effective change leadership:
Key Takeaway Discourse is the tool we use to move from dialogue and discussion to decision-making. To facilitate this type of discourse and live out leadership theories, we should build out the culture and grow relationships, dive into hard conversation, seek out different viewpoints, and stay focused on shared values. To help you implement today’s takeaways, I’m sharing my Discourse Analysis Framework with you for free. And, if you’re looking for more details on the ideas in this blog post, listen to episode 265 of the Time for Teachership podcast. If you’re unable to listen or you prefer to read the full episode, you can find the transcript below. Quotes:
If you enjoyed this episode, check out my YouTube channel where you can learn about more tips and resources like this one below:
TRANSCRIPT
Lindsay Lyons: Welcome back to another episode of the Time for Teachership podcast. This is episode 265, and today we're talking about change leadership theories and the implications for staff discourse around change initiatives. For context, my work with the Department of Education in Massachusetts, called DESE, with Turnaround Schools, uh, which are designated for support, um, and just my background in strategic planning, my scholarship background in leadership and change. My doctorate comes out of Antioch University, which focuses on leadership and change across many disciplines. Obviously, mine was education. Um, really wanna kind of think about how a theory of change has been important for schools and strategic planning, particularly those in Turnaround status. And what I'm hoping to do is bring you a curated list of education-relevant change leadership theories to support that transformational growth that you're pursuing in your context, um, towards equ- educational equity and justice. So here we go. Let's take a look at some frameworks I'll name that what I'm doing is actually reading a lot of times, which sounds silly, but I, I think is hopefully better than reinventing the wheel here. From my published dissertation, so that's a 2018 publication that you can find online. I will link to it in the blog post for this episode, located at lindsaybethlyons.com/blog/265. And really, I'm reading from that literature review chapter, pages 36 through 41. If you're at all interested in finding those resources, there's of course, uh, citations at the end that you can go dig deeper into it. We are going to talk about the following frameworks today: social justice leadership, inclusive leadership, which is also connected to relational leadership, positive leadership, and shared leadership. I also talk a lot about adaptive leadership. There's actually another episode coming about adaptive leadership, kind of change leadership connected and discourse connected as well. That's gonna be Episode 267. So we won't touch on adaptive leadership quite as much here, but know that it is integral and, and kind of embedded in a lot of these, and very, um, complementary. There we go. Okay. So first, social justice leadership. The theory of social justice leadership posits leaders strive to deepen their awareness of societal injustice and act to eliminate it. So Preskill and Brookfield are two scholars here in this, uh, leadership theory. They have published a couple different books that are helpful, one, Learning as a Way of Leading, and I cannot remember the other one, but it's about discussion and teaching. And so they named supporting the growth of others as one of the tenets of social justice leadership. And so while leaders are expected to grow, so too are the members. This is relevant for, uh, students as well as staff. They point out social justice leaders are often, um, open to the contributions of others. They reflect critically on their own practice, as well as ideas of collective leadership, learning democracy, and creating community. The, quote, "Care and concern for vulnerable, marginalized, disenfranchised, and disadvantaged populations," end quote, is a priority for social justice leaders. This comes from Noble, published in 2015. And Noble insists that leaders in their communities have to examine the underlying issues of social problems. So think root cause analysis here, very popular in strategic planning initiatives. And she says to do this effectively, social justice leaders need to understand really important terms, so things like privilege, oppression, cultural salience, intersectionality, critical consciousness, and social equity. So there needs to be kind of a building of that knowledge. She also says, um, I'm sorry, Preskill and Brookfield say that social justice leadership involves analyzing institutions, so we're not just at the individual level. We have to understand those institutions and analyze those. But to do this, leaders have to examine the dynamics of power and privilege and ask what stories are not being told in order to obtain a deeper understanding of the situation. They posit social justice leadership is like Gramsci's notion of an organic intellectual, in that leaders are members of an oppressed group that work to empower their community. So thinking a lot about this dissertation was written for student leadership, but also thinking about teacher leadership, family leadership. So having that shared leadership connection where everyone has the potential work of a leader. And so Gramsci's work stems from Marx, so that work is in direct response to the unequal distribution of resources and power within a capitalist society. And so the most important component of social justice leadership really is the redistribution of