I have recently worked with new instructional coaches in the Salem Keizer School District in OR and with the principals in Sumner County Schools in TN.
Salem Keizer will be beginning its third year of instructional coaching and has expanded the number of coaches in difficult budget times. The district coaches have their own website at www.coachingtogether.net.
Two coordinators from Sumner (TN) traveled to study coaching with the OR team. Sumner will be implementing instructional coaching for the first time this fall. My initial session with principals was designed to begin the planning for how to work effectively with coaches and teachers. (I’ll be providing training for coaches in Aug.)
In both systems we examined how coaching and Professional Learning Communities combine to increase teacher collegiality and engagement in a continuous improvement process.
In a June 4th, 2009 posting at TRAINING’s Manage Smarter, Ken Thomas’ Employee Engagement in Hard Times: Focus on Intrinsic Rewards rings true for business leaders in tough economic times as well as for school based leaders.
If you ask people what keeps them engaged and energized at work, they talk more about their work than money. Research has shown "intrinsic" rewards—those positive emotional charges we get from excelling at work we find meaningful—are more powerful influences on day-to-day engagement than money.
Thomas identifies four basic intrinsic rewards people receive from work, all of which flow directly from the steps of self management. It is these rewards that energize us to stay engaged.
*Sense of meaningfulness: The feeling that your work contributes to an important purpose—something that makes a positive difference and is worth your time and energy.
*Sense of choice: The feeling that you are free to choose how to best accomplish your work—you can apply your intelligence, try out new ideas, and perform in ways that make sense to you.
*Sense of competence: The feeling that you are performing your work activities in a competent, high-quality manner you can take pride in.
*Sense of progress: The feeling that you are accomplishing your work purpose—things are on track and moving forward.
Thomas suggest that much of leaders' work is to create the climate for each of these intrinsic motivators to emerge…let me see if I can show that in some specific strategies connected to coaching and professional learning communities:
Sense of meaningfulness: Principals help establish along with staff, parents and students a strong vision of learning for the school. This common vision which reaches way beyond “test scores” drives the hard work of teaching and learning. Vertical and cross curricular teams of teachers (PLCs) focus on the whole education of students rather than an isolated part (7th grade math).
Sense of choice: Coaches work from agendas established by and with the teachers they coach. PLC’s become powerful and committed when they know that together they are making critical decisions about best approaches to student learning. Effective principals convince teachers that these PLC decisions will be supported. Convinced, teachers take on increase responsibility for student success.
Sense of competence: Effective teachers can’t wait for state test results to reinforce their work and their students' work. Coaches are often asked to collect classroom data that illustrates the initial payoff (change in student activity) from teachers' initial efforts at change. PLC’s design common short term assessments that provide the feedback that reinforces effort or encourages a modification of the initial change.
Sense of progress: collaborative relationships; milestones; celebrations; access to customers; measurement of improvement (Thomas). Coaches often provide the feedback that shows progress and motivates continued effort on the part of teachers. PLC celebrations of individual and group progress is critical to maintaining the momentum of hard work.
How about student engagement? All four of the above indicators appear in Tapping Student Effort.. Increasing Student Achievement . Meaningfulness is found in live event learning where students’ decisions (choices) have real consequences. (See Ike: A Documentary- labor of love for Galveston high schoolers-Houston Chronicle) Students setting goals and identifying their progress toward those goals creates a confidence of competence.
My continual suggestion to leaders is ”model the model”. In many ways coaching and professional learning communities model the engagement strategies that leaders hope to see teachers implementing with students.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
The real test for the movement to professional learning communities as a school improvement effort is, ”Can we show payoff in student achievement?”
In my work with the New Jersey Professional Teaching Standards Board, I had the opportunity to hear a presentation on research that explored the question, “Is there a discernible relationship between schools that purport to function as professional learning communities and those that do not in terms of student success?” *footnote
Two definitions from the report:
Professional Learning Community (PLC): Educators committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. Professional learning communities operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous job-embedded learning for educators.
Team: A group of people working interdependently to achieve a common goal for which members are held mutually accountable. Collaborative teams are the fundamental building blocks of PLC’s.
