38

Planning & Conducting

Intentional Conversations

around the

Evaluation Process

Michigan ASCD

October 17 or 18, 2014

8:30 am – 3:45 pm

Learning Advocate:
Nancy Anne Colflesh, Ph.D.
Educational Consultant & Leadership Coach
517.339.5268

Planning & Conducting Intentional Conversations around the Evaluation Process

Michigan ASCD

2014-2015 School Year

Learning Advocate: Nancy Anne Colflesh, Ph.D.

Purpose

The purpose of this day-long learning experience for principals and assistant principals is to strengthen their knowledge and skills for planning and conducting conversations with teachers during the evaluation process.

Outcomes

Specific learning outcomes include, but are not limited to, the following:

·  To understand the role and work of the principal as a Leader of Teacher Learning during formative and summative evaluation processes;

·  To learn and use a simple template for providing both encouraging and constructive feedback about performance;

·  To use a template for planning and conducting intentional conversations about teacher performance and student learning; and,

·  To make the connection between data collected during observations and the overall professional learning designs for the faculty as a whole and for collaborative teams.

Procedures

A variety of learning experiences will be incorporated to maximize participation and ensure learning and the application of that learning:

Lecture Bursts Modeling JIGSAW Processing Pairs

Examining Our Work Practice with Feedback Table Talk Large Group Discussions

Intended Participants

There are two key groups of educational leaders who will benefit:

Primary Audience: Principals, assistant principals and central office administrators responsible for the evaluation of teacher (or principal) performance and student learning.

Secondary Audience: Instructional coaches, mentors of beginning teachers, staff developers or teacher leaders responsible for teacher learning outside the formal evaluation process.

Learning Advocate

Nancy A. Colflesh, Ph.D., will serve as Learning Advocate for this day-long learning session. She has worked with a variety of school districts and other professional organizations in their quest for higher levels of reflective practice and efficient and effective group work. A former teacher, principal, staff developer, service agency administrator and professor, she brings solid experience to her services in organizational development: presenting, facilitating, and coaching. She earned her doctorate at Michigan State University where her dissertation research on women leaders received national recognition from the American Educational Research Association. Later, she received the UCEA Excellence in Educational Leadership Award from the EAD faculty. In 2008, MEMSPA honored her with their Educational Leadership Award. In 2013, she was one of ten finalists for the Greater Lansing Woman of the Year Award. This spring, the MSU EAD faculty awarded her with the Nancy Anne Colflesh Distinguished Alumni Award. Most importantly, she is a life-long learner.

Trust is the on-ramp to building collaboration and collegiality

by Pat Roy

38

I

recently listened to teachers who concluded that new forms of job embedded professional development could not be successful without trust. Trust, it seemed, needed to be developed between and among staff members as well as between the principal and staff in order for teachers to embark on new and seemingly risky form of professional development.

Bryk and Schneider’s (2003) longitudinal study of 400 Chicago elementary schools reached the same conclusion: “Recent research shows that social trust among teachers, parents, and school leaders improves much of the routine work of schools and is a key resource for reform” (p. 40). They concluded that relational trust is central to building effective educational communities.

Trust, according to the authors, is elusive, engaging, and essential to meaningful school improvement. Trust is the expectation that another’s word, promise, or statement can be relied upon (Rotter, 1980). Relational trust involves more than creating high morale; it is developed through ongoing interaction each day as people work together on improving student learning.

To encourage and build teacher collaboration and use job-embedded professional development strategies, principals need to build a school culture that is characterized by trust (Roy & Hord, 2003). Trust, in a school setting, involves making educational decisions that put the interests of students above personal and political interests. Trust is built when teachers believe student welfare and high levels of learning are the foundation of school decisions. When decisions seem to be based on personal or political factors, trust erodes.

The principal also needs to keep his or her word. When principals do what they say and follow-up with promised actions, staff members can believe their words. Principals also need to believe in teacher ability and willingness to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. Trust is built on a foundation of respect; a component of social respect is competence. Principals need to show that they believe in teacher competence and believe that educators operate with the best interest of students in mind. Yet trust can be undermined when incompetence is allowed to persist. As a result, the principal also needs to address incompetence fairly and firmly. Bryk and Schneider’s study showed that trust within a school eroded quickly when the principal did not tackle personnel issues related to incompetence.

Principals demonstrated competence by communicating a strong vision for the school and clearly defining expectations that are upheld for all faculty members. These administrator skills allowed the school staff to accomplish common goals and maintain a cohesive professional community characterized by collective responsibility for student learning. This cohesive community is lubricated by respectful interaction and courtesy among administration and staff members.

Trust and respect is the on-ramp to building collaboration and collegiality. Trust is the “connective tissue that binds individuals together to advance the education and welfare of students” (Bryk & Schneider, 2003, p. 45). This means principals need to spend time considering how interpersonal interactions build trust and respect among staff. The principal needs to monitor his or her actions and those of the staff to build and sustain trust.

REFERENCES

Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2003, March). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40- 45.

Rotter, J. (1980, October). Trust and gullibility. Psychology Today, 14(5), 35-42, 102.

Roy, P. & Hord, S. (2003). Moving NSDC’s staff development standards into practice: Innovation configurations. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council

38

Effective Feedback

Center for Creative Leadership

A template for…

·  ______feedback when we want behavior to become ______or more ______

·  ______feedback when we want behavior to ______or ______

S ______

B ______

I ______

of the behavior on: ______

N. Colflesh, Ph.D., Colflesh & Associates, LLC,

Samples of Effective Feedback Given to Teachers

Following Learning Walks

Nancy:

It was clearly evident that your planning was extensive for this instruction. The learning activities were all congruent to the objective you had established and shared at the beginning of the instruction. As you know, careful planning results in stronger student learning. Thanks for the care you take with this part of your work as a teacher at our school.

[Principal’s Name]

Anne:

During yesterday’s lesson on the articles of confederation, you captured the students’ attention and made their learning meaningful when you used the questions about their lives and parenting some day to make the connection to the colonies and their efforts to form their own government. Such a “hook” gets them focused, which is such an important part of the learning process! I wonder how you will focus their attention at the beginning of other kinds of instruction.

Nancy

Jacque:

You have restructured your classroom! The room arrangement you have now appeared so much more supportive of the kind of learning you want your students to do. Clearly, you had taught them new routines for handling daily tasks and working with partners. As a result, there was a high level of engagement in their learning during my observation this morning. I wonder how you are thinking about the arrangement now and for future learning.

Nancy

Phil:

You certainly captured your students’ attention today when you used graphic organizers to help them make sense of the complex topic of civil rights. I would appreciate an opportunity later this week to sit down with you to examine their finished graphic organizers and talk about your assessment of their learning. Please let me know when we could get together.

Nancy

Ted:

It is such hard work to teach students how to write well. During my visit to your classroom earlier this week, I wished I had brought a couple of our beginning teachers. Your key points about paragraphs were so succinct, no one seems to miss them as they put pencil to paper. As I walked around the room during their guided practice, it appeared that each student had made a great start with their paragraph. If you want to share with me how the instruction unfolded during the rest of the week, I would be very interested.

Nancy

Jeanne:

During the ten minutes when I visited your classroom today, you moved your students several times to work with different partners, do some processing, and pose new questions. This kind of movement, the cognitive researchers tell us, helps learners’ brains work more effectively. I wonder how teachers could get more movement into their instruction on a regular basis at our school.

Nancy

Lawrence:

When you stopped by after school yesterday and did some thinking out loud about your instruction for today and tomorrow, I was impressed with your ability to not only reflect accurately on what was happening with your students’ learning, but also your commitment to figuring out what to do better and/or differently to help the struggling students perform at a higher level. A teachers’ ability to reflect accurately, and to determine next steps for continuous improvement, impacts his professional growth…and the students’ learning. Thanks for taking time to share your thinking with me. I am eager to hear how their learning progressed!

Nancy

Allen:

Wow! The level of students’ engagement in their learning during yesterday’s observation was solid evidence of your careful planning for this instruction. I wonder how you will get the same level of engagement when the content is not so conducive to the kinds of activities you used yesterday.

Nancy

The Instructional Leader’s Guide to

Strategic Conversations with Teachers

By Robyn JacksoN

38

LOW WILL / LOW SKILL

Low Will/Low Skill teachers not only struggle with their content area and their pedagogy, but they have little or no motivation to improve. Without either the skill or the will to deliver effective instruction in the classroom, these teachers can do students great harm. Thus, it is important for instructional leaders to act quickly to move these teachers either to another quadrant or out of the building.

Often, it is difficult to understand the kind of negative impact these teachers can have on students. We tend to tolerate Low Will/Low Skill teachers because they are so difficult to move. Unlike the Low Will/High Skill teacher who acts as saboteur and thus can quickly earn our ire, Low Will/Low Skill teachers do not tend to buck the status quo. Theirs is a more passive resistance to change and as a result, many instructional leaders tend to tolerate them or at best, work around them, and spend their energy focusing on the more troublesome teachers.

Low Will/Low Skill teachers are often assigned remedial classes or other classes that are low profile in the building.

Low Will / Low Skill teachers SAY:

§  I only have three years to retirement so I am just biding my time.

§  I am too old to change.

§  Just tell me what you want me to do.

§  I went into teachers so I could have the summers off.

§  I am happy with things just the way they are.

§  I’ve seen these educational fads come and go so there is no use in changing the way I teach.

§  My students are low, they can’t be expected to do X.

§  My principal/head/team leader just doesn’t like me or the way I teach.

Low Will/Low Skill teachers DO:

§  Read the paper or complete crossword puzzles during staff meetings.

§  Show up late to meetings and contribute little if anything to the discussion.

§  Are the last ones in the buildings and the first ones to leave.

§  Do not seek our professional development activities.

§  Use the same lesson plans year after year.

§  Spend their planning period socializing or running errands.

§  Rarely participate in professional development over the summer.

§  Are resistant to feedback (this resistance may be passive).

§  Focus on coverage rather than mastery.

§  May rationalize instructional short comings by pointing out the other extra-curricular support they provide in the school building such as coaching, sponsoring a club or activity, or ordering supplies.

§  Have a hard time articulating the connections between classroom activities and the content or skills students need to master.

§  Fail to anticipate elements of the lesson that will confuse students.

§  Give unclear directions to students.

Strategies for Low Will/Low Skill Teachers

§  Identify which will be easier to tackle first, will or skill, and start there.

§  Share your passion and commitment for teaching and learning in both formal and informal conversations.

§  Use multiple sources of data such as lesson plans, student artifacts, student performance on standardized tests and other measures, and both formal and informal observations to identify patterns and gaps in performance.

§  Use frequent informal observations as a way of holding them accountable.

§  Give them more challenging assignments, provide them with the necessary support, and then hold them accountable for the work they must do.

§  Stop enabling LWLS teachers by providing them with a lightened academic load and less challenging assignments.

§  Focus on the choices teachers make in the classroom and their impact on students.

§  Point of missed opportunities to challenge students, provide more rigor, or otherwise engage students in the classroom.

§  Ask to see lesson and unit plans regularly and look for evidence that they are being implemented in the classroom.