Suzanne Bratcher, Beth Stroble, Dorothea C. Lincoln, and Roger Shor
Inservice for Administrators:
Implementing Writing Across the Curriculum in
Window Rock
Introduction
In May of 1987 the Southeastern Educational Improvement Lab (Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina) published a thorough evaluation of Writing Projects as staff
development. The report heartily commended Writing Projects for the collaboration they
provide for public school and university teachers and for adding significantly to the
professionalism of teachers. It questioned, however, the apparent omission of
administrators from Writing Project training. Two of the recommendations made by
authors Carole Capper and Naida Tushnet Bagenstos for future growth of the Projects
focused on training for administrators.
In the fall of 1989 and again in the summer of 1990, the Northern Arizona Writing
Project (NAWP) began developing inservice courses for college credit for administrators
in the Window Rock Public Schools. NAWP is a relatively young site of the National
Writing Project (currently in our fourth year of operation). We are primarily a rural
Project taking in almost half of the state of Arizona and including portions of both the
Navajo and the Hopi Reservations. Flagstaff, with its population of 40,000, is the largest
population center.
Since the inservice was a truly collaborative venture, we have decided to write this
account of our experiences collaboratively as well. Dorothea, assistant superintendent in
Window Rock, speaks from the perspective of an innovative curriculum leader seeking to
break new instructional ground with her administrators. Roger speaks as a superintendent
with long, positive experience with Writing Projects. Beth and I speak as Writing Project
directors attempting to meet particular needs in our region. Together we have a success
story to tell.
The Need: Dorothea’s Perspective
Today there is a whole new trend bringing about awareness of writing across the
curriculum in Arizona. Among educational leaders, there seems to be a general consensus
that writing across the curriculum is important and needed in order for students to
become good writers.
However, at the beginning of the year, when discussions on writing across the curriculum
took place, it became apparent that our school administrators were at various levels of
knowledge about the program or the extent of implementation in their school. Some
seemed confused and hesitant to ask or answer questions. I observed these as obstacles
and wanted to provide assistance within their comfort zone. So, I just kept research
information flowing and I kept talking about writing across the curriculum, informally as
well as formally.
In time, our district selected teachers to attend the Summer Institute at the Northern
Arizona Writing Project and, upon their return, I observed how excited and enthusiastic
they had become about writing. I asked them to share their experiences and what they had
learned about writing with the administrators and school board. They did, and further
requested that there be leadership support from the administrators in implementing the
program. As administrators we saw the importance of continuing to encourage the
teachers by maintaining a strong focus on future needs of our district.
As our commitment to the Writing Project grew, I informed the administrators of plans to
further develop the program and train more teachers as well. I informed them that to
begin implementing writing on a district-wide basis, all of us needed the opportunity to
learn and grow so we would be better prepared to help and work with our teachers. With
this thought in mind and with the support of the superintendent, I informed the
administrators that a workshop on writing across the curriculum had been designed for
them and that we were all required to attend.
The Plan for the Workshop:
Suzanne’s and Beth’s Perspective
When Dorothea contacted us for help with an inservice for her principals, Beth and I
were thrilled. This was a new audience for us, and we knew we would have to deliver a
quality product in a short time.
Brainstorming with Dorothea, we decided to try two days of inservice spread apart by a
month. In designing the two days, we planned to retain the ingredients that were making
our Summer Institute so successful: theory, peer testimony, classroom application, and
personal writing. It seemed a tall order, but we were excited to have this opportunity.
First, we decided to give the principals a whirlwind tour of the ideas we presented to
teachers in both the Summer Institute and the on-site teacher inservices. We chose Proett
and Gill as our text, liking it for its concise, clear explanation of the various aspects of the
writing process.
The second component was writing. We asked the principals to write an adaptation of the
I-poem for Native American children developed by one of the Window Rock teachers.
We showed them a brief video developed by the American Society for Curriculum
Development and asked them to react in writing. We asked them to share a piece of
writing they were currently working on in their offices with the group (a rule statement
for the lunchroom, a letter about Parents’ Day, a memo to their teachers).
The third component we built into our inservice was teacher observation. We asked the
principals to spend ten hours observing in the classrooms of teachers who had
participated in Writing Project training. We challenged them to teach a sample lesson on
writing themselves.