Quick Summary: The standardized test scores on the NJASK demonstrate continual growth of the schools working as PLC’s when comparing the schools to other schools in the same District Factor Group (DFG) [DFG is grouping of schools with similar student body make up]. The results indicate a stronger performance in the schools that are professional learning communities when compared with performance of other schools.
An interesting element of the research is a look at two successful schools serving two different communities.
School B is a small elementary school serving 253 students PreK-8 in a residential suburban community. The district’s costs per pupil was $ 21,372 in 2007-08. One hundred percent (100%) of the students are dominate English speakers. Parents are extremely involved and the community is committed to educational excellence.
School E is a small urban charter elementary and middle school which serves 323 students in K-8. The school's cost per student for 2007-08 was $11,863. The student body is 30% African-American, 44% white, 14% Hispanic and 12% Asian. Dominate English speakers make up 82.7% while 5.6% are dominant Spanish speakers.
On the 2008 NJASK:
School B: Had 100% of 7th and 8th graders score proficient or advanced on the Spring NJASK in Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics. This was 18-35 points above the state average and 6-19 points above their DFG category. Most impressive were the number of students scoring advanced proficient. Seventh and eigth graders scoring advance proficient in Language Arts and Literacy were from 20-32 points above the state average and 12-21 points above their DFG category.
School E: Had from 73-93 % of 7th and 8th graders scoring proficient or advanced proficient on the same Language Arts and Mathematics NJASK. These scores ranged from 3-25 points above the state averages and from 21 to 46 points above schools in similar DFG category.
Schools B and E have different socioeconomic populations, yet the schools demonstrated academic achievement compared to their respective District Factor Group. The PLC’s address the needs of students in each of these districts.
The researchers identify the limitations of the study including that many factors may influence student test performance and that it would be difficult to isolate the impact of the PLC’s. Interviews that they conducted with teachers and administrators support the connection subjectively.
We will need much continued research to support and encourage leaders building PLC’s to improve service to students. Thanks to the Caldwell College students for advancing the learning.
In my work with the New Jersey Professional Teaching Standards Board, I had the opportunity to hear a presentation on research that explored the question, “Is there a discernible relationship between schools that purport to function as professional learning communities and those that do not in terms of student success?” *footnote
Two definitions from the report:
Professional Learning Community (PLC): Educators committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. Professional learning communities operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous job-embedded learning for educators.
Team: A group of people working interdependently to achieve a common goal for which members are held mutually accountable. Collaborative teams are the fundamental building blocks of PLC’s.
Quick Summary: The standardized test scores on the NJASK demonstrate continual growth of the schools working as PLC’s when comparing the schools to other schools in the same District Factor Group (DFG) [DFG is grouping of schools with similar student body make up]. The results indicate a stronger performance in the schools that are professional learning communities when compared with performance of other schools.
An interesting element of the research is a look at two successful schools serving two different communities.
School B is a small elementary school serving 253 students PreK-8 in a residential suburban community. The district’s costs per pupil was $ 21,372 in 2007-08. One hundred percent (100%) of the students are dominate English speakers. Parents are extremely involved and the community is committed to educational excellence.
School E is a small urban charter elementary and middle school which serves 323 students in K-8. The school's cost per student for 2007-08 was $11,863. The student body is 30% African-American, 44% white, 14% Hispanic and 12% Asian. Dominate English speakers make up 82.7% while 5.6% are dominant Spanish speakers.
On the 2008 NJASK:
School B: Had 100% of 7th and 8th graders score proficient or advanced on the Spring NJASK in Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics. This was 18-35 points above the state average and 6-19 points above their DFG category. Most impressive were the number of students scoring advanced proficient. Seventh and eigth graders scoring advance proficient in Language Arts and Literacy were from 20-32 points above the state average and 12-21 points above their DFG category.
School E: Had from 73-93 % of 7th and 8th graders scoring proficient or advanced proficient on the same Language Arts and Mathematics NJASK. These scores ranged from 3-25 points above the state averages and from 21 to 46 points above schools in similar DFG category.
Schools B and E have different socioeconomic populations, yet the schools demonstrated academic achievement compared to their respective District Factor Group. The PLC’s address the needs of students in each of these districts.
The researchers identify the limitations of the study including that many factors may influence student test performance and that it would be difficult to isolate the impact of the PLC’s. Interviews that they conducted with teachers and administrators support the connection subjectively.
We will need much continued research to support and encourage leaders building PLC’s to improve service to students. Thanks to the Caldwell College students for advancing the learning.
Caldwell College Team and NJ Professional Teaching Standards Board
Much of my enthusiasm for PLC’s reflects my teaching and working relationships with committed teams. Students’ needs can best be met by professionals working together with a shared accountability for the students’ success. It’s common sense for me.
*Researchers on this report were Patricia Clark, Leah Fanning, Ryan Kelly, Sr., Maurice Liguori, and Jenna Russo. The paper was prepared in the authors’ Problem-Based Externship in Educational Administration at Caldwell College in New Jersey (ED 676/677) in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Education. Spring 2009… Dr Joan Moriarty (advisor)
Sunday, June 14, 2009
WHAT DOES SATISFACTORY MEAN?... WHAT DOES IT TELL YOU?
In my last posting I noted that I am reading David Perkin’s, Making Learning Whole. In Chapter 5, Working on the Hard Parts, he examines the role of feedback in learning. He describes the problem with what he calls the hearts-and–minds theory: “Take it to heart, keep it in mind, and do better next time.”
Perkins (pages 80-81) identifies that a hearts-and-minds approach assumes that:
-learners care enough to improve, even though the class is moving on to the next topic
-learners will remember the input and use it in the future
-learners understand sparse feedback and can use it effectively
-learners will have the opportunity to try again soon.
This suggests to me that much teacher feedback on students’ tests and papers may be wasted teacher time.
Similarly, much administrator time spent in formal teacher evaluations may be wasted time. Consider the following taken from Stephen Sawchucks’ writing for Education Week (6/1 online- 6/10 in print), Grade Inflation Seen in Evaluation of Teachers, Regardless of System.
The districts that employed a binary rating system granted 99 percent of tenured teachers a “satisfactory” rating. In systems with more than two categories of ratings, 94 percent of teachers received one of the two highest ratings.
The evaluations also appear to have failed as a method for offering professional development tailored to individual teachers’ needs. Seventy-three percent of the teachers surveyed said their evaluations did not identify an area for development. Only 43 percent said the evaluations helped them improve.
Nor did the systems serve to remove ineffective teachers. For instance, only 10 percent of Denver schools missing standardized-testing goals under the federal No Child Left Behind Act issued an unsatisfactory rating to a teacher over the past three years. Yet 81 percent of administrators and 58 percent of teachers in the districts surveyed said a tenured teacher in their school was performing poorly, and 43 percent of teachers said a colleague should be dismissed for poor performance.
Many of the administrators may be practicing a heart-and–mind theory of feedback.
“Take it to heart, keep it in mind, and do better next time.”
Perkins shares (page 84) that one of the dilemmas of ongoing assessment for teachers is the lack of time. Teachers do not have the time to provide all the feedback that students need for quality learning. He suggests that students evaluating one another’s work and evaluating their own work with rubrics can provide valuable feedback. He believes that students can learn as much from assessing as being assessed.
I’m personally convinced that when students take some responsibility for each other’s learning, student achievement increases. The teacher’s role is to orchestrate that interpersonal relationship.
Principals face the same time dilemma in getting sufficient feedback to teachers. So developing the interpersonal relationships of teachers in professional learning communities and peer coaching becomes a critical administrator responsibility.
Last summer, I shared that teachers at the Enka School in Istanbul, Turkey had completed training in coaching and begun initial practice. Here is one teacher’s recent report that illustrates receiving additional feedback and perhaps more importantly increased reflection from coaching.
I benefited from both coaching and being coached. My coach made me see some missing points in my teaching. With the help of my coach I could change some strategies, try them and see the best regarding my class’ needs.
For the coaching part, I could see different strategies and methods. I had the chance to compare different classes and teachers. It also improved my teaching and made me see things from a different point of view.
So, I think the students will gain from our coaching/being coached experiences.
Cross department coaching may be useful. Depending on the subject of coaching, we can learn alternative approaches from other departments.
