School Law Project
Literacy Scenario
Martha Washington Middle School is a public school serving grades five through eight in West Philadelphia. In this context, I will be responding to Scenario II.
My first action would be to thank the parent for bringing her concerns to my attention and reassure her that our priority is to ensure their child’s academic needs are being met. I would schedule a meeting with the parent and members of the school team on Friday, leaving time to investigate the issue.
The next step after speaking with the parent would be to collect some data on the student’s academic performance. Using the school’s online recordkeeping systems, I would look at the student’s attendance and grades over the last several years for all subjects, making careful note of both Math and Reading grades as well as any trends. I would also look at the current year’s grades to date in both Reading and Math. The next data I would access online is PSSA and Benchmark performance for sixth grade. That data is very easily organized to show performance by standard, skill, deficit, strength, etc. and highlight any trends.
Since the student has been struggling for the first two months of school and earning a D grade by Interim Reports, she will have already been entered into Tier I of the district’s Response To Intervention and Instruction (RTII) process. In this tier, I should see evidence of classroom-based strategies implemented by the teacher to increase the student’s proficiency and performance. If there was evidence of 30 days of consistent and sustained Tier I interventions, I would push for the team to consider moving the student to Tier II, which would access more rigorous academic interventions. In the event that the teacher had not yet begun to consistently implement interventions at the classroom level, I would direct the school’s teacher leader to assist with meeting the requirements of Tier I. I would also suggest reaching out to the sixth-grade math teacher. Since the student was successful in her class, it would be worthwhile to explore the interventions and methods she used to help the student succeed.
Once I had a complete academic profile, I would informally observe the math class and look for evidence of comprehension strategies being taught in a math context. Comprehension strategies are a key component of the majority of PA Core Standards, and a necessary skill to access the PA Eligible Content on PSSAs. I want to see that in every classroom there is evidence of collaborative learning being implemented and reinforced in a meaningful way. In a math class, that would be evident by observing students work in pairs using a three-step process to solve a problem together. First, one student would read the problem out loud to his/her partner. Step two, the second student would restate or summarize the problem that was just read by the partner. In step three, the students would collaborate on applying the strategy that had been previously taught by the teacher and coming up with an answer as well as an explanation for how they reached the answer. This process is valuable for aiding comprehension by conversation, and students are learning from each other in a problem-solving context and not only by teacher-led instruction.
If I did not see adequate evidence of comprehension based instructional strategies, I would reach out to the school’s teacher leader and ask her to work with the teacher to make sure those procedures are being both explicitly taught and consistently utilized in the classroom. As part of the teacher leader’s support, she would both model the use of instructional strategies as well as assist in determining which strategies are most appropriate for a targeted concept. To facilitate professional development, I would arrange for teacher coverage sometime in the next week so that the math teacher could engage in online professional development about using reading comprehension strategies to drive math proficiency. After providing the teacher with several vehicles to implement and advance reading comprehension instruction in the math context, I would follow up with another observation looking for more evidence of the specific instructional methods (including collaborative learning). Should I fail to observe sufficient progress towards proficient use of comprehension based instructional strategies, I would begin a more formal improvement process.
Before the parent meeting, I would meet with the math teacher and teacher leader to review their plan for the student, noting the strategies and interventions and instructional methods that are currently used and will be implemented to ensure the student’s comprehension needs are being met in the math context. This plan is focused on the student, and not the teacher- should the student move to another school, the plan would be such that any educator could successfully implement it to ensure student success. At the parent meeting, I would have the teacher explain the learning plan and the various instructional methods that teach and reinforce comprehension in a math context. In an effort to clear up any misunderstanding, I would ask the teacher to explain to the parent that although the teacher doesn’t explicitly teach reading comprehension, reading comprehension strategies are constantly being reinforced and implemented within the context of math instruction.
Student Support Project
Fall Capstone paper
Part I
The goal of high-level literacy and social studies learning is to prepare students “to enter adulthood with the skills they will need to participate fully in a democratic society that is part of a global economy” (Morrow, 2014, p. 7), and the role of a principal is to create and sustain a school-wide culture focused on culturally responsive teaching and learning as a driving force. As the leader of the educational community as a whole, the principal sets the tone and focus of the school’s culture. By making effective teaching and learning the number one focus of the entire school community, the culture will evolve and shift, “enhancing school climate goals like inclusion, empathy, collaboration, student-driven learning, kindness, and respect” (Tavangar, 2016, p. 62). With these skills, students will meet the ultimate goal of entering the world beyond school walls as learners who can read, write, and think with a deep understanding- ready to meet the ever-changing challenges of an increasingly complex global society.
