Language is leadership: How teacher talk shapes team thinking and instructional action

I’m a frequent flyer and prefer to arrive at my gate less than five minutes before boarding. Recently, when I approached gate B12, the crowd was dense. The gate agent tapped his microphone before announcing that the pilot had reported a mechanical issue and we would not be boarding as scheduled. Not weather. Not a late crew. Maintenance. He would share more information when he had it.

That is the kind of statement that makes people look up from their phones.

At first, there was a soft murmur. Then the conversations grew, and a line formed at the counter. Within minutes, the tone shifted from curiosity to urgency. People began pressing the gate agent for answers he had already said he did not have. What is the issue? How long will it take? Are we going to miss connections? The same explanation was repeated, and the same questions came right back. It was as if no one had heard him say, “I’ll share more information when I have it.”

Around the gate, reactions varied. Some passengers pulled up other flights, deciding they were not waiting. Others stayed seated, choosing to wait it out. A few began building backup plans, checking standby options and alternate routes. The same situation. The same information. Completely different responses.

Then a different kind of comment cut through the tension. “The crew wants to get there too. If it’s safe, they’re going.” This simple statement shifted the tone. The pressure at the counter eased. A few people stepped back.

The plane had not changed. The facts had not changed. But the language had. And that was shaping what people believed.

This same pattern plays out every day in education. We look at the same student work, the same lesson, the same results, and describe them in very different ways. And those descriptions determine what we do next in instruction.

Inside the why

In schools, we often treat the way we talk about instruction as commentary that occurs after the lesson when it’s time to analyze the data. It is not. The way we describe what we see is part of the instruction itself.

Two teachers can look at the same piece of student work and walk away with completely different next steps. Not because they saw different things, but because they describe the evidence differently. One might say, “They don’t get it.” Another might say, “They’re getting stuck here.” Those statements lead to entirely different decisions about what happens next.

Research has long shown that teacher expectations influence student outcomes (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). When teachers believe students can learn, they ask more complex questions, give more time, provide more feedback, and maintain higher expectations. That belief is closely tied to teachers’ sense that what they do instructionally can make a difference (Donohoo, 2017). That belief is evident in the way we talk about students, learning, and what we try next.

What often gets overlooked is how we communicate those beliefs in everyday conversations and how our words shape how others think and act. This is where teacher leadership shows up in a powerful way.

Leadership, at its core, is influence. If others listen, respond, build on your thinking, or shift their approach because of something you said, that’s leadership in action. In classrooms and team meetings, our influence is carried through language.

When one teacher names a problem in a way that invites solutions, others step in with ideas, adjustments, and possibilities. When a teacher describes learning with precision, the conversation sharpens. When the language assumes growth is possible, the work continues and feels more productive. The opposite is also true. When language closes the door or shifts blame, the conversation and progress stalls.

This is not sugarcoating everything for the sake of positivity. It’s choosing language that identifies root causes within our control, so solutions evolve and others follow.

An inside look

If language is leadership in action, then it can’t just be a concept to “be aware of.” We have to leverage this power with intention.

The following moves are not scripts. They are shifts in how we describe learning so instruction keeps moving and others can build on that momentum.

1. Describe what students are doing

When we describe learning precisely, we can see what needs to change. Instead of labeling performance, name the evidence (see Table 1). The way we describe learning signals what we believe is causing it, and that drives what we do next (Weiner, 1985).

Performance label	Named evidence
They don’t get it.	They are completing step one and missing step two.
This group is low.	This group can identify the main idea and is challenged to support it with evidence.
They’re confused.	They are mixing up these two concepts.
They can’t do this independently.	They rely on prompts, cues, and other resources.

Making these shifts turns judgment into information. Information leads to next steps and action.

2. Mine the breakdown

When learning stalls, dig into what caused the breakdown to determine the next step. Try some of these guiding questions:

• What evidence do we have that they’re ready for this lesson?
• What do they already understand?
• At what point does the process break down?
• Where do most students begin to get stuck?
• Are students making mistakes that can be quickly corrected or errors that reveal deeper misconceptions?
• Which part of the task requires the most support?
• What are students doing right before they stop making progress?
• What patterns emerge in the questions students are asking?
• Is the breakdown in understanding the content or in completing the task?
• What are the students who are successful doing differently?
• What might be overwhelming to students in this moment?

3. Use language that invites solutions

Some language closes the conversation. Some language opens it (see Table 2). Teacher leaders keep the work moving by framing situations in a way that opens conversation.

Closes conversations	Opens conversations
This isn’t working.	What can we adjust to make this work?
They should already know this.	How can we build on prior knowledge?
We tried that.	What part of that worked and what needs to change?
We don’t have the resources.	What can we do with what we have?
We don’t have time for that.	What’s one small move we can try with what we have?
We can’t force them to want to learn.	What could we adjust to pull them in?
We weren’t trained for this.	What have we seen work, even a little?

Open language directs thinking toward action. 

4. Speak with instructional ownership

When language shifts responsibility away from instruction and what we can control, improvement stalls. The small shift is powerful. Instead of saying, “They won’t do it,” focus conversation on conditions for learning. “They are unmotivated” becomes questions about the task. “They didn’t learn it last year” leads to a decision about what to do now.

Questions like these show ownership:

• What in this task might not be connecting yet?
• What do they need from us right now?
• What can we try differently?

Teacher leaders who take ownership are not taking on the blame. They are taking action.

5. Share experiences and reflections

Lead conversations that invite others to contribute to a shared solution. State what you notice. Share what you’re trying. Describe what is happening with statements like these:

• I noticed students could explain it verbally, but their writing wasn’t as clear.
• When I added a model, more students were able to start.
• This question seemed to unlock their thinking.
• I’m not sure this part landed yet.
• When I encouraged them to boost their confidence, they kept trying.
• I’m deciding between these two steps.

It’s not necessary to have the answer. Sharing experiences and reflections invites others to respond, refine, and contribute to the next steps.

This is the kind of teacher leadership that builds a culture of efficacy, teamwork, and possibility. The language we use makes it clear who is aligned with that culture and who is not.

Step inside

The way we talk about instruction is often automatic. In fast-paced conversations, it is easy to rely on general statements or familiar phrases. These questions help you examine those habits and consider how your language is shaping decisions about teaching and learning.

• In which spaces is your language most influential?
• How do you prepare your words when naming problems?
• In your conversations, where does responsibility tend to land?
• How often do you share your efforts so others can build on them?
• What phrases do you use that might unintentionally stall the work?
• What is one shift in language you could make in your next conversation?
• When you describe student learning, do you name what students are doing or label what they are not?
• How precisely are you able to identify where learning breaks down?

As you prepare to engage in conversations about instruction, step inside your own tendencies and consider how your words position you to lead the thinking of others.

Remember this Inside Instruction Truth: How we talk about instruction determines what happens next.

References

Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective efficacy: How educators’ beliefs impact student learning. Corwin.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548-573.

---

This article appears in the Summer 2026 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 7-8.