Читать книгу Game Plan - Hector Garcia - Страница 10

Chapter 1

Bringing Clarity to the Plan

People who are role models for the principles and values of the organization, who buy in and understand the vision of what the organization is trying to accomplish, and have the personality to inspire other people to the vision. You know, that’s what team chemistry and leadership is all about.

—Nick Saban, NCAA Champion College Football Coach

Educators are currently embarking on a new journey of accountability measures. They are being evaluated and held accountable through measurements of student achievement like never before. Organizations and leaders alike are feeling the pressure of trying to prepare for these new expectations. There is a need to move away from the traditional work that employees know and are comfortable with toward a new learning structure that needs to be built, not only for students but for teachers as well. Teaching and learning needs to take on a new structure, one that moves away from individuals’ desires to learn something of personal interest to a more collaborative path of districtwide improvement.

Why do districts and schools continue to fall short of their goals when the best-intended leaders are on the front lines leading the charge? The answer is simple: the work being done is not focused on or is not derived from a shared understanding. One of the major barriers that schools face in their attempt to successfully implement a culture of learning and collaboration is the inability to convey a shared mission and vision of improvement. Leaders and leadership teams often assume that their well-prepared message or big-picture idea will be easily understood by a wide range of staff members who will intuitively rally around the same cause. Yet, the reality is that people interpret ideas and concepts very differently. Bringing strategic clarity and focus to the work of grade-level or content-area teams will infuse motivation and commitment into any organization. Leadership teams need to be cognizant of the fact that clarity in the mind of the coach or leadership team is worthless if they are not able to effectively communicate the idea to the larger team. Leaving the issue of school improvement to haphazard or partially developed school improvement plans does not result in more effective schools. As Richard Elmore (2010), educational leadership professor and the director of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, describes, “You can have strong, well-informed leadership, teachers working in teams, external support and professional development, coherent curriculum, a school improvement plan, and everything the literature tells us we should have and yet not be getting the expected growth” (p. 3). Without a coherent and well-understood plan, a school will develop pockets of excellence or variance and then struggle to meet the rigorous demands that will impact growth. As Elmore (2004) explains, “Variability in practice produces variability in student learning.”

Leaders and staff need to share a common understanding of the mission and vision as well as all of the components of the central improvement effort or initiative and to work toward ensuring that every new teacher clearly understands and can live the school’s game plan. To achieve strategic clarity, organizations will need to move away from the question of How are we doing? toward focusing on What steps do we need to take? As 2001 National Teacher of the Year Michelle Forman (2009) writes:

Before schools can respond to external pressure for increased academic performance, they must transform themselves from atomized, incoherent organizations to ones in which faculty share an explicit set of norms and expectations about what good instructional practice looks like.

Leaders, teachers, and community members alike need to share in the collective responsibility to produce long-lasting transformation. Effective teachers must see themselves not as passive, dependent implementers of someone else’s script but as active members of research teams—or, as Michael Fullan describes them, “scientists who continuously develop their intellectual and investigative effectiveness” (as cited in Sparks, 2003, p. 57). Elmore (2002) asserts that “the practice of improvement is largely about moving whole organizations—teachers, administrators and schools—toward the culture, structure, norms and processes that support quality professional development in the service of student learning” (p. 15). This process starts with building a shared understanding around current realities while allowing team members to build trust, commitment, and accountability around a shared goal.

To that end, in this chapter, we present five coaching points:

1. Establishing clarity through a schoolwide template

2. Identifying and evaluating our current reality

3. Selecting the right team members

4. Building shared ownership and purpose

5. Ensuring effective communication throughout the organization

These points are dedicated to specific strategies that any leader can use to build clarity and a shared understanding among all stakeholders to ensure everyone is executing a uniform game plan.

Coaching Point 1.1: Establishing Clarity Through a Schoolwide Template

As leaders plan the implementation of the PLC practices, they need to ask themselves how this work will make a difference in the progress of their school. Leaders need to ensure that the answer to this question is clearly understood by all stakeholders because, as leadership consultant, coach, and author John Baldoni (2012) states, “Organizations that succeed are those that know where they are headed and why” (p. 2). A clearly communicated target will drive people toward the work and create meaning in what they do. This clarity will help everyone in the organization pull together and build the tools to create change.

Early in the implementation process, staff want to hear the three most important components of any initiative: (1) the why, (2) the what, and (3) the how. The template we provide in this coaching point assumes that the school already understands the why—the power behind focusing on learning versus teaching, collaboration versus isolation, and results versus intentions; the why is fairly easy to accept both emotionally and intellectually. Often, it can be more difficult for individuals in the early stages to understand the what and the how. This tool will steer teams in the process of developing the what and the how by clarifying the key elements and creating a guiding template for their PLC work as they engage the staff in the process of creating shared knowledge. It is meant to be a resource for leadership, grade-level, and content-area teams. Some teams may choose to use the resources as they are presented, while others may alter them to meet their more specific needs and goals.

