Revisiting the Principal's Focus in Teacher Evaluation

Similar to DuFour’s The Learning-Centered Principal, DuFour and Marzano discuss the need for learning leaders who focus on the evidence of learning rather than on formal teacher evaluation. Again, the traditional concept of improving education “one teacher at a time” is being challenged, and in its place is a different approach to teacher improvement. DuFour and Marzano propose that principals spend the majority of their time organizing, driving, and supporting collaborative teams. They said, “Time devoted to building the capacity of teachers to work in teams is far better spent than time devoted to observing individual teachers.”  

This post is in further reflection to 

From Teaching to Learning-shifting the principals focus (a reflection on DuFour's proposal).

So??

“Great in theory," according to some. Iowa teaching standards, teacher evaluation procedure, and local board policy dictate a different scene. 

What DuFour and Marzano are recommending is to minimize (not eliminate) the extensive individual conferencing and observation time by instead redistributing valuable time working collaboratively with teacher groups. Within the PLC planning, implementation of strategies and assessments, and collective feedback, teachers will gain much more than an individual conference with one administrator. To elaborate, teachers will focus on defining and sharing the intended, implemented (enacted), and attained (assessed) curriculum for their subject area. Teachers will provide evidence that students are learning what is being taught. IF students are not learning, teachers will consult with their PLC’s to look deeper into instructional methods that will ensure every student is successful in attaining the intended objectives. Through this process, principals can gather a great deal of individual data by observing, helping, monitoring, and providing resources to help each PLC improve and realize its structured goals. Needless to say, principals can still provide individualized attention when needed or requested, but evidence supports that teachers working in teams demonstrate greater accountability and competence thus providing heightened increases in student achievement.

Team Responsibilities	Principal Responsibilities
·  Clarify essential curriculum ·  Establish consistent pacing ·  Develop frequent common assessments ·  Use results from assessments to inform and improve individual and collective results	·  Provide: o Time o Structures o Training o Resources o Clarity of purpose
Collectively, the work of the team is inquiry based. Individually, Marzano and DuFour claim, “each member of the team becomes more certain regarding what students must learn and how students will demonstrate their learning. Throughout the year, team members are held accountable by one another to produce results, and if progress is lacking, they work together to modify instructional strategies, differentiation methods, etc.	The role of the principal is to ensure the team is impacting student learning and is providing evidence to support achievement growth. Items the principal collects include the guaranteed and viable curriculum, pacing guides, common assessments and results, analysis of results, etc. When a team or individual members are struggling, the principal provides support and training to resolve the problem.

It makes sense to me that if teachers are working collaboratively, more cognizant of their own improvement, and holding one another accountable, and if student achievement is on the rise, teacher evaluation will be a less time-consuming and a more seamless task.

I will complete evaluator training in 2011; this training may change my perspective, but for now – I think it’s a matter of structuring the collaborative accountability push around local evaluation policies.

What do you think? Is it just theory, or is it a viable component in evaluation? Can it work? What are the realities, drawbacks, benefits, etc.? 


This post is in response to -  
DuFour, Richard, & Marzano, Robert J. (2009). High-Level Strategies for Principal Leadership. Educational Leadership. February, 2009. Vol.66, No.5, pp.62-68.

Finland versus the US - Where do we rank?

Finn students, according to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), are the best readers in the world. Some interesting details regarding this academic survey: it includes 40 industrialized countries, the surveyed schools are similar in organization, and socioeconomic status, unlike the other countries’ students, doesn’t seem to hold Finland students back! Top down, promoting literacy is a priority and includes campaign and public service participation from libraries, newspaper and periodical associations, and Finland’s public broadcasting company.

This piece also included a brief insert, “Case Study: A Reader-Friendly School,” written by Helena Linna, Reading Curriculum Developer and Instructor of Ymmersta School in Espoo, Finland. Linna provided readers with an inspiring taste of instructional strategy. Teachers at Ymmersta School strive to foster a love of books within students and create motivated readers through self-expressive activities that combine discussion and collaboration. Activities include pair-work reading, literature circles, reading portfolios, and coupling reading with writing. A very interesting practice of Ymmersta School is that they name areas of their school after places in stories such as Hundred Acre Wood, Rivendell, and Diagon Alley (from Winnie-the-Pooh, The Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter). This brief article only lists a few of the many motivating techniques this Finn school employs.

So???

My first thought was to take a look at where the United States scored. In 2003, we scored 19^th out of 40. In 2006, the United States’ scores were not reported due to an error in the instructions. The next report is available in December 2010.