power. Uh, George Theo Harris actually talks about how leadership is-- that's not focused on and successful at creating more just and equitable schools for marginalized students is indeed not good leadership. So this is really, um, the, the moral compass here. Uh, Brookfield and Preskill I wanted to also name. They say that the essence of dialogue, which we're gonna connect to at the end here, is entering a conversation in which ideas will be questioned and explored with a willingness to change one's mind. They claim, quote, "Discussion and democracy are inseparable because both have the same root purpose: to nurture and promote human growth." End quote. I absolutely love this. Um, this is, you know, I think at the heart of all that we do here on the podcast, but I think a lot of your central missions are social justice oriented. So I really wanted to name that those big higher level kind of like critiquing systems of power, that is part of a leadership theory. Embed that in your theory of change if that feels helpful to you. I imagine it does to anyone who's engaging with this podcast. All right, next piece. So we have, uh, inclusive leadership. There's several theorists around here. I draw a lot on Lisa Boysen, who is the, uh, one of my prof- was one of my professors at Antioch University, and so she defines inclusive leadership as an ongoing cycle of learning through collaborative and respectful relational practice that enables individuals and collectives to be fully part of the whole, such that they are directed, aligned, and committed towards shared outcomes for the common good of all, while retaining a sense of authenticity and uniqueness. And that's that direct quote and definition. Um, Pless and Mack are two other scholars in this space, and they say, you know, inclusive leadership is built on a foundation of recognizing difference and requires reciprocal understanding, standpoint plurality, which is really like we value diverse perspectives, knowledge, and experiences. These are actually critical for understanding society and what's going on, and the particularly folks at the margins are the ones to offer those unique insights that are going to help us understand collectively what is going on and what is the path forward. So again, hearkening to that shared leadership, like we can figure out this thing together, which is what adaptive leadership says, right? It says these big, sticky, complex problems, you can't solve those with one leader saying, "This is what we're doing." It has to be a group effort. Um, back to Pless and Mack's, uh, things that are required for inclusive leadership. They say also, uh, it has to be mutually enabling, the, the foundation. Um, there has to be trust, integrity, and an overarching inter- intercultural moral point of view that is centered on democracy, empathy, and moral awareness. So again, audience members, I believe that this is you, right? You center democracy, empathy, and kind of this moral compass that is really critical for this type of leadership. Um, Boysen notes that inclusive leadership involves collaboratively co-constructing an organizational value frame. Do we have shared values? Many of us do. And leveraging diversity so everyone can be comfortably him or her, or I would add them, theirselves. In schools, um, Ryan, another publication and author, um, asserts policies should promote inclusion, and the process to make school policies should be inclusive, again, hearkening to shared leadership. This concept of inclusive leadership is highly relational in nature, and so therefore, relational leadership theories come into play as well. Relational leadership posits that growth happens in connection with others. This is a concept from Jean Baker Miller. A lot of these names, just noting, I have only ever read them and I've not heard them spoken, so I'm hoping I'm pronouncing everyone's name correctly, um, which posits this idea of growth and connection, posits growth occurs through relationships with others. Like, that's actually how we grow. So she underscores growth is rooted in mutuality and empowerment, and if it's successful, actually, members are gonna reap these five benefits, which I love: zest, empowered action, increased self-esteem, new knowledge, and a desire for more connection. So it is, like, fulfilling itself, which is super, super cool. Fletcher, who writes about this a lot, um, talks about dialogue, uh, where... Excuse me. Cunliffe and Erickson talk about dialogue whereby participants recognize and work through difference. Fletcher talks about how we have to have kind of this willingness to learn, or in relational leadership, we demonstrate a rel- a willingness to learn from others, and that is actually gonna en- enhance, as a leader, our relational capital. So yeah, this is really similar to adaptive leadership, where it's, it's really about the process more than the final destination. Like, how do we engage with everyone? Um, relational leadership, again, adopts that concept of shared leadership, where we have power with rather than power over. We'll talk about that a little bit, um, later on in the episode. So basically, this idea of inclusive and relational leadership are kind of ways of being in the world with relational integrity, relational mindfulness, and relational agility, and that comes from Cunliffe and Erickson. Additionally, Beck, another author in the space, contends remaining in caring relationships is actually one of the three activities of care after hearing others' perspectives and responding to the new insights gained. So we wanna deeply listen, we wanna respond to