The What

In 2013, the San Antonio Spurs were named the best-run professional sports organization in North America (Rishe, 2013). They were the first NBA team to win at least fifty games a season for fourteen consecutive years. How did this team create such championship talent? Their success appears to be attributed to their shared core values and a culture of trust throughout the organization. After all, multiple players have come and gone over the last five years, but the core values or philosophy as well as the results have not changed.

Whether it’s a championship sports team or leaders in education, clarity and purpose around the essential elements and tools will bring meaning to the work and spark action. The purpose and clarity template featured in figure 1.1 should be used when leadership teams are struggling to identify the key components of what they mean by the three big ideas of a PLC: a focus on learning, collaboration, and results. The goal of the tool is to develop both clarity and consensus around the big ideas of a PLC with all of the key stakeholders. Please note that this tool has all of the elements and artifacts filled in as an example only. The power of this tool is in teams establishing their own elements and artifacts that match their organization’s mission and vision. This collaborative process should not be overlooked, since—as noted previously—common terms and ideas mean different things to different people. This tool will help leaders and staff come to consensus on the essential elements, allowing all team members to begin taking action.

Figure 1.1: Purpose and clarity template.

Visit go.solution-tree.com/PLCbooks for a reproducible version of this figure.

The How

The following steps outline how a school can start to break down the three big ideas of a PLC into actionable steps in the form of key elements and artifacts. As a school starts its PLC journey or is simply trying to better define its PLC work, it is critical to clearly articulate what the three big ideas (a focus on learning, collaboration, and results) mean in terms of everyday life for the staff, thus continuously breaking down a powerful idea into more manageable parts. It is also important to note that this model can be used throughout the school year. While it would be most advantageous to engage the leadership team in the development of the key elements and artifacts at the start of the year, sometimes we can’t wait an entire school year to help staff to transition into a more effective team. Therefore, there is never a bad time to clarify key ideas and unify the focus of improvement.

Step 1

As a leadership team, work to establish what key elements will be the anchors of the PLC work within the organization. The elements are written underneath each of the three big ideas of a PLC in order to communicate the clear alignment. Leadership teams benefit from researching each element in order to more effectively support why that element was chosen and how it will be effective within the organization. As part of this step, leadership teams may want to attend a PLC institute; review resources such as Learning by Doing (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010) and Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008); or visit http://allthingsplc.info to consult articles that Rick DuFour, Becky DuFour, and Bob Eaker have written over the years as ways to research the essential elements and practices of a PLC. Understanding the research behind the elements will assist leaders in having deep conversations with the staff about the importance of the chosen elements. This step is critical because it forces the leadership team and school members to establish which elements they consider essential, what they mean, and how they will help the organization become more effective.

Step 2

Next, work with the staff members to determine what artifacts will be used to show that the elements are established and are promoting progress within their team. For example, a school may want to remind staff members of the need for norms by ensuring that they are listed in every agenda. The agreed-upon artifacts should be written into the artifacts section of the purpose and clarity template. In order for a group to decide on what artifacts to include, leaders may want to think about using a consensus tool or process to allow dissenting voices an opportunity to share their perspective while still capturing the will of the group. There are many different techniques for building consensus. One example is known as “Fist to Five,” which allows team members to show their level of agreement on a scale using a fist to signify no agreement and five fingers to signify complete agreement. Members who signify a two or three need further discussion with the group before they can commit to the decision. Using consensus tools or processes will enable team members to feel heard and more comfortable in moving forward and establishing the key elements and artifacts.

Step 3

Once the artifacts have been established, it’s important for teams to gain clarity around the expectations for each key element. As a district or building team, discuss and come to consensus on the importance of each element and when and how each artifact will be used. Following is a sample of such a discussion.

Staff member #1: “Now that we have established the key elements and artifacts of what it means to have a focus on collaboration, we need to look for artifacts that should have a due date.”

Staff member #2: “While it is tough to establish your first SMART goal, I say every grade-level team should have one completed by the second week of school.”

Staff member #1: “Two weeks sounds reasonable for our first SMART goal, so let’s open this timeline for discussion. Any objections or clarifications to the SMART goal timeline before we move to another artifact? Great, let’s find another artifact that should have a timeline.”

These collaborative conversations will help team members feel a sense of ownership over the work and feel valued in the decision-making process. It also helps avoid any misconceptions or varying definitions of what is expected. In order to enhance clarity, some leadership teams may want to add specific dates or a timeline on the actual template, noting when things need to be completed.