Something that kept creeping into my mind is the randomness and variety of initiatives that our nation’s education system seems to be overwhelmed with. In the five years I have been in the school setting, I have heard “assess this using this, assess that using that, look at all these different numbers and figure out what each number means for each student, then individualize this and differentiate that for each of your 98 high school language arts students.” And I know great teachers can do this!! And I admit that it is IMPORTANT! That was always my intention; however, realistically, at the end of the night and after hours of grading papers, I was lacking the tools I needed to do this efficiently. But it seems we could never really narrow down to focus on one thing, and we never had sufficient supports for implementing within any one given area. This may sound infantile and naïve but it would be refreshing to simplify and make reading fun again. 

Another concept that is tickling my brain is the fact that “Finland does not administer any national reading comprehension tests during the nine years of basic education, nor are their national tests in other subjects.” Their entire concept of testing is something I have never heard of. They take a sample, ten percent of a given age group, and then base their analysis over that representation. The results are not public and nor are they used for comparison purposes; they are shared with the individual schools to improve teaching and learning. The national board then develops teacher-training programs based on their findings. The authors claim that much of the success is attributed to a push for reading across all levels and platforms of society. As well, teachers across every subject are focused on content-area reading, and all use motivating reading strategies to draw students in.

This article is a lot to take in because this system is nothing like ours. What does this mean for us as a nation… so ingrained in the results of tests; comparing schools, teachers, and students; and holding districts by their toes if too many students are below a given percentile… maybe we’ve got it all wrong?

Take a look at Can US Learn Ed Reform from Finland?, a blog post by The 21st Century Principal - J. Robinson for more information and reflection on Finland's academic success. 

This post is in response to - 

A Land of Readers by Irmeli Halinen, Pirjo Sinko, and Reijo Laukkanen

Halinen, Irmeli; Sinko, Pirjo; Laukkenen, Reijo. (2005). A Land of Readers. Educational Leadership. October, 2005. Vol.63, No.2, pp.72-76.

From Teaching to Learning-shifting the principals focus (a reflection on DuFour's proposal)

If you are a practicing administrator - feedback would be appreciated (would help me with my principal prep). 


Back to the basics. 

DuFour focuses on two words: instruction and learning. The message for readers to take away is that learning is more important than instruction… in a sense. He challenges the state and national standards set for principals to be instructional leaders. DuFour contests, “The focus on the principal as instructional leaders is flawed.” He believes that principal leadership should be focused on the advancement of staff and student learning rather than on individual teacher instructional strategies. DuFour strived for many years to be an exceptional instructional leader. He focused on individual teacher instruction and spent a great deal of time working one-on-one with teachers using a structured observation and feedback process. His work created positive outcomes, however, after many years and many hours spent on individual teachers and their teaching strategies, he realized that his focus was flawed. How were students doing? DuFour began changing his emphasis on instructional input into learning output where he would help teams of teachers prepare and guide students in achieving the school’s intended outcomes.

So???

My first reaction was… it is just a matter of semantics, teaching-learning, they are pretty much the same thing as far as the principal’s role in leadership is concerned. I realized, however, that a focus on student learning is critical in driving teacher professional development. When comparing the difference between putting an emphasis on teaching strategies versus student learning, it comparable to a ME-ME-ME focus versus a THEM focus. DuFour compares it as a shift from inputs to outputs and intentions to results. Which would you prefer to have educators placing emphasis on when prepping for the academic year? Ultimately, we want the student learning to increase; so, I agree with DuFour that more benefits will come if the principal serves as a lead learner versus an instructional leader. 

DuFour said that shifting a focus on teaching to a focus on learning is more than semantics. He’s right. It is about a principal who understands his or her role as leader and maintains a school-wide culture where student and teacher learning is priority.   

...into my 'Principal Prep Notebook':

To shift the focus from teaching to learning, the principal leads teacher teams in completing the following:

1.      Clarify the essential outcomes of the course and the outcomes of each unit of instruction within the course. [“A school’s teachers cannot make student learning their focus until they know what each student needs to learn.”]

2.      Develop two assessments per semester and specify the standard of mastery for the assessment as well as for each subtest within the assessment. [“How will we know whether students have learned the essential outcomes?”]

3.      Analyze results and develop strategies for improvement on the basis of the analysis. [“Teachers set a bar for student performance and then work to ensure that each student can make it over that bar.”]

The lead learner’s (principal’s) responsibilities:

·       Provide collaboration time.