what we learn, and we need to maintain those caring relationships. Really critical, particularly during change leadership. Okay, let's go to positive leadership. Cameron is one of the leaders in this field. So they describe positive leadership as having three orientations: positively deviant performance, so we look for what is good. Where is the positive deviant? Not working in most places, well where is it working and how is that happening, right? And let's learn from that. Affirmative bias, which is a focus on strengths rather than deficits, and facilitating the best of the human condition. So he wrote about four strategies to promote positive leadership. First, a positive climate is full of compassion, forgiveness, and gratitude. So we have to kind of build that up. Positive relationships, uh, according to Dutton and Regan, are a source of, quote, "enrichment, vitality, and learning." End quote. Cameron noted studies of successful organizations indicate high-performing organizations employ positive communication. And this harkens back to some marriage research , I believe, of making five positive statements for every one negative statement, and balancing the ratio of inquiry and advocacy statements. So think about how many times we say, "This is my point of view," right? We actually have to make sure that to be, um, in this positive organization or high-performing organization, we have to balance the number of times we ask a question and take an inquiry stance with the amount of times we say, "Hey, I think this is what we should do," or, "Here's my thought," right? I'm advocating for something. Um, also needs to be in balance other-focused and self-focused statements. So if we're always saying me, me, me or I, I, I, we need to balance that out with more other-focused language. Additionally, um, they found that members were more engaged and exchanged more information when communication was positive. So this is, just to clarify, this is not that Pollyanna, everything is good, we always have to be having fun. This is that true balance, um, of, of the, you know, inquiry and the advocacy. It is thinking about compassion, forgiveness, gratitude. That means sometimes things are hard, but we are holding onto this. We are holding onto what is working. We are strengths-based more than we are deficit-based. That does not mean that we don't confront challenges or name the challenges. We have to, right? But I just wanna clarify that this is not just like rah-rah all the time. That is not what this theory is about. Um, strategies for delivering feedback include, and I love this, this comes from Laura Morgan Roberts, who was also one of my professors, um, the reflected best self. So this is where a person asks 20 people to share stories of when they remember them at their best. So cool. I mean, just that activity of thinking about asking 20 people, w- h- when, "Remember me when I was at my best and tell me that story." So cool. Very strengths-based, right? And you could do that for your staff. You could do that with students. You could do that with a lot of people. Um, and supportive communication is another strategy for delivering feedback in which the critical feedback is given in a way that describes behavior and suggests solutions without judgment. That comes from Rogers. Finally, positive meaning is integral to organizational success. So Cameron insisted the purpose of the organization should actually be to build a supportive community and improve the wellbeing of as many people as possible. The related field of positive change contributes additional strategies for organizational and personal growth, like appreciative inquiry. So again, trying to find that positive deviance, wondering what's going well. Um, this is from, uh, Cooperrider and Sri- Srivastava, Srivastava, excuse me. And the awesome, like, reframe of SWOT analysis, so where we have strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, becomes SOAR, uh, strengths, opportunities, aspirations, results. Love that. Love that shift. So if you are doing a SWOT analysis in your strategic planning, try a SOAR analysis instead and see what happens. Appreciative inquiry. Um, so basically building on the strengths of the organizations to further develop. Okay, that brings us to our final leadership theory, which is shared leadership. So the concept of shared leadership first appeared in the writings of Mary Parker Follett. Follett? I'm not sure. Anyways, it's quite interesting to me that she is only cited one time in Jackson and Perry's seemingly comprehensive leadership book published in 2011. Aside from a quick mention of ancient Rome, Jackson and Perry referenced James MacGregor Burns as the oldest citation relating to a shared process of leadership. In 1978, Burns wrote, "The leadership approach tends often unconsciously to be elitist. It projects heroic figures against the shadowy background of drab, powerless masses." End quote. While his critique of the stark imbalance of power inherent in traditional leadership certainly contributed to the growth of collective leadership and shared leadership, Follett was writing about the value of sharing power with followers over half a century earlier. So this misattribution may be a sign of the perpetual mental model that men are leadership experts, or perhaps it's a disdain for, quote, "women's work", seeing as Follett's largest contributions were geared toward community organizations rather than the management of large corporations. It's probably a combination of the two. In Follett's book in 1924 called Creative Experience, she addressed conceptions of power and the process of leadership and decision-making. She started by asserting, quote, "Genuine power is not coercive control, but co-active control. Coercive power is the curse of the universe. Co-active power, the enrichment and advancement of every human soul." End quote. Falla insisted the best way to address conflict is through what she called creative integration she said, quote, "The object is not to do away with differences, but to do away with muddle." So let's get clear, right? She argued that conflict is necessary to identifying various stakeholders' desires. Throughout the book, she reiterated, quote, "The experience of all is necessary to democracy." End quote. She insisted on the benefits of integration rather than compromise, noting integration has the ability to reduce loss and increase gain for everybody, as no one is giving up what they desire. And this is huge when we're gonna note adaptive leadership's role here, too. They talk a lot about resistance as loss. If you're facing a lot of resistance from some sort of initiative or new policy, there may be loss there, and we have to name that and address it and confront that as full human beings, right? And she's saying that actually, if we wanna just reduce the feelings of loss, we want integration rather than compromise. I think this is why I've been so interested in discourse lately and ways to get away from the binary, like it has to be this or this, right? No, what can ... What is a new path forward? And that's kind of what she's talking about here. Creative integration requires imagination, right? She says that creative integration begins with the organization's vision, and the process is of the utmost importance, so again, process over product. In what she deems to be the most important sentence of the book, she insisted opportunities, quote, "Should be provided for integration to take place normally." End quote. So this should not just be for strategic planning. It should be in how we live out school and how we do leadership. Follett warned, quote, "The suggestion box is not a democratic device, although often so-called. Democracy does not register various opinions. It is an attempt to create unity." End quote. She insisted diverse stakeholders come together to cooperatively gather and analyze information, relate the information to each person's life, and create new ideas that meet all stakeholders' desires. Love it. All individuals must contribute to the process, so then, quote, "We cannot stand outside and judge the purpose of the state. We ourselves become part of that purpose." End quote. Right? If you embed stakeholders in the creation of the policy or the way forward, we are a team now. We can't stand outside and criticize it. I love that point she makes. She adds, "Stakeholders have a duty to constantly develop and grow." She believed a great leader is a true representative and emphasized, quote, "We should send our representatives not to win a victory but to come to some agreement on the basis of an enlarged understanding on both sides." End quote. If you've been listening to me talk about discourse lately, this is exactly what all the discourse scholars say. The purpose of discourse is that we come together to enlarge our understanding, to deepen our thinking, to think something new that we could not have thought about alone. So herein lies the power of her term power with, which she used to refer to the democratic power generated through freeing each other of static beliefs to work collaboratively to integrate individual desires and create benefiting all parties She stated the concept of power with, quote, "Takes time, and education, and training to develop. It involves a process, and a slow process. It is concerned with neither granting power nor grabbing power, but with evolving power. Opportunity must be given for this process." End quote. She once again refuted the notion of zero-sum power when she stated, quote, "First, by pooling power, we are not giving it up. And secondly, the power produced by relationship is a qualitative, not a quantitative thing." End quote. Gosh, she's brilliant. While she admitted integration is more difficult than simply choosing a side, she wrote in her conclusion that confronting and integrating desires, quote, "Means a freeing for both sides, an increased total power or increased capacity in the world." End quote. Shared leadership by nature promotes flat organizations as better than hierarchical ones. Jackson and Perry discussed shared leadership within their chapter on critical leadership perspectives, identifying the model as one whose purpose is to disrupt traditional power structures. Reister et al. and Theo Harris argue that principals need the skills to empower staff through setting up collaborative and shared decision-making structures that allow sta- staff time and space to craft their practice. A shared leadership model, quote, "Rejects the distinction between leaders and followers." That's from Jackson and Perry. Jackson and Perry noted there is a continuum of shared leadership that extends on the, quote, "Radical end" to Jeffrey Neilson's idealized model of, quote, "Peer-based communities", and Carson, Tesluk, and Morone determine three attributes of teams that facilitate the development of shared leadership. One, members share a commitment to a common goal. Two, they receive emotional support from one another. And three, they feel their individual voices are valued. So important in a class as well as a staff. Their review noted shared leadership can lead to positive results. They, quote, "Found that teams relying on multiple