Fostering a school culture where learning and teaching are the driving force can be a difficult task, especially within a school with an already-ingrained culture that runs contrary. As a principal, clearly and consistently communicating the vision of a community of learners is an essential part of making a difficult culture shift. As stated by Michael Fullan in What’s Worth Fighting for in the Principalship (2008), “leadership is not about making clever decisions and doing bigger deals, least of all for personal gain. It is about energizing other people to make good decisions and do better things” (p. 16). In order to ensure that ALL students are engaged in high-levels of learning, particularly literacy and social studies learning, the principal must set the bar high and then lead by example, showing to everyone that high-levels of teaching and learning are a priority from the top down. “The educational leader must, above all, be a practitioner of curriculum” (Daresh, 2007, p. 274). It is not enough to create a vision for others to fulfil. “True leadership only exists if people follow when they have the freedom not to” (Collins, 2011, p. 13). The principal must truly believe and live the vision he/she sets for the school community, and give all members the tools needed to succeed in the vision of creating learners ready to face the world. When all the members of the school community feel supported and prepared to live the school’s vision, the culture will be one where high-levels of learning occur for ALL stakeholders, both students and teachers. To quote Bernhardt, “There must be one vision for the school—we have to get everyone on the same page and moving forward together (2013, p. 1)
The importance of teacher collaboration and ongoing professional development in providing students with high-level literacy and social studies instruction cannot be understated. In order to foster a school-wide culture focused on culturally responsive teaching and learning, teachers themselves must engage in high levels of learning and collaborative practices on a continuous basis. “As educators, our challenge is to match the needs of our learners to a world that is changing with great rapidity. To meet this challenge, we need to become strategic learners ourselves by deliberately expanding our perspectives and updating our approaches.” (Jacobs, 2010, p. 4) When teachers develop their own instructional expertise and collaborative relationships with colleagues, they are better able to discern and meet the needs of the individual learners they teach. Teachers need to be armed with a strong knowledge of what is good evidence of high-level literacy learning in order to provide instruction and make appropriate instructional and assessment decisions. They need to be armed with knowledge that comes from research on best practices and professional wisdom (Morrow, 2014, p. 6). Research is proving that collaborative professional learning is more impactful on both teachers and students, and a good leader creates opportunities for collaborative learning at all levels. The principal is ultimately responsible for fostering “literacy achievement by leading by example, learning by example, and creating conditions for collaborative professional learning” (Jay, 2007, p. 52).
“Principals, as leaders closest to the scene, do not leave it to others to ensure that knowledge is front-and-center in the work of the school” (Fullan, 2008, p. 31)- principals are responsible for leading and participating in the collaborative culture they seek to foster among teachers. Principals must empower teachers to lead the learning environment and provide them with the conditions needed to make a collaborative culture a reality. This will ensure that teachers are able to vigorously “zero-in on effective instructional practices and to use data on student leading both as a lever for improvement and as a source for external accountability” (Fullan, 2008, p. 17). By giving teachers the tools they need to be impactful and the freedom to use those tools, the principal places trust in the teachers to decide what instruction looks like. Teachers become the leaders, providing their students with the instructional practices that will be most effective for each of them.