·       Set focus and parameters.

·       Establish process and guiding questions.

·       Provide training, resources, and support to help teachers overcome difficulties they encounter while developing outcomes, writing assessments, and analyzing student achievement data.

·       Give access to relevant, timely information on students’ performance.

·       Provide help in writing specific and measureable team improvement goals that focus on student learning rather than on their team activities.

·       Offer encouragement, recognition, and celebration.

·       Hold accountable individuals or teams who fail to fulfill responsibilities.

This post is in response to - 

DuFour, Richard. (2002). The Learning-Centered Principal. Educational Leadership. May, 2002. Vol.59, No.8, pp.12-15.

A Presentation by Jeff Utecht: the learning continues...

Jeff Utecht: What did I learn and how could it affect me as a principal?
The Thinking Stick: Technology
What does it mean to be information literate these days?


This post is from the perspective of an educational technology leader, teacher librarian, and aspiring school principal. 


[If you don’t know him: Jeff Utecht is an international teacher currently working in Bangkok, Tailand as an Elementary and Technology Learning Coordinator at Shanghai American School. Through education, he acquired his BA in Elementary Education; MS in Curriculum and Instruction; and added his Administration Certification. He began teaching 4th-6th grade classes and later technology classes while also serving as a technology coordinator. Jeff served as an administrative intern (where he worked 720 hours in various leadership roles), implementation leader, professional growth and evaluation coordinator, and K-12 Technology Specialist. In addition to teaching university courses and presenting to educators, he authored the recently published book, Reach and created the blog, The Thinking Stick.]


Snippet of the Presentation: Jeff presented at the Principal Leadership Network Conference (at the Prairie Lakes AEA) on behalf of Scott McLeod. The content was geared toward administrators and their views on technology in schools. The vehicle for Jeff’s content was real-world applicable lessons that administrators could take back to teachers. Now that’s a presentation worth attending. The beginning of Jeff’s presentation revolved around the evolution of technology, especially the Internet, and how schools are responding. Some schools choose to block, some choose to be wide open, while the rest sit on the fence providing limited access to the WWW. The theme question for this discussion was “What is the educational purpose behind blocking versus providing access beyond school walls?” So, how many schools block YouTube? …YouTube as in the 2nd most frequented search engine (providing news, entertainment, tutorials, etc. in video rather than written format)? Many schools choose to block YouTube due to the risk of students finding inappropriate content. Jeff posed this question for us to consider, “If you block YouTube, do you block Google? …There’s bad stuff there too.”


My thoughts after this discussion: Are we teaching students how to use the tool, or are we denying them a very important educational lesson on information literacy that is needed throughout each student’s lifetime? Are we teaching them how to make good choices in the digital world beyond our walls, or are we going to hope they make good choices based on the traditional content and tools we are so, in some cases, so desperately hanging on to providing them? Yikes. We as adults know the dangers are out there, and I would hope that part of my own children’s schooling involves digital literacy coupled with skills in problem-solving and decision-making… and in a way that engages them with tools of their generation!


Policy-making was another topic that continues to stay with me. How many schools are creating policies that address new digital tools and behaviors? I mentioned this in a prior post… It’s going to take a lot of paper and a great deal of wasted time keeping up with technology. Think about it in terms of an electronic evolution: school Apple IIe's with the Oregon Trail to PCs at homes to adults with cell phones to mobile laptops to LeapFrog learning devices to 10-year-olds with cell phones to iPods to iPads… and this doesn’t touch on the digital evolution of the listed devices’ inner-workings. Maybe I’m naïve and not as versed in school law as more veteran education leaders, but it seems an act of practicality and good sense to keep policies focused on behaviors rather than tools and programs that may be extinct the next day (follow link to Scott McLeod's Mind Dump).


Memorable: The most memorable part of Jeff’s time with us was the level of engagement of all of the participants (from what I could observe). Jeff started the day by assigning us (students) tasks. Volunteers had the following duties: three Google Docs note-takers recording discussions on the topic of A New Learning Landscape (one from the perspective of a student, one from the perspective of an administrator, and one recording links and resources), a moderator on Twitter along with volunteer tweeters, a moderator on a back channel along with willing participants, and a doodler up on the white board.

Imagine the links for learning with the various note-taking strategies!