members for leadership performed better than those in which internal leadership was relatively scarce." End quote. And additionally, they wrote, quote, "When team members feel recognized and supported within their team," like social support, "they are more willing to share responsibility, cooperate, and commit to the team's collective goals." End quote. Right? So that recognition, that support from their team, that social support is so critical. If we have it, people are more willing to share the responsibility of pursuing the goal, cooperate with others, and commit to the goal itself. That is so huge So in synthesis, what I did in my dissertation was say, "Hey, these are three competencies that after reading through all of that stuff, I think student leaders should have." And I would also argue teachers and family leaders and administrative leaders, all leaders should have. And these are, three things are critical awareness, inclusivity, and positivity. So critical awareness I defined as reflecting on, understanding, and questioning positive and negative attributes of oneself and society in order to foster equity and growth. Inclusivity closely mirrors Boyton's definition, which is enabling all members to fully participate and learn from each other. And positivity, which is applying a strengths-based lens to facilitate growth and enable flourishing. Absolutely love that word, flourishing. Now, how is this all connected to discourse? Well, discourse really is the place where we grapple with all of this stuff and do the shared leadership. Like, shared leadership was my entry into this, and now discourse is kind of like the how. Okay, we're all together at the table, now how do we actually talk about this stuff and move from dialogue to discussion to decision-making together? 'Cause that is a process, right? You can't just put everybody in a room and then say go, which is what I probably thought like eight years ago when I started this journey. So connecting to discourse, again, Brookfield and Preskill from Social Justice Leadership say that discourse helps learners explore the diversity of perspectives, increases awareness of and tolerance for ambiguity or complexity, right? How intolerant are we as a society of ambiguity and complexity? I would say very intolerant right now. We wanna increase our tolerance for that. It also shows respect for learner voices and experiences, affirms learners as co-creators of knowledge, leads to transformation, and requires humility. You'll see a lot of or hear a lot of learning language in there, um, that learner language used to be students, and I tried to shift that language to think about, like, learners in general So that's staff, that could also be students. The goal of discourse, uh, makes me think of this Bella et al 1991 publication, where they say democracy means paying attention. I love that. Uh, they also talk about how really it's being aware of the whole conversation. So I just love this idea of democracy means paying attention. Whoa. Um, the context, uh, I think that I have in my head too, right, is one of equity and social justice, where Bell Hooks talks about, in her 1994 publication, she talks about how, you know, the privileged students in a class know that their opinions count, right? They might be the frequent talkers, right? They believe that they have a right to say whatever. Working class students are told not to speak, right? And she's saying you need to be aware of that dynamic because we need to disrupt it. And she says, you know, we really need to treat students as whole human beings. That's her quote, "whole human beings." Right? So I think the same goes for staff. We treat them as whole human beings, right? We treat people in general as whole human beings, and we recognize the power dynamics at play. Um, Cornel West has talked about, uh, the barrier of t- to dialogue, which is that he says, "Dialogue is lost due to obsession with power." Right? So if we are obsessed with power, and I mean even in a smaller sense, thinking about, not smaller sense, but different sense, thinking about the teacher who doesn't wanna let c- c- control go, right? I don't wanna let go of control 'cause then my class is gonna get out of whack and, like, n- I'll never be able to regain order or calm, right? I mean, one, that's like a very compliance-centered philosophy, but also, um, like that fear, right, is going to actually inhibit true dialogue, which is an interesting thing to think about. Similarly, at the leadership level. Okay. So now what do you do? Let's wrap this up. Let's think about what are the go-to steps. So action steps to facilitate this type of discourse and live out these leadership theories: One, we gotta build the culture. So build and continue to grow relationships. This connects to our relational leadership concept, specifically that idea, uh, from Jean Baker Miller, the growth in connection. We have to have those foundational relationships. We can't just dive into a hard conversation. Two, we need to prompt the seeking out and sharing of different viewpoints. I think of James Nottingham's work, and we had a podcast episode with him earlier. Um, but thinking about that idea of inclusive leadership as well, is that we need those different viewpoints, right? Folks at the margins are gonna have a unique experience that's valuable for everyone to understand the whole thing, the what's going on, what's the way forward, right? We need that thinking, and so we need to prompt people. I'm thinking also of Maria Nichols' idea around discourse, um, where she talks about how we need to value and cultivate the