Fourth, we invited Dr. Roger Short, superintendent at Williams, Arizona, and one-man
cheering squad for our new Writing Project, to speak to the principals. He had first
encountered the Writing Project as a principal in the Phoenix area and he had a story to
tell. He also had a perspective neither Beth nor I had: that of principal and
superintendent.
Administrator/Peer Input: Roger’s Perspective
I enjoy sharing my administrative point of view on the writing process. My fellow
administrators need to know the historical perspective on writing instruction, how writing
and thinking and learning interrelate, and what all this means for them. If administrators
want to include the writing process in their schools, they must develop interesting and
creative strategies, anticipate the barriers, and devise ways to overcome them. The
Window Rock team suggested these strategies: observations; voluntary inservices; model
teachers; principal leadership; consistent contact with model teachers and the NAWP.
They foresaw barriers in language expectations, teacher resistance, and in lack of
training, money, commitment, and time.
Together we planned to implement the writing process in their schools by accepting
students’ language development while relaxing expectations for initial formal, academic
usage; planning voluntary inservices; expressing positive attitudes about the writing
process; training as many people as possible, including parents; committing time and
money from the district office and from the principals’ budgets; and setting a timeline.
As administrators we can’t expect to just see change; we’ve got to take an active role in
the change process. We have to get out of our offices and participate. Administrator
isolation won’t work. Instructional leadership is more than a buzzword; it’s an action plan
for principals and superintendents.
Continuing the Training:
Suzanne’s and Beth’s Perspective
At the end of the workshop, everyone was enthusiastic but also frustrated. The general
feeling was that there was so much more to learn. A second feeling was that the
interruptions of school days were too intense to warrant further school year attempts at
inservice. We planned to do a week during the summer at the university.
That week we had twelve administrators come for a two-credit Monday-Friday
workshop. During that week we held to our four components: theory, peer dialog, teacher
observation, and personal writing. We offered the theory in a collection of essays that
included Frank Smith and Donald Murray. Administrator presentations were made by oncampus resources, such as the director of student teaching who had been a principal, the
current chair of the NCTE Commission on Curriculum, and a special assistant to the
president of the university on minority education.
Observations of teachers were possible on campus because the Summer Institute was
running concurrently with this workshop. On three occasions the administrators joined
with the Teacher Consultants for presentations. In this way both groups got a chance to
see what the other group was doing.
For personal writing, each administrator brought an actual piece of writing that he or she
wanted to work on. We offered suggested topics for those administrators who were
having a hard time finding one.
Effects of the Inservice: Dorothea’s Perspective
Getting the administrators to recognize their own needs and participate in inservice
learning was a strong positive step. There was an improvement in attitude between
teachers and administrators regarding curriculum and instruction. The importance of
“instructional leadership” was renewed for both principals and teachers.
A second improvement occurred in the principals’ support of the training made available
for our teachers in the summer. Administrators have become enthusiastic and want to
make certain that a teacher from their school is not overlooked. They are also very
supportive of the inservices we are continuing for the rest of our teachers.
Now I hear comments such as, “I have a better idea why it’s important to use writing,”
and “I feel better now that I know it’s O.K. to have help on editing, that it’s not cheating
for the students to help each other,” or “I know what my teacher is doing and I know he
or she is doing a good job.” I like what I hear today and I let them know I appreciate each
one of them as a team member.
Conclusion
Inservice for administrators — an innovative concept in northern Arizona, a new
direction for NAWP, an opportunity to gain administrator support. But what benefits will
this dialog with a new population have for the implementation of writing across the
curriculum? We see at least five. First, it makes a long-term effort more likely in a school
or a district if administrators are informed and enthusiastic. Second, it insures that funds
needed for inservice and for the Summer Institute will be stable and committed early.
Third, it involves administrators in an informed process of choosing and supporting
Teacher Consultants. Fourth, it makes informed evaluation of teachers teaching from a
process orientation more likely. Most importantly, the inservice for administrators in
Window Rock has transformed the writing across the curriculum effort there from a
series of isolated grass-roots attempts to change educational practice into a concerted
team effort. And teams are what Writing Projects are all about: teams of teachers, teams
of teachers and academics, teams of academics and administrators, teams of teachers and
administrators.
References
Capper, C., & Bagenstos, N. T. (1987). Improving the second “R”: Writing Projects as
staff development. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southeastern Educational Improvement
Lab.
Proett, J., & Gill, K. (1986). The writing process in action. Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English.
Suzanne Bratcher is director of the Northern Arizona Writing Project.