November’s edition of Educational Leadership is dedicated to
teacher evaluation. The work of Marzano,
Danielson, Frontier, and Mielke fueled the discussion about teacher
improvement. Regardless of model, the
emphasis of the research was on the conversations with teachers about
instructional improvement. It’s
interesting how we talk and talk about conversations, but they tend to be one
of the first things that get pushed to the side when the day takes over. As an administrator, I think the conversation
lost its rightful place in the everyday fabric of what our job should
entail. I think the reality of the out
of control student, the parent concern, and the paperwork took over the places
where conversations should reside. This
year the power of conversation took center stage in our new observation model.
Most school days consist of 6.5 hours of instruction.
Multiply that by 180 days and there are potentially 1,170 hours to coach our
staff. However, the model we have worked
with in the past placed 2-4 formal observations of 30 minutes each into the
fold. Essentially, we are basing our
decision on whether or not teachers are good at their jobs on 2 hours of a
1,170 hour school year, which translates to less than 1% of said school
year. One of my staff members tells a
story of when he was doing his student teaching and his cooperating teacher had
an “observation lesson” that he taught every year when his principal came into
the room. Historically, the teacher
evaluation and observation model didn’t lend itself to coaching teachers to impact
their professional growth. We were “catching”
teachers. Either we caught them doing
well for a 30 minute period or we caught them doing poorly for the same period
of time. In many districts this happens every
third year! We need to get away from
having a process happen “to” our staff and move to a process that works “with”
our staff.
With the help of Paul Mielke, we changed the model this year
and the results have led us closer to a place where teacher improvement and overall
staff growth is a reality instead of something that we all say needs to
improve. Our framework institutes a
number of walkthrough observations, which have become much more popular in
schools. However, I think more of the
same doesn’t make any better, it just makes more frequent. Practice doesn’t make perfect, it makes
permanent. So, adding more observations
with no conversation just perpetuates the problem.
As indicated in the research, the real jewel in this model for
me has been the conversations. We have
our staffs at each school configured into 3 groups. Each group is on a 2 week walkthrough
schedule that continues after all groups have cycled through. During the 2 week session we meet multiple
times and discuss what great instruction looks like, specific to a component in
Danielson’s model. We learn through
conversation and the discussions we have had over the course of the last 6
weeks have been outstanding. I see staff
members who feel more comfortable in a smaller group setting speaking up and
contributing, I hear about conversations happening outside of our meetings
between colleagues that focus on teacher growth, and when people stop into my
office for a piece of candy inevitably our conversation leads to instruction.
Our administration, consisting of three principals, recently went over 200
walkthroughs since the beginning of the year.
We have committed ourselves to 10 walkthroughs for each staff member
through the first semester. Again, the number
of observations we take on is only a piece of the puzzle. Getting into the classroom and focusing on
instruction has helped drive the conversation about deliberate practice to
improve teacher growth. Our administration
meetings can touch on logistical items and then really dive into how we are coaching
exceptional practice. Our teachers need
that…and they deserve it.
I am so proud of my group…something I talk a lot about on
this blog. They are wonderful teachers,
but wonderful teachers deserve to grow as well.
Telling someone they are good at their job twice a year never moves them
forward. Everyone needs coaching on some
level and this format gives us that opportunity. The knowledge that their current performance
in the classroom is the baseline and the sky is the limit for them is a feeling
that is hard to convey in written terms, but is so empowering when I see it
everyday. It is extremely hard to get
into classrooms and make time for conversations regarding practice when the
everyday minutia of what happens in schools takes over. However, we owe it to our staff members to be
there for them to grow…and that should start with a conversation.
Great points, Joe. A few years ago I was doing this, but many factors contributed to this being put on the back burner. One of which, was the difficulty in finding time for "the conversations" after walkthroughs. I need to refocus on this. Question - do you have a form that guides you in the walkthrough process or is it totally open-ended?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bob! We use Teachscape Walkthrough for the Danielson
Deletecomponents observed. When I send the feedback to our teachers I ask a
few questions for self reflection and have them review the critical
attributes from a component. The question I ask on the rubric revolves
around where they would place themselves and what they would do to
maintain or enhance their position...all for self reflection. I am
hoping the critical attributes allow teachers to place themselves
without me telling them where I think they are based on 15 minutes of
observation. So far I have really enjoyed the process and I hope our
staff feels it is helpful!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post, thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete