Читать книгу Now We're Talking - Justin Baeder - Страница 11

3

Acknowledging Related Instructional Leadership, Supervision, and Walkthrough Models

In your school, you likely exercise instructional leadership in the context of a multitude of district, state, and professional expectations and policies, which may make it difficult to develop a well-aligned, coherent approach. In this chapter, we explore how the high-performance instructional leadership model compares to other models for instructional supervision and leadership that you may have previously experienced—and may currently be using. Specifically, I compare the high-performance instructional leadership model to formal teacher observations, annual formal evaluations, learning walks and instructional rounds, instructional coaching, and hybrid models of instructional supervision. The reality is that in most schools, several of these models operate at once, perhaps without anyone ever explicitly comparing them. By the end of this chapter, you’ll be clear on how you can achieve your instructional leadership goals in classrooms, without pursuing conflicting aims.

Formal Teacher Observations

The most familiar instructional supervision model is the formal teacher observation process, which most public schools and many private schools require.

While the details vary, typically:

Formal observations are required by law or policy, and contribute to the final evaluation, which has some bearing on the teacher’s employment status (Danielson, 2015)

Classroom observations are preannounced—in other words, the teacher knows when the administrator is coming (Marshall, 2013)

Pre- or postconferences, or both, in which the teacher and administrator discuss the lesson, are required

The administrator stays for the entire lesson, or at least a substantial portion of it, and may take copious notes

The administrator may provide a written report, which becomes part of the teacher’s employment file, and the need to produce this report dictates many aspects of the interaction between administrator and teacher (Danielson, 2015)

One or more formal observations serve as a key element of the final annual evaluation (though not all teachers may be required to have a formal observation every year)

These features may be obvious, but they will serve as important points of contrast as we explore other models in this chapter.

In many schools, individual teachers and administrators do not have the discretion to modify or opt out of the formal observation and evaluation process, which may be governed by board policies, collective bargaining agreements, and even state law. For this reason, if you are responsible for evaluating teachers, you’ll want to conduct your high-performance instructional leadership visits in addition to, rather than instead of, formal observations.

Assuming you’re required to conduct formal observations, how can the high-performance instructional leadership model fit into your overall instructional leadership plan? Perhaps the greatest benefit is context: because these visits are unannounced and much more frequent, they provide a far better indication of teachers’ typical practice than formal observations, which both teachers and administrators understand are often dog-and-pony shows that vary markedly from typical practice (Marshall, 2013). Depending on your teacher contract, you may or may not be able to use written evidence from unannounced visits in the formal evaluation process. However, you can have a much better sense of each teacher’s areas of strength and weakness if you’ve made a habit of visiting classrooms daily, and you can differentiate your approach to collecting evidence as needed.

Annual Formal Evaluations

Most teachers receive a formal year-end evaluation, but in too many schools, administrators base their evaluations on little—or even no—direct observation of classroom practice. It’s no wonder that so many educators regard the evaluation process as a waste of time (Danielson, 2015). Even so, it has the potential to be an essential part of our quality assurance efforts as instructional leaders. We owe our students the guarantee that all teachers are meeting certain standards, and we owe our teachers a fair shake in that process; we can fulfill both of these obligations only if we have firsthand evidence of teacher practice. You may find that your notes from informal classroom visits are among your best sources of evidence and insight as you prepare final evaluations for each teacher.

Regardless of whether formal observations are required, instructional leaders belong in classrooms. Only with the sense of context you gain from regular classroom visits can you collect the right evidence and draw valid conclusions about teacher performance. Many aspects of teaching aren’t directly observable during formal observations—practices such as planning, collaborating, reviewing assessment results, and contacting families—yet are critical to the final evaluation. Some of the best evidence and insight into these non-observable aspects of teaching will come from the conversations you have with teachers after visiting their classrooms.

Only with the sense of context you gain from regular classroom visits can you collect the right evidence and draw valid conclusions about teacher performance.

Mini-Observations

Kim Marshall (2013), in his book Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation, argues that the formal dog-and-pony show observation process is deeply flawed, and that with modest changes, instructional leaders can modify it into a highly effective system of mini-observations. In Marshall’s (2013) approach, mini-observations are:

Unannounced, so there’s no preconference

Brief—in the fifteen-minute range

Followed by a face-to-face postconference—either on the spot, later in the day, or the next day

Accompanied by a written report similar to, but briefer than, a formal observation report

Frequent, with every teacher receiving approximately ten mini-observations each year

Because formal observations are time consuming, Marshall (2013) advocates wholly replacing the typical system of prearranged formal observations with unannounced, shorter observations. If you’re able to secure approval to switch from preannounced formal observations to unscheduled mini-observations, you will likely find that Marshall’s (2013) approach provides much richer evidence and much more thorough documentation of teacher practice, which can result in much more substantive annual evaluations. However, you may find that this system is difficult to sustain due to the time commitment required to conduct, discuss, and write about ten observations for each teacher, which will take at least thirty to sixty minutes each.

Data-Collection Walkthroughs

What about walkthrough models that bear more similarity to the high-performance instructional leadership model I describe in this book? There are many approaches to brief classroom visits, but perhaps the most common—and the most problematic—is the data-collection walkthrough. Though the professional literature supporting data-collection walkthroughs is sparse (Kachur, Stout, & Edwards, 2010), I have found this model to be widespread and persistent—perhaps because central office leaders, such as superintendents, often mandate it. In data- collection walkthroughs, an administrator visits classrooms to collect evidence about specific practices or learning conditions—for example, to determine whether teachers are using a questioning strategy the district is promoting, or to collect data to determine what percentage of students is actively engaged. These look-fors may focus instructional leaders’ attention on certain issues, but at the expense of making the process less beneficial overall.

Data-collection walkthroughs are problematic for several reasons. First, the focus of the data collection may not be relevant to the current activities taking place in the classroom; this wastes significant time. Second, it typically has no value for the teachers being observed, who have no choice in what they want feedback on and instead receive feedback on look-fors that may have little relevance to the lesson. Third, while the school or district may put the data to good use, they’re of limited value to the instructional leader, who lacks the discretion to focus on the most relevant issues that emerge in the moment, or the school’s current instructional priorities, when collecting mandated forms of data.

Are data-collection walkthroughs even effective ways to obtain reliable data about classroom practice? On a practical level, administrators are among the highest-paid educators in most school systems and have many other pressing priorities that interfere with their ability to adhere to a data-collection protocol. From a scientific perspective, it’s worth asking whether educators can draw any reliable conclusions from the data that walkthroughs generate. Schools too often sweep questions about sampling under the rug: How many unannounced walkthroughs are necessary for generating trustworthy data about an individual teacher’s practice? How should we distribute walkthroughs throughout the school day? How consistent is the observer from one walkthrough to the next, and what degree of inter-rater reliability has been established? Without solid answers to these questions, districts should treat walkthrough data as anecdotal rather than scientific.

Data-collection walkthroughs can also have unintended consequences that undermine their viability; for example, if teachers know that administrators expect to see a certain strategy when they visit, they will quickly learn to use that strategy any time administrators are in the room. During my tenure as a principal, we taught teachers to use a strategy known as turn and talk to increase student engagement, so—no surprise—teachers would often say “Now, turn and talk to your neighbor …” as soon as I walked into the room, regardless of whether it was appropriate at that point in the lesson.

Of course, focused data collection can be of some value in specific situations—for example, identifying patterns of teacher behavior that could inform professional development decisions, or shadowing English learner students to identify ways to serve them more effectively (Ginsberg, 2012). Occasional student shadowing can be a valuable learning experience for leaders, but large-scale data collection conflicts with the goals of the high-performance instructional leadership model, which seeks to provide leaders with information that can lead to better discussions and better decisions.

Feedback-Focused Walkthroughs

Another popular model—perhaps the most widespread model in voluntary use—is the feedback-focused walkthrough, in which teachers receive brief suggestions for improvement based on a short observation. This model offers the strongest intuitive appeal and the most immediate payoff because the feedback teachers receive is the low-hanging fruit of improvement (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). Given suggestions and a modest degree of accountability, most teachers can make some improvements to their practice. This model is neither unreasonable nor wrongheaded; however, when taken to extremes, it can place needless strain on your time and your relationships with teachers.

Giving and receiving feedback is helpful for both of the individuals involved, and a high-feedback culture is good for everyone.

Under the best of circumstances, feedback-focused walkthroughs can lead to modest but continual improvements, as well as valuable professional learning for the instructional leader. Teacher coaching, in particular, is associated with student learning gains (Grissom et al., 2013). Giving and receiving feedback is helpful for both of the individuals involved, and a high-feedback culture is good for everyone. For new teachers, who may have multiple areas in which they can make rapid improvements, intensive feedback cycles can produce more substantial gains (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). The problem arises when educators push feedback-focused walkthroughs beyond the bounds of what they can reasonably accomplish; a law of diminishing returns applies to feedback. As teachers’ experience and expertise grow, less and less low-hanging fruit remains, and the instructional leader faces the unenviable challenge of needing to become increasingly critical in order to provide feedback for improvement. The situation worsens when instructional leaders see their role as one of catching and correcting all of the mistakes teachers are making in their typical teaching practice—taking on too much of the responsibility for professional growth that teachers and other instructional leaders should share. Rather than trying to correct individual decisions, we should seek to elicit and raise the level of teachers’ thinking about their instructional decision making through evidence-based conversations. Furthermore, we can often find the greatest leverage for improvement in schoolwide insights—such as patterns that we may need to address in professional development sessions for all staff—not in individual changes teachers make in response to feedback.

A more basic problem is perhaps the most commonly experienced flaw in feedback-focused walkthroughs: they’re unpleasant, and as a result, instructional leaders rarely do them (Grissom et al., 2013). Teachers face uninvited (and seemingly unnecessary) criticism, and administrators must assume the role of critic. This dynamic exists even if it’s masked by a high degree of professionalism. Teachers know they are required to “accept” feedback, even if they disagree with it, and supervisors know their presence is unwanted. The mandate to bring about continual improvement can propel the process only so far before resentment and avoidance set in.

Feedback-focused walkthroughs can also have unintended consequences. For example, teachers may learn to play the game of accepting feedback graciously in order to end the interaction as quickly as possible, without allowing the feedback to truly influence their thinking or practice. Given that the purpose of feedback is to improve teachers’ thinking and instructional decision making (Danielson, 2015), this is a serious limitation. Administrators are playing the game, too, providing feedback just for the sake of having something to say—even if it’s not helpful to the teacher. Over time, this can lead to an unfortunate cycle in which instructional leaders go to great lengths to give some sort of feedback, even when they know it is of poor quality, and teachers go to great lengths to pretend they value it. The more teachers pretend to benefit from feedback, the harder it is for instructional leaders to give truly useful feedback, and the cycle worsens—wasting everyone’s time and resulting in no meaningful improvement.

Does feedback have any value at all? Under the right circumstances, yes. Feedback can be helpful when:

The teacher requests feedback on a specific aspect of his or her practice

The instructional leader has adequate time and expertise to observe and provide timely feedback on that specific aspect of the teacher’s practice

The instructional leader creates a sense of safety by separating the feedback and growth cycle from the formal evaluation process

These conditions are difficult for administrators to achieve on a consistent basis. Danielson (2015) notes that feedback can be validating and motivating for early career teachers, but for more experienced teachers, it “is even seen as a possible hindrance” (p. 10) to professional growth. It’s not surprising, then, that instructional coaching has emerged as a powerful alternative to supervisory classroom walkthroughs.

Instructional Coaching

Many administrators aspire to serve, first and foremost, as instructional coaches for their teachers, and only secondarily as evaluators. This is an admirable mindset, and one that leads to greater mutual benefit from both formal observations and informal classroom visits. However, we should be clear that supervisors, strictly speaking, can never be true coaches, due to the structural power they wield over teachers (Knight, 2011). The power differential between teachers and administrators has the potential to overshadow the focus on growth with its emphasis on evaluation (Danielson, 2015). Coaching requires a commitment to the client’s goals and a respect for confidentiality that shields the client from the potential negative consequences of taking risks. For example, a coach who is helping a teacher implement an ambitious new approach to project-based learning must refrain from filing negative reports if the teacher’s early attempts are unsuccessful in order to avoid discouraging further efforts. An instructional leader who is also the teacher’s evaluator can encourage risk taking but cannot promise to remain uninfluenced by what he or she sees in the classroom.

If you do serve as an instructional coach, you may find that the high-performance instructional leadership model is especially helpful for working with teachers who may be more defensive about their practice, thanks to its focus on evidence and shared criteria for quality. The coaching process can focus on the teacher’s goals but stay rooted in evidence of what actually took place.

Keep in mind that I designed this model to generate decisional information, and while some of that information should be protected by the confidentiality requirements of the coaching relationship, instructional coaches should present other issues to administrative staff for their consideration. For example, if teachers routinely complain that it is difficult to teach within a less-than-ideal bell schedule, you can provide this information to the administrator responsible for the schedule and seek a change, rather than merely helping teachers cope with it.

The Downey Walkthrough

A well-regarded approach known as the Downey Walkthrough, or the Three-Minute Classroom Walkthrough, bears more similarity to the high-performance instructional leadership model than the others in this chapter (Downey, Steffy, English, Frase, & Poston, 2004). Carolyn J. Downey and her colleagues (2004) recommend visiting classrooms very briefly—for just two or three minutes—to look for instructional decisions that may be of interest and to gain a sense of students’ orientation to their work. Because these visits are so brief, they can happen with great frequency, and because they usually involve no communication or follow-up with the teacher, they present relatively few barriers to implementation. Downey et al. (2004) recommend engaging teachers in reflective conversation “only when you know it will be received in a meaningful and timely manner” (p. 3), and taking only minimal notes in order to prompt recall of the most salient issues.

Compared to the Downey model, the high-performance instructional leadership model features a more consistent pattern of fewer, slightly longer visits each day, accompanied by more substantive and understanding-oriented, rather than coaching-oriented, conversations with teachers. Both models share a focus on instructional decision making rather than directive feedback. If you’ve been following the Downey model, you may find it relatively easy to transition to the high-performance instructional leadership model.

Learning Walks and Instructional Rounds

As they recognize the importance of spending time in classrooms, district- and system-level leaders are increasingly turning their attention to learning walks and instructional rounds (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009; Teitel, 2013). Though definitions and practices vary, learning walks usually involve groups of staff—including professionals other than teachers’ direct supervisors—visiting classrooms together. In some cases, other teachers, parents, and students may also participate in learning walks. After a learning walk, the visiting team may debrief with or without the teachers it observed, and may or may not provide feedback.

The goal in all learning walk models is to learn from classroom practice, and this is an admirable goal.

The goal in all learning walk models is to learn from classroom practice, and this is an admirable goal. If you can organize a learning walk in your school or district—or better yet, schedule regular learning walks in each school—you are likely to find them valuable. Consider the following points.

Learning walks should be explicitly nonevaluative—a team with very little context about a teacher’s practice is not in a position to fairly evaluate that practice (City et al., 2009).

Teachers should receive advance notice that the team may visit during the learning walk, simply as a professional courtesy and to avoid wasting time if, for example, students will be taking a test during the given time slot.

The team’s focus should remain on its own learning, not providing feedback to teachers or evaluating their practice, and it should communicate this focus clearly to teachers in advance.

All teachers who are observed during the learning walk should receive some type of encouraging comment or acknowledgement, such as a thank-you note.

While the learning walk team may generate questions for inquiry and discussion (such as, “Did the teacher consider doing X instead of Y?”), no one should pose these questions to teachers on the spot in order to avoid putting them on the defensive.

A more specific and well-defined model that has gained traction, driven by the work of Elizabeth City, Richard Elmore, and their colleagues at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, is the practice of instructional rounds (City et al., 2009). In this model, central office leaders take a purposeful and systematic approach to learning walks, seeking to glean organizational insights from their time in classrooms. In the instructional rounds model, the focus is on system and cross-system learning and decision making more than individual learning. Because the individual instructional leader and teacher are not the primary focus, instructional rounds may not include feedback to the teacher or a conversation with the teacher.

In contrast, the high-performance instructional leadership model is designed to provide an individual leader with a deep understanding of each teacher’s practice and decision making through repeated observations and conversations. Given these distinct purposes, you may find instructional rounds to be a useful complement to the high-performance instructional leadership model.

Hybrid Models

You will no doubt use a combination of these models under various circumstances, such as when you visit classrooms with a leader you work with, and when you conduct formal evaluations of the teachers or leaders you supervise. Follow the high-performance instructional leadership model closely, and modify it only when you have a specific reason for doing so. For example, when you typically visit classrooms, you may take notes and have a follow-up conversation with the teacher later in the day. During a learning walk with your peers and supervisors, though, you may choose to visit each classroom without taking notes and chart your observations as a group later. Regardless of your approach, strive to match your process to your goals and avoid unintended consequences by preparing carefully.

Day 3 Action Challenge: Review Your Instructional Leadership Models

Make a list of the instructional leadership and supervision processes you currently use in your school. You may want to consider the following questions for reflection as you review the models you’re currently using.

How do your current instructional leadership processes overlap and interact with one another?

How do they impact teachers, and how do teachers perceive them?

If you were to implement the high-performance instructional leadership model with perfect fidelity, how would that impact the other models in use in your school or district?