Differentiation is also tremendously important to ensuring rigorous instruction is being provided at a level that allows each student to achieve: “The core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn” (DuFour, 2004, p. 8). When teachers can authentically assess and determine the needs of students, it becomes easier to draw on the wealth of strategies in both their individual toolkit and the collaborative toolkit developed with colleagues. By giving teacher the freedom to assess and monitor student understanding in a meaningful way, principals are reinforcing that “teachers need latitude to help individual learners reach proficiency targets” (Jacobs, 2010, p. 9). There is a way to reach each and every student within the walls of a school, even if it’s not measured by the parameters of a state test. All students can learn regardless of reading level, socioeconomic status, disability, behavior issue, home life, etc. As written by Costa and Kallick in Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind (2000), schools need to modify the old slogan that “all kids can learn” and change it to: “all kids can learn but not on the same day and in the same way.” It is our responsibility as educators not only to understand what it means to say that “all kids can learn but not on the same day and in the same way”, but also to effectively operationalize it in classrooms. (p. 18)
In an era where many schools fall into the trap of “teaching to the test”, empowering teachers to use their own knowledge and experience to drive instruction can be immensely powerful. Tying teachers to a specific curriculum and set of assessments does not adequately educate students for the global world- just for the next test. Morrow writes in Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (2014) that the goal of obtaining authentic information about students’ literacy capabilities “should not be sacrificed for the efficiency of contrived texts and tasks created specifically for assessment purposes” (p. 8). Truly high levels of student competency in literacy and social studies cannot be assessed by sticking to a script and teaching all students on the same field. Strong, comprehensive literacy instruction “supports and prepares students to independently use listening and speaking, reading and writing, and viewing and representing as a means to effectively comprehend and communicate for authentic and personal reasons” (Morrow, 2014, p. 8). This is instruction that requires more than just teaching to the test to develop globally competent citizens. Teaching to the test does not adequately prepare students for life beyond formal education, and in turn doesn’t truly give students the skills they need to be successful adults.
The use of data to drive instruction becomes easier to support when teachers collaborate. Traditionally, data has been presented as something new to do, a way for one teacher to look better than another, and a mandate that teachers must implement regardless of their own professional skills and competencies. Teachers are focused on how well their class does on one assessment, worried that they will “look bad” if their class’s scores on one test are lower than the other section for their grade. It exemplifies Bernhardt’s idea that “when only some data are used, the focus is typically on the gaps and improving individual students who are not achieving on that one measure that is used for compliance, and not on what or how teachers are teaching, or how to improve learning for all students” (2013, p. 2). The competent and appropriate use of data requires a shift in how schools use data- leadership direction becomes crucial in effective data team planning and entails modeling effective data use and connecting data analysis to clear action steps. Again, the principal must lead by example, modeling the use of questions stemming from data to drive instruction for ALL learners. The result will be a positive shift toward sustained and meaningful data-driven instruction at high levels- when principals use essential questions to focus the collaborative examination of data, school staff become much more engaged in the inquiry and process surrounding data-driven instruction (Ronka, 2008, p. 18).
How then, does a principal establish a vision for what should be taught? If the goal of high-level literacy and social studies instruction is to create a community of students who are proficient in a new category of global skills beyond traditional literacy learning- global collaboration, empathy, creativity, deep inquiry, and effective communication (Tavangar, 2016, p. 61)- then there needs to be “an explicit and transparent commitment to linking teaching practices to student-learning outcomes” (Fullan, 2008, p. 26). In a recent article in Educational Leadership (2016), Veronica Boix Mansilla reminds leaders that educating our students for global competency is now a necessity- it can no longer be considered a luxury if schools are to adequately prepare global citizens. This points to consideration of two essential questions: “What kind of learning are we actually after? and How can we best nurture such learning?” (p. 12). The use of these essential questions to focus instruction ensures that deeper understanding is the true goal of literacy and social studies instruction. Focus on essential questions leads to success in the ultimate goals of high-level instruction: to nurture students who are able to read and write with a deeper understanding (Morrow, 2014, p. 10) while they are “increasingly able to investigate the world beyond their immediate surroundings, understand their own and others’ cultural perspectives, communicate across differences, and take action to improve conditions” (Boix Mansilla, 2016, p. 12).
When considering best practices to prepare students to be globally competent citizens, one sticking point is that students must be emotionally invested in the experience of learning and responding to the world. According to Tavengar (2016), students’ learning will be most impactful when it is accompanied by both action and reflection- and when students feel as if they have an important role to play in their community or the wider world. The feeling of connectedness doesn’t just impact the learning of students, it is important for adults as well. “Students of all ages- children and adults- need concrete and meaningful experiences, problems, applications, and shifts of perspective to enable an important question to arise” (Wiggins, 1998, p. 33). Each student and adult needs the opportunity to explore and make a meaningful connection- “the world’s needs and opportunities are great enough that each student can find a sphere of interest and of meaningful engagement by the time they need to be college-and-career-ready” (Tavangar, 2016, p. 64). As principals leading the educational culture of a school, there are extremely positive benefits to increasing the school focus on educating students for global competence. According to a 2016 article in Educational Leadership, “students in schools with a global competency focus have higher test results and score higher on measures of social inclusion, community building, and social action” (Tavengar, p. 61)- all signs that students are being prepared to participate fully in a democratic society that is part of a global economy.