valuing of diverse perspectives. We need to think about how our thinking has shifted, and if it-- we've realized that it hasn't, then we need to make sure that we are going out and finding new perspectives to, to deepen it. A positive communication ratio of five to one, that comes from the positive leadership theories. Appreciative inquiry, also coming from positive leadership theory. So we need to make sure that our, uh, questioning stance, right, our seeking out of the positive deviance is present when we're doing all of these analyses of, of what's happening currently and where we go next. We need to make sure that we lay the discourse foundation. I've talked before about baseline understandings, um, which brilliant guests on the pod have shared, and shared team values. If you don't have them, we should have them, right? So baseline understandings being like, "Here's what we agree to, and here's what is not up for debate because we believe X," you know, whatever X is. Um, this aligns to inclusive leadership's moral grounding, I think. Remember, that was democracy, empathy, and moral awareness were key components of inclusive leadership. So if that's true for you, I think that's the move, is to make sure that you agree on your shared team values and come up with some baseline understandings, right? We need the shared goal. That was present in many of these leadership theories, and we can't just, like, have a goal that a couple people contribute to. We have to truly all believe in the goal and co-create the way that we get to the goal, right? The baseline understandings, the shared values, the team agreements for discussion. We need to build critical consciousness and knowledge of systems, power, oppression, to be able to analyze them, right? Thinking about that social justice leadership framework. We can either co-create or select together a framework that exists or maybe, like, a lenses chart of, you know, what are these different lenses or ways of thinking? What are these constructs that we need to learn and build awareness of, um, and use when making decisions and having discourse and dialogue We need purposeful prompts and protocols. So there's so much. If you, if you go back to last, I think last July, 2025, I think July, there were so many leaders on talking about how to facilitate staff meetings and different protocols for different purposes that align with, you know, the various types of discourse. So dialogue, discussion, decision-making. They are brilliant. I would check them out, return there. Um, but we have to know, are we in dialogue where we're seeking to understand? Are we in discussion mode where we're defining success criteria or analyzing potential impacts of, you know, action steps or plans moving forward? Or are we in decision-making where we just need to come to consensus and, and do the thing, right? We need to figure out where we're going. I think that typically it's an arc, but it doesn't always go linearly, dialogue, discussion, decision-making. Sometimes you kind of hop around, but in general it feels like an arc to me. Um, and I, I would say don't underestimate the power of dialogue, right? Relational positive leadership, both of these theories say that this is critical. We need to just truly, deeply listen to each other. I would also think about the prompt for discussion. A free resource is coming soon, uh, maybe in a couple episodes, for you to consider how you would reframe away from, like, a, "Do we like this policy, yes or no?" to more of, like, e- embracing different avenues for conversation that are gonna deepen our understanding and help us come to a better consensus, um, rather than pit one group against another, which is not usually helpful. I would also say that, I mean, regularly, in addition to at the end of any discourse opportunity, appreciate one another. What did you appreciate about your peers as you engaged in conversation? Like, name it. That's part of positive leadership, and it is also gonna contribute to your five-to-one positive to challenging ratio. Um, and, you know, if you have time, how cool, do a reflected best self activity. So again, stories. To ask 20 people, it doesn't even need to be 20, but ask people, different people in your life, it could be colleagues, it could be friends, family. Encourage people to put together their stories of when they were at their best and, like, share that with people. What a cool share that would be. Okay, I have talked a lot in this episode. Way more, uh, scholarly and read-y than usual, but would love to hear your thoughts. Let me know if this was interesting to you. Let me know if this was not helpful for you. Uh, I will link to the various things that I cited and referenced verbally in the blog post for this episode, which once again is located at... Where are we located? Lindseybethlyons.com/blog/265. And I also just wanna name that you can access the free resource for this episode at the blog post, which is gonna be our leadership playlist, which has a ton of leadership support. |
Time for Teachership is now a proud member of the...
AuthorLindsay Lyons is an educational justice coach who helps schools and districts co-create feminist, antiracist civics-based curricula, discussion opportunities, and equitable policies that challenge, affirm, and inspire all students. A former NYC public school teacher, she holds a PhD in Leadership and Change, and is the founder of the blog and podcast, Time for Teachership. Lindsay believes all students deserve literacy, criticality, and leadership skills. Archives
July 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed