STAFF DEVELOPMENT STUDY GROUP

Study Team Key Concept Paper

District / Ames Community Schools / Building / Ames High School
Title for this Group / A Peer Coaching Program for Teacher Professional Development
Dates / Sept. 2009 – May 2010

Team Members:

1. / Mike Lazere / 2. / James Webb
3. / Erin Miller / 4. / Susan Norris
5. / Stuart Sparkman / 6. / Kent Jahn
7. / Ben Matthies / 8. / Denny Cullinan
9. / Michelle Fuqua / 10. / Shaeley Santiago
11. / Carol VanWaradhuizen

Description

This study group was inspired by the career development models in school districts in California, Ohio and New York, including Rochester’s Career in Teaching model (CIT) and Toledo’s Peer Assistance and Review plan (PAR). In those districts, teachers and administrators share responsibility for the evaluation and professional development of teachers.
Our stated goals were to develop a model for teacher development that would:
(1)  Allow teachers to assume more responsibility in setting professional standards.
(2)  Facilitate collaboration among teachers, within and between disciplines.
(3)  Provide more information to administrators about teaching and learning in the building.
(4)  Increase opportunities for career growth for teachers.
We divided our work into three stages: 1. Defining our Educational Philosophy, 2. Defining Exemplary Teaching Practices, and 3. Developing and Using Evaluation Tools. The first phase involved reading and discussion about books that focused on school reform and learning theory (i.e. Wagner’s “Global Achievement Gap” and Wiggin’s “Schooling by Design”). In the second phase we read and discussed books that focused on classroom teaching (i.e. Marzano’s “The Art and Science of Teaching” and Danielson’s “Enhancing Professional Practice). In the third phase we visited one another’s classrooms to observe and evaluate lessons.

Reflection

Initially, we set out to develop a program in which teachers would serve as professional “coaches” for other teachers. In order to accomplish this, we hoped to develop clear standards for exemplary teaching, as well as the structures and supports to assist teachers in improving their professional practice, based on those standards.
Using the readings and other resources, we have begun to define standards of “exemplary teaching,” but this has not been an easy task, and will require more work next year. The model we are proposing below is more collaborative than what we initially envisioned. The most beneficial aspect of our work this year was the opportunity to develop a new “learning community.” Rather than proposing to train a cadre of teacher coaches, we want to provide a structure for teachers to work in collaborative teams of their choosing. This model of professional development is already in place at the high school, so our plan would simply build upon that. Our hope is that this can become the focus of our weekly PD, rather than an addition to the current structure.
Evaluation of teachers can be formative and summative. Summative evaluations are formal and are used primarily for personnel decisions, rather than professional growth. In theory, summative evaluations can provide data to measure teacher quality with respect to one's peers, but this is rarely the case. Summative evaluations are the purview of building and district administrators.
Formative evaluations are informal, on-ongoing, wide-ranging, and driven largely by the reflective practices of individual teachers. This is the main avenue for professional growth. Our goal is to create a coherent system of formative evaluation that will dovetail with the summative evaluations of administrators, and provide more valid, fair and reliable feedback for both teachers and administrators.

Recommendations for a “Collaborative Coaching” Model of Professional Development

Our group set out to develop a system of peer review that was tied to summative evaluation of teachers. We based our work on program models from school systems like Rochester, New York. They developed a new system of evaluation and career development through negotiations between the teachers’ union and the district administration. In Rochester, teachers evaluations determine advancement on a career ladder. Teacher who reach an advanced level on this ladder have the opportunity to become peer evaluators. These teachers have a reduced teaching load so they can mentor new teachers and work with struggling teachers. Their evaluations determine advancement on the career ladder and whether or not struggling teachers should be retained.
In our work this year we have developed a vision that is much less formal and heavy-handed, but still has the potential to improve teaching and professionalism at the high school. The model we propose would not be driven by a cadre of teacher leaders, but by groups of teachers working collaboratively. The intent is to flesh out a model will provide a structure for teacher growth which is directly linked to student learning. Teachers do much of their work in isolation. Ideally, this model will establish a culture of collaboration and continuous professional development that is connected to classroom work. Our district has been working toward the same goal, but with limited success. We think this model can be more successful because it gives teachers more latitude, and it is directly linked to their work in the classroom. We also believe this will make the CDP and Portfolio work more relevant to teachers.
Charlotte Danielson, in her book “Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice,” criticizes typical evaluation practices because they are not based on shared values about good teaching, are limited in scope and precision, are hierarchical and one-way (administrator to teacher) and do not differentiate novice from experienced teachers. We hope to develop a model that addresses these problems.
A Tentative Model for Collaborative Coaching
1. Exemplary Teaching Standards
Defining good teacher proved to be difficult. We could all agree on some general descriptors. Effective teachers are passionate, engage students, create relationships that are meaningful, and continually strive to be better educators. They are masters of their subjects and instructional strategies but are never satisfied until they can reach all students in their classroom in a meaningful way.
The following pages include a more detailed outline of teaching standards drawn from a number of resources, including Charlotte Danielson’s work, on which the Iowa Professional Teaching Standards are based. The four major standards of evaluation are:
·  Planning and Preparation for Productive Student Learning
·  Instruction that Advances Student Learning
·  Establishing a Classroom Culture Favorable to Learning
·  Professionalism
This is still a work in progress, especially in the details.
2. Data Sources and Evaluation Criteria
This was the focus of the third phase of our work this year, but is very much a work in progress. We have identified some evaluation tools for use during classroom observations, and are very intrigued by the AIW (Authentic Intellectual Work) initiative by the State of Iowa. This is based upon a Newman’s “Authentic Assessment and Instruction”
As Nancy Van Note Chism describes in her book, “Peer Review of Teaching,” "for evaluation to be fair, valid and reliable, multiple sources of data must be engaged, multiple methods must be used to gather data, and data must be gathered over multiple points in time." The evaluation data should also come from multiple sources including the teachers who are being evaluated, their colleagues, students and parents, as well as the building administrator. This will be a major focus of our work next year.
3. CDP and Portfolio
For many teachers, the Iowa Teaching Portfolio and Career Development Plans are, like formal evaluations, irrelevant to their day-to-day work. In the following pages, you can see that we plan to link the exemplary teaching standards to the Iowa Teaching Standards and to artifacts for the Portfolio. This would make the Portfolio part
4. Structure and time-line
The most meaningful evaluation of a teacher’s work is his/her own. Professional growth is rooted in constant reflection and adjustment. We envision a continuous cycle in which a teacher sets goals, works towards those goals, then reflects on his/her achievement with respect to those goals. As mentioned before, this work would be the focus of a teacher’s CDP, and the reflections could included in their Teaching Portfolios.
We need to develop this model by developing clear standards to guide their work, and evaluation criteria to assist them in their reflections.
Here is a possible timeline:
Year 1: Teacher Id

Work Plan for Next year (2010-11)

1.  Evaluation Criteria and Data (Visit Gilbert and Roland-Story schools to find out more about their work with AIW)
2.  Teaching Standards
3.  Talk with administrators to allow collaborative coaching to be part of our Weds PD work.


Tentative Teaching Standards