Part II
“Building global competency doesn’t need a big budget or a radical transformation of curriculum. It does need willingness, awareness, leadership, humility, and enthusiasm” (Tavangar, 2016, p. 61). In shifting the culture of a school to one where the focus is on teaching and learning for high levels of global competency in literacy and social studies, the principal must put a strong emphasis on earning the trust of his/her community. Ineffective leaders are often those who do not seek feedback from those they are working with, and sometimes forget that “practice of leadership is not the same as the exercise of power” (Collins, 2011, p. 12). Effective leaders are those who become known first and foremost as people of good will- teachers have confidence that the principal has their best interests at heart and will do whatever is necessary to help them develop and grow professionally. (Tschannen-Moran, 2004, p. 37) This level of confidence in the good intentions of the leadership engenders a level of trust that is mutually beneficial, and sets the tone for a positive supervisory relationship between teachers and administrators.
Teachers, too, need to be trusted to recognize that they must be continually learning and improving their practice- living the ideal that the “learning is the work” (Fullan, 2008, p. 27) both for the students and themselves. According to Robert Marzano in Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (2011), “it is reasonable to expect all teachers to increase their expertise from year to year. Even a modest increase would yield impressive results”. Encourage teachers to work toward their own instructional proficiency in teams, as collaboration is one of the most effective forms of learning. “The best way to ensure that teaching is done right the first time (versus having to provide corrective instruction for substantial numbers of students after the fact) is to have teachers work in teams” (Marshall, 2005, p. 733). Teachers also need to be cultivated as leaders, and involved in important decisions
Another important element of a positive supervisory relationship is transparency and an open flow of information. People in general are much more likely to embrace change and reflect on how they can improve if the “why” of the change is clearly communicated. The power of why can be tremendous, and strong parallels can be seen between transparency of curricular processes and transparency of leadership actions: the role of the principal in “making certain that clarity is achieved between purposes and processes” (Daresh, 2007, p.283).
One specific method for building a strong supervisory relationship is The Collaborative Approach as described by Stark, et. Al. The goal of the Collaborative Approach is to promote a “frank exchange of ideas” and shared decision-making responsibility (Stark, 2017). In this model of developmental instructional supervision, the administrator uses three strategies for facilitation: presenting, problem solving, and negotiating. Throughout this process, the administrator reinforces the idea of collaboration over direction. This method honors the idea that teachers and members of the school community want to be treated as professionals who are valued for their expertise and experience with the students. The Collaborative Approach and Solution-Focused Strategies most definitely give the teachers that opportunity and experience while at the same time recognizing that the administrator is the ultimate instructional leader who guides and drives the process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, leaders who foster learning environments where ALL community members are engaged in high-level learning recognize the learning needs of all stakeholders- children and adults alike. “Schools must be wheels of learning, each spoke representing a separate constituent: parent, teacher, student, administrator, and staff. Each flows to the center, to the hub of the wheel, to the heart and soul of the school, to learning itself.” (Gaston Fisher, 2004, p. 159). Just as students need learning to be the focus of their school experience, so do teachers and principals as they improve their own professional competencies and continually provide impactful instruction. Students learn the importance of lifelong learning by example- “If they see about them adults who ask questions, read, write, pose and solve problems, work together, and struggle with important learning, they want to ask questions, read, write, pose and solve problems, and engage in and struggle with important learning” (Barth, 2001, p. 24). Schools are communities of interwoven lives, not a bunch of isolated groups with separate goals and agendas. The goal of each individual and the community as a whole is a united one- that everyone in the community is able to display the high-levels of literacy skills needed to participate fully in a democratic society that is part of a global economy.
Bibliography
Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning By Heart. Jossey-Bass. pp. 21-29.
Bernhardt, V. (2013). Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement. Routledge.
Boix Mansilla,V. (December 2016/January 2017) “How to Be a Global Thinker.” Educational Leadership, 74 N 4, pp.10-16.
Collins, J. (2011). Good to Great and the Social Sector. HarperBusiness.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000). Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind. ASCD. VII- XIX. pp. 1-40 & 79-100.
Daresh, J. (2007). Supervision as Proactive Leadership. Wave Land Press. Chapter 14.
DuFour, R. (May 2004). What is a Professional Learning Community? Educational Leadership. pp. 6-11.
Fullan, M. (2008). What’s Worth Fighting For in the Principalship. Teachers College Press. pp. 15-42.
Gaston Fisher, J. L. “Collegiality: A Catalyst for Growth Through Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development.” Bassett, P. F. & Thorn IV, C. (2004). Looking Ahead: Independent School Issues & Answers. NH: Avocus Publishing, Inc. 157-184.
Jacobs, H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World. ASCD. Chapters 1 & 2.
Jay, A. & McGovern, J. (2007). Not Just a Manager Anymore. National Staff Development Council. (28)4. pp. 51-54.
Marshall, K. (2005). It’s Time to Rethink Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 727-735.
Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching. ASCD.
Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2014). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, Fifth Edition. Guilford Press.
Ronka, D., Lachat, M. A., Slaughter, R., & Meltzer, J., (Dec 2008/Jan 2009), “Answering the Questions that Count.” Educational Leadership, 66(4), pp. 18-24.
Stark, M.D., McGhee, M.W., Jimerson, J.B. (2017) Reclaiming Instructional Supervision: Using Solution Focused Strategies to Promote Teacher Development. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, pp. 1-24.
Tavangar, H.S. (December 2016/January 2017) . “Every Journey Begins With a Step.” Educational Leadership, 74(4). pp. 60-64
Tschannen-Moran, J. (2004). Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. Jossey Bass. pp.15-39.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. ASCD. Chapter 2
Fall in Pennsylvania.
Spring Capstone Paper
In order to shape and sustain a positive school culture in which all learners are challenged and supported as they engage in high-level math, science, and STEM teaching and learning, it’s important to believe that everyone in the school community, not only students, “will learn most effectively in an atmosphere where they feel safe and do not fear being ridiculed or humiliated, in which they’re challenged and assisted to meet realistic goals, in which they feel teachers genuinely care about them and respect their individuality, in which learning is seen as an exciting adventure rather than a drudgery. It is within such an atmosphere that resiliency and hope are reinforced” (Brooks, 1999, p. 65). This belief that schools are centers of resiliency, hope, and growth for all learners is an essential component of a positive culture that fosters the ongoing learning of both educators and students through high-quality professional development and high-level learning. In order for this positive culture of ongoing learning to be sustained and successful, it requires the creation of systemic supports for teachers and staff (and students) so that they are able to maximize student learning.
In Pamela Mendels’ 2012 article “The Effective Principal”, she asks a question that is akin to the Holy Grail of school leadership: “What exactly is it that effective principals do that ripples through classrooms and boosts learning, especially in failing schools?” (p. 55) Research points to five common practices which, when interwoven into the culture of a school, are particularly relevant to effective school leadership and increased student achievement.
I. Vision
A schoolwide vision of academic success for all students is the first practice described by Mendels, a vision based on high levels of learning and high expectations in all subjects. For this practice to be successful, the principal must be explicit in her vision of high achievement, making clear that the vision for a school where all can learn is not optional. One of the most essential beliefs to carry as an educator is the belief that EVERYONE can learn, grow, evolve, and adapt. In a video from the “Inside Mathematics” series from the Noyce Foundation, an eighth grade teacher named Patty summarized this mindset succinctly: “You have to believe that every student can learn”. Understanding the process of change in order to improve student achievement is crucial. If the mindset exists that some students can’t be reached, that mindset needs to shift to a growth mindset. All members of the school community must believe that all students can learn, and a culture of support needs to be established and maintained in the school (and every classroom) to make that happen. For this practice to be successful, the principal must be explicit in her vision of high achievement, making clear that the vision for a school where all can learn is not optional. Schools must become places in which “all adults and children are supported to continue growing, learning, developing, and thriving” (Drago-Severson, 2004, p, 71).