But above all, we need more free time to spend enough on coaching.
I am quite sure that administrator time and effort invested in promoting peer coaching will produce greater return on investment than most formal evaluation activities. Similarly, teachers designing student to student and student self assessment activities will create more learning than grading papers.
Perkins (pages 80-81) identifies that a hearts-and-minds approach assumes that:
-learners care enough to improve, even though the class is moving on to the next topic
-learners will remember the input and use it in the future
-learners understand sparse feedback and can use it effectively
-learners will have the opportunity to try again soon.
This suggests to me that much teacher feedback on students’ tests and papers may be wasted teacher time.
Similarly, much administrator time spent in formal teacher evaluations may be wasted time. Consider the following taken from Stephen Sawchucks’ writing for Education Week (6/1 online- 6/10 in print), Grade Inflation Seen in Evaluation of Teachers, Regardless of System.
The districts that employed a binary rating system granted 99 percent of tenured teachers a “satisfactory” rating. In systems with more than two categories of ratings, 94 percent of teachers received one of the two highest ratings.
The evaluations also appear to have failed as a method for offering professional development tailored to individual teachers’ needs. Seventy-three percent of the teachers surveyed said their evaluations did not identify an area for development. Only 43 percent said the evaluations helped them improve.
Nor did the systems serve to remove ineffective teachers. For instance, only 10 percent of Denver schools missing standardized-testing goals under the federal No Child Left Behind Act issued an unsatisfactory rating to a teacher over the past three years. Yet 81 percent of administrators and 58 percent of teachers in the districts surveyed said a tenured teacher in their school was performing poorly, and 43 percent of teachers said a colleague should be dismissed for poor performance.
Many of the administrators may be practicing a heart-and–mind theory of feedback.
“Take it to heart, keep it in mind, and do better next time.”
Perkins shares (page 84) that one of the dilemmas of ongoing assessment for teachers is the lack of time. Teachers do not have the time to provide all the feedback that students need for quality learning. He suggests that students evaluating one another’s work and evaluating their own work with rubrics can provide valuable feedback. He believes that students can learn as much from assessing as being assessed.
I’m personally convinced that when students take some responsibility for each other’s learning, student achievement increases. The teacher’s role is to orchestrate that interpersonal relationship.
Principals face the same time dilemma in getting sufficient feedback to teachers. So developing the interpersonal relationships of teachers in professional learning communities and peer coaching becomes a critical administrator responsibility.
Last summer, I shared that teachers at the Enka School in Istanbul, Turkey had completed training in coaching and begun initial practice. Here is one teacher’s recent report that illustrates receiving additional feedback and perhaps more importantly increased reflection from coaching.
I benefited from both coaching and being coached. My coach made me see some missing points in my teaching. With the help of my coach I could change some strategies, try them and see the best regarding my class’ needs.
For the coaching part, I could see different strategies and methods. I had the chance to compare different classes and teachers. It also improved my teaching and made me see things from a different point of view.
So, I think the students will gain from our coaching/being coached experiences.
Cross department coaching may be useful. Depending on the subject of coaching, we can learn alternative approaches from other departments.
But above all, we need more free time to spend enough on coaching.
I am quite sure that administrator time and effort invested in promoting peer coaching will produce greater return on investment than most formal evaluation activities. Similarly, teachers designing student to student and student self assessment activities will create more learning than grading papers.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
ACADEMIC LEARNING TIME
I recently had the opportunity to spend a major portion of a day observing in teachers’ classrooms with their principal and then discussing the observations with her. Late in the day the principal and I discussed our observations and thinking with the school’s administrative team.
My thoughts: If I had videotaped the observations focusing only on the teacher, most viewers would describe what they saw as fine or at least OK. It is when the camera would pull back on the students that questions or concerns might emerge.
In most classrooms we observed, the teacher was interacting with the students as a whole class. Often 50% of the students were fully engaged with the teacher and the discussion or actively participating, thinking ahead, reflecting, practicing, discussing,etc. We observed little if any disruptive behavior, so the teachers’ lessons continued to flow. Level of engagement was largely by student choice.