Step 4

It is important for leaders to ensure that everyone has had an opportunity to discuss the process, elements, and artifacts and ask any questions they may have. Once the tool has been established, it can be revisited throughout the year to reinforce the elements and expectations. The review process is a great way to discuss and review the artifacts and expectations that have been established as well as monitor progress. Solely establishing schoolwide expectation does not ensure that every content- or grade-level team will follow the “play.” Therefore, it is crucial for the leadership team to widely communicate the new play, align professional development, and periodically meet with every team to discuss their progress. The periodic reviews of this tool throughout the year will serve as an opportunity to assist struggling teams who are not making progress as well as establish a level of accountability that will help a school make measurable progress focused on student learning. This approach will promote the good work being done throughout the school and provide positive models for those teams that may need assistance. It will also help new staff members assimilate to the culture of a new building in a shorter amount of time because the work for every team and its members is well defined. Also, giving teachers an opportunity to revisit and discuss the elements and artifacts is an invaluable way to continue to establish greater levels of implementation and clarity throughout the organization.

Coaching Point 1.2: Identifying and Evaluating Our Current Reality

Central to any improvement effort is the process of critically assessing what’s working and what’s not working. In education, we often refer to this practice as self-assessment or checking our current reality. Insights gained from any self-assessment or reality-check process become the building blocks to improve on both collaboratively and individually. Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky, coauthors of the best-selling book, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading (2002), describe sustained leadership as requiring the “capacity to see what is happening to you and your initiatives, as it is happening” (p. 73). Just like an athlete, a leadership team must be able to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement both during preparation time or the summer (the off-season) and throughout the year. Athletes and collaborative teams alike must be willing to reflect on both their individual contributions to the overall performance and to the contributions they provide to the whole organization.

Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker (2008) remind us that the “two areas most essential for a group to review in a discussion of the future of the school or district are 1) the current reality and 2) evidence of best practice” (p. 124). They describe these as point A and point B, respectively. Without an honest assessment of where you might be starting from, it is difficult to reach wherever you are heading. Gathering the facts and information before deciding on next steps will ensure that the group makes informed and intelligent decisions that lead to the end goal. With points A and B clearly defined, achieving the goal and making adjustments along the way become far more manageable.

Successful teams discover that establishing a structured, evidence-based technique to identify and assess their own strengths and areas for improvement will create a culture of continuous effort and improvement from all members. Another benefit of a current reality check for a team is to build cohesiveness. Especially true for educators, all members of a team need to recognize how their individual actions impact the goal attainment of the collective whole. The awareness and insight team members might experience when reflecting on the brutal facts of their situation can shift their priorities from individual to collective.

The What

To work effectively, teams must regularly and objectively review the status of their work and current level of implementation. Winning teams focus not only on their strengths but on their challenges as well. An honest assessment of a team’s work will continue to ensure that they stay focused on the overall game plan. The form in figure 1.2 helps teams build a structured process to review how they are functioning and assists them in identifying their improvement opportunities and next steps.

The How

This tool can be utilized by leaders of individual teams or at the building or district level. It should be implemented at the beginning of each year so that all team members understand the current reality of the team and can come to consensus on future work. It can also be, as best practice would suggest, implemented throughout the year whenever a team feels like it needs to get a pulse on its current status and discuss the next steps for the collective and individual work.

Step 1

The first step in analyzing a team’s current reality is to have each team member take time to honestly reflect on the team’s progress using the Team Status Check form (figure 1.2). Individual team members rate the team’s progress toward each criterion on a scale of 1–4, including notes that provide evidence for what they feel has or has not been accomplished.

The scale is as follows.

1 = Unsatisfactory: The area needs some attention.

2 = Basic: The artifact has been drafted, has been created, or is in the discussion stage, but a consensus for implementation has not been reached.

3 = Proficient: The team has evidence or an artifact that shows they have done work in this area, but results may not have been discussed yet on the effectiveness of the artifact.

4 = Distinguished: The team’s artifact or evidence can be backed up with data that validate the effectiveness of the team’s work.

Figure 1.2: Team status check.

Visit go.solution-tree.com/PLCbooks for a reproducible version of this figure.

Step 2

The purpose of this step is for team members to have an opportunity to compare their various viewpoints and come to a consensus as a team on their current level of implementation. Team members can complete this step through an open dialogue. However, it is important that they feel safe to share their input in order for this tool to be effective. If a team is reluctant to openly share opinions on its status, a leader may want to think about posting an enlarged copy of the tool on the wall or use technology to project the tool so team members can anonymously place their ratings on the tool and then the status can be discussed from a more holistic view instead of by individual feedback.