Hands-on Activity: Jeff led us through a fifteen-minute activity (total of about 25-35 minutes including the introduction and the debriefing of “student” responses). But the meat of the activity – 15 minutes. For fifteen minutes, 20-30 students were sweatin’ bullets, including myself, as we worked with partners to complete a small research task given to us by our boss, Mr. Utecht. We had to email our findings within that time, or if we did not meet the deadline - face being fired. Each group had the freedom to choose the topic of their interest, making the activity even more attractive. Again, from my observation, it seemed that each member in each group was on task, and the group conversations were productive and meaningful. Finally, the debriefing is where I learned the most because I was eager to compare my group’s answers to that of our peers.


The summary above is just part of the thinking that was taking place within that conference room. What is inspiring is that the learning and discussion continue well beyond that session. Below are the questions Jeff left us with:


Where is your school?

• Is the technology being used "Just because it's there?"
• Is the technology allowing the teacher/students to do Old things in Old ways?
• Is the technology allowing the teacher/students to do Old things in New ways?
• Is the technology creating new and different learning experiences for the students?

Organization Challenge to G-T Students

G-T STUDENTS,

I CHALLENGE YOU TO CHECK ONE OR MULTIPLE OUT... 

Prize TBD (to be determined) goes to the FIRST 10 to write PERFECT paragraphs stating the ways the tool improves organization for school purposes (screenshots of actual use must be included). Who knows - the prize could be... M&Ms!!?! Or... pizza for lunch!?!? Or...an APPLE!?  Or..a trip to Disneyland!?!?

The suspense!

Hint: Soshiku and TrackClass look to be the most well-rounded for student purposes (assignment keeping, note taking, calendar organizing, file storage, and even collaboration with project peers). Try both - that will improve your chances.

Criteria: 

• You need to be using the tool for one week (with proof). Fakers will not win. 
• The paragraph must be in tip-top shape (perfect punctuation and grammar/best-practice paragraph structure and sentence construction)
• I will not give second chances, so please make sure you have had proofreaders help you! 
• I will begin accepting emails December 15 at 8:00 A.M. and will close the competition at midnight.

Check back later for results. :)

SEE THE BLOG linked here (By Richard Byrne) FOR THE TOOLS (AND THEIR LINKS). 

GOOD LUCK, 

Mrs. Alesch

... and so I must challenge my own blog post!

After my last post on the Facebook-Students-Educators policy triangle, I have had many discussions with teachers, students, and administrators. It wouldn't be fair if I didn't come back and challenge my own blog post. 

I consider myself a change agent, a proponent of educational reform, and a liberal compared to most in terms of technology's role in education. To note, I still believe Facebook has its place in connecting teachers and students, but I am humbled by the concept of ethics and professionalism when it comes to students and teachers "friending." 

I initially created my Facebook page as a 29-year-old varsity volleyball coach to communicate more efficiently with my players, and it worked g-r-e-a-t. As a high school English teacher, I began receiving friend requests from students. I pondered, at that time the door I was opening, but moved forward cautiously because I liked the idea of building relationships with students to enhance my educational influence... although, I will admit, I had wished Facebook would create another term for "friending" because I didn't view the relationship between myself and my students that way - and neither did they. It was a way for me to reach out, communicate, and offer a slice of my personal life.

I drew the line within my personal/professional Facebook page: When I began adding my own personal friends and family, I sent each person a message explaining that my presence was as an educator and role model, and that all posts, pictures, and any other reflection of me would be as that educator and employee of the school district. When accepting requests from students, I reminded them of my responsibility as a mandatory reporter and that anything that came across my newsfeed that was questionable would be reported. Later, due to saturation of student "discussions," I changed my settings so that I would not receive student posts. At that time, I felt I was headed in the right digital-direction professionally and ethically.

However, what I just realized was that even though I kept my persona professional and role model-like, I was still putting myself in a risky position - it was my "ACCESS" that made me liable.

Here is the scenario that was presented to me... the scenario that changed my view: School employee goes to a student's page to leave him/her a message (school-related or not) or "likes" a student's post or comments on a student's picture - all of which could be positive gestures. Sometime later (anytime really), student posts something that hints or blatantly spells out suicide. Student commits suicide. The parents raise questions as to why the employee did not come forward. Whether the employee saw the post or not is not the argument. When the employee makes the choice to extend school walls to Facebook, the employee is, in an ethical and professional sense, responsible for monitoring that digital extension of school grounds. To zoom in even further on this incident, maybe the employee had never commented on that particular student's page but HAD on different student's page. The employee could still be questioned because of the simple concept of access. And with access comes professional and ethical responsibility. 

If not careful, access could be our own professional suicide.