After 10 classroom observations we found the first use of cooperative groups with teacher facilitation. Initial observation noted increased student voice, control, and attention. Longer observation raised questions concerning the value or likely payoff from “what” students were engaged in.
Conversation with the administrative team confirmed that these observations were similar to theirs and could be defined as a pattern that existed in the school.
Change in teacher practice in this school will likely take change in administrators’ observation practices and conversations with teachers. Increased observation of students by teachers will be the key to change teacher practice. Only when teachers see the unengaged, will they try “something” to increase student focused effort. Professional Development, Coaching, and Professional Learning Communities can provide teachers with the instructional options that are the “something.”
David Perkins’ book Making Learning Whole, provides a starting point for teachers’ and administrators’ observations and conversations:
“Effective learning requires artful management of the entire situation to lift academic learning time toward something close to the total time available, making the most of it rather than letting it slip away like sand between one’s fingers.”
Definition of Academic Learning Time
Perkins suggests four attributes that impact academic learning time:
PACE- Is each learner actively involved most of the time? Do lectures or videos come with a listening/thinking task? Does questioning and pause time encourage everyone to be forming answers?
FOCUS- Do learners’ activities fall in the core area of what we want them to learn versus busyness? Are students in the play store spending more time setting up the store than practicing the math transactions? Could more energy be going into the technology presentation than into the core content of the learning?
STRETCH- Are learners finding the tasks they are completing to have appropriate challenge? Are there some students doing 20 problems with no new challenge while a few students can’t start the assigned task?
STICK- Are parts of the unfolding pattern of activity designed to help the learning stick? Examples include deliberate rehearsal, reflection, stock taking, and revisiting ideas and practices later and the again later.
I believe that pace, focus, stretch and stick will give coaches and administrators a great place to begin conversations around observations. Teachers identifying missing components in their instruction can come to professional learning communities seeking to learn options.
My thoughts: If I had videotaped the observations focusing only on the teacher, most viewers would describe what they saw as fine or at least OK. It is when the camera would pull back on the students that questions or concerns might emerge.
In most classrooms we observed, the teacher was interacting with the students as a whole class. Often 50% of the students were fully engaged with the teacher and the discussion or actively participating, thinking ahead, reflecting, practicing, discussing,etc. We observed little if any disruptive behavior, so the teachers’ lessons continued to flow. Level of engagement was largely by student choice.
After 10 classroom observations we found the first use of cooperative groups with teacher facilitation. Initial observation noted increased student voice, control, and attention. Longer observation raised questions concerning the value or likely payoff from “what” students were engaged in.
Conversation with the administrative team confirmed that these observations were similar to theirs and could be defined as a pattern that existed in the school.
Change in teacher practice in this school will likely take change in administrators’ observation practices and conversations with teachers. Increased observation of students by teachers will be the key to change teacher practice. Only when teachers see the unengaged, will they try “something” to increase student focused effort. Professional Development, Coaching, and Professional Learning Communities can provide teachers with the instructional options that are the “something.”
David Perkins’ book Making Learning Whole, provides a starting point for teachers’ and administrators’ observations and conversations:
“Effective learning requires artful management of the entire situation to lift academic learning time toward something close to the total time available, making the most of it rather than letting it slip away like sand between one’s fingers.”
Definition of Academic Learning Time
Perkins suggests four attributes that impact academic learning time:
PACE- Is each learner actively involved most of the time? Do lectures or videos come with a listening/thinking task? Does questioning and pause time encourage everyone to be forming answers?
FOCUS- Do learners’ activities fall in the core area of what we want them to learn versus busyness? Are students in the play store spending more time setting up the store than practicing the math transactions? Could more energy be going into the technology presentation than into the core content of the learning?
STRETCH- Are learners finding the tasks they are completing to have appropriate challenge? Are there some students doing 20 problems with no new challenge while a few students can’t start the assigned task?
STICK- Are parts of the unfolding pattern of activity designed to help the learning stick? Examples include deliberate rehearsal, reflection, stock taking, and revisiting ideas and practices later and the again later.
I believe that pace, focus, stretch and stick will give coaches and administrators a great place to begin conversations around observations. Teachers identifying missing components in their instruction can come to professional learning communities seeking to learn options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