Step 3

Once consensus has been reached on the team’s current reality, create a plan of action. The team needs to look at the areas that are still challenging the group and create their next steps. These steps should include what the group needs to accomplish, who is responsible, and the expected date of completion.

When a team works to understand its current reality, it’s important to remember that being honest about the team’s status is what makes this tool effective. It is not about blaming or criticizing team members for things that have not been done, nor is it about checking a box to say it is completed. Use this tool to monitor the progress of a team, building, or district toward true implementation. Understand, though, that this does not mean that once a team reaches the distinguished level (level 4) in an area, the tool shouldn’t be looked at again. The data that a team analyzes will prove or disprove the continued effectiveness of the artifact. If the data begin to show diminishing results, then the artifact has lost its effectiveness, and the team will need to discuss its revision or refinement.

Coaching Point 1.3: Selecting the Right Team Members

The heart of any professional learning community lies in a high-performing team. Powerful collaborative teams should be designed to expand the pool of ideas, solutions, and methods that promote shifts in instructional practice to achieve desired results. These teams must have a shared responsibility and a common goal focused on improvement for all. Team design, therefore, should ensure the right members are included to provide critical insights. In professional baseball, managers carefully select team members to provide the best advantage for winning a national championship. All players understand this goal and are each selected for their individual strengths. These distinct individuals, however, need to support each other for the whole team to be successful. This interdependency allows each member to share his or her talents while achieving a common outcome.

Schools are far more complex organizations than a baseball team, but leaders might consider their lineups in a similar manner. Schools have multiple goals that need to be addressed for multiple audiences and with specific time constraints. The challenge for school leaders is that strategic team design is a must, and several teams are needed within a school. The talents of the staff should be leveraged to foster advocacy and inquiry processes for identified purposes. Leaders should resist the danger of being overly inclusive and adding too many people on a team. Business writer Patrick Lencioni (2012) asserts that “the only reason a person should be on a team is that she represents a key part of the organization or brings truly critical talent or insight to the table” (p. 24). Thus, teams should be small enough to be effective while also being large enough to include needed talent. Lencioni advocates for teams to range from three to twelve people to remain effective. Furthermore, a team member must have a natural connection to the task at hand. For example, a guidance counselor would be hard pressed to regularly contribute to a social studies team but would be outstanding on a student assistance team.

DuFour et al. (2008) remind us that “no single person has the expertise, influence, and energy to initiate and sustain a substantive change process” (p. 310). Teaming and reteaming will become a necessity to distribute the capacity of the building, especially for a few of your power players in the building. A power player is a staff member who holds significant expertise that many teams might need for a specific focus. Examples of power players would be ESL teachers, special education teachers, building specialists, and so on. For example, an ESL teacher being placed on a grade-level or departmental team would be charged with the responsibility of providing the team with the necessary strategies to make learning and assessments accessible to the EL students and assist the team in understanding how to review the data with a laser focus on language acquisition. A power player may rotate among several teams in a week to, as DuFour et al. (2008) explain, “assume the lead in the team’s collective inquiry into best practice” (p. 311) on certain issues while also allowing for different members to demonstrate leadership within the teams.

Once team design has been determined, leaders need to make sure a shared understanding is created for the purpose and goals of each team and the roles and responsibilities of individual members. The pitcher on a baseball team has a very clear understanding of what his job is for the whole team. That level of clarity is also needed for the members of a collaborative team. Simply placing the right players on the team won’t guarantee success. As DuFour et al. (2008) explain, leaders “have an obligation to create structures that make collaboration meaningful rather than artificial . . . [and] to establish clear priorities and parameters so that teachers focus on the right topics” (p. 312). Establishing clarity and focus for the team will be just as important as the team design itself.

The What

We have seen success occur when leaders who are considering possible team structures strategically assess the strengths of staff members and determine what value-add each brings to the organization. The following list of questions is centered on several aspects of team composition to help leaders design the right types of teams to work on critical issues, discover critical roles missing from certain teams, or identify members who are unnecessarily on a team when their talents could be used elsewhere. Each context and team focus will result in different answers. Priority teams (often grade-level or content-area teams) should be addressed first with a commitment to leveraging time for all teams to collaborate.

• What is the purpose of the team? What topics will this team cover?

• Which staff need to be on the team? What value-add will each member bring to the collective?

• How many times will this team need to meet to be effective and achieve its goals?

• What leadership involvement will there be, and how often might that person support the work?

Considering which power players to choose for each type of team is another important task. See table 1.1 for a guide that lists the possible team types and helps leaders ensure they are including the appropriate power players on each team.

Table 1.1: Power Players for Each Team Type