II. Culture
Mendels’ second practice essential to school leadership is the creation of a climate that is “hospitable to education in order that safety, a cooperative spirit, and other foundations of fruitful interaction prevail” (2012, p. 55). It is important for the leader of a school to create a culture where teachers and students feel psychologically safe. This requires the creation of systemic supports for teachers and staff (and students) so that they are able to maximize student learning.
A culture which supports all learners (educators as well as students) embraces diversity, and it is important to cultivate a staff that strives to understand cultivate an equity mindset- not just an equality mindset. A school culture that respects diversity develops a common language and engages in difficult conversations in an intentional and structured manner, taking the opportunity to practice skills of understanding and talking about diversity within their small, safe community.
In a city like Philadelphia, one of the “difficult conversations” that schools have to engage in as a community surrounds racial literacy. According to Howard Stevenson, “racial literacy is the ability to read, recast, and resolve racially stressful social interactions. The teaching of racial literacy skills protects students from the threat of internalizing negative stereotypes that undermine academic critical thinking, engagement, identity, and achievement” (2014, p. 4). Unresolved “racially stressful social interactions” have significantly negative effects on health, academic, and social well-being, and “the stark absence of racial literacy and competence to process and resolve these issues is also a missing element in strategies to close the achievement gap” (Stevenson, 2014, p. 4).
Encouraging diversity within a community doesn’t mean throwing out the community’s existing structures and beliefs as if they don’t matter. Developing a diverse culture, when done successfully, involves respecting the existing culture of the school while using the understanding of that school’s culture to help it evolve into a manifestation of the leader’s mission and vision. “To be successful at culture building, school leaders need to give attention to the informal, subtle, and symbolic aspects of school life” (Sergiovanni, 2007, p. 146). Diversity doesn’t just mean appreciating people from a different culture- it can manifest as general respect for how the school operated in the past, with specific traditions and norms. Showing sensitivity to a building’s existing culture, and recognition of these differences can go a long way to getting buy in for change. In fact, when school leaders have been able to ignite progressive reform despite bureaucratic red tape, “many principals’ own vision of student learning has adapted to community needs and student interests” (Rousmaniere, 2013, p. 8), so cultural shifts do not have to flow only from the vision of the leader. Over time, a shared vision emerges as the leader and culture work together.
Discussion and confrontation of issues directly via dialogue is to be encouraged, and professional development training on dialogue skills for school staff should be a component of each year’s opening activities. In this model, educators are given tools to work through issues without preventing the students from accessing high quality instruction in a safe, positive climate. According to Robert Evans in The Human Side of School Change, “In school leadership the prevailing bias is toward avoiding any potentially serious conflict (and thus most forms of resistance to change). School leaders generally prefer to minimize friction and discord, overlooking them when they can, finessing and fudging them when they can't” (1996, Kindle Locations 3359-3360).
Collaboration among educators is another crucial component of a positive climate that is hospitable to education. “Under conditions of collaboration, there is more likely to develop a norm of continuous professional growth, stimulated and guided by the sense of a compelling mission” (Leithwood, 2001, p. 35).
Teacher coaching, in particular, needs to be viewed as a community effort- struggling teachers and distinguished teachers should all be sharing practices and working to grow together. If collaboration is considered a valuable strategy for students, it can be equally, if not more valuable, for teachers.
Clear communication and expectations across all platforms, for both adults and students, needs to be noted as an explicit norm so that everyone is aware of the consistent expectations for how members of a school community communicate and collaborate. With this framework and background, learning communities are free to collaborate both outside and within their existing learning communities, while ensuring that consistencies in collaboration provide the strongest facilitation for fostering a culture of continuous learning. “...it’s through conversations and hands-on work that the magic happens in professional learning. That’s where teachers challenge one another’s thinking and find better ways to reach students.” (Scott, 2014, p.75)
An effective leader must make sure that all participants are aware of the role he/she is expected to fulfill. For example, in order to balance Millennial enthusiasm with Baby Boomer levelheadedness, “schools need to ensure that all participants in learning communities are grounded by a set of protocols. Millennials may feel as if protocols are slowing down the team process, but protocols may be necessary to ensure that older teachers allow beginning teachers to fully participate in discussions” Richardson, 2011, p. 18).
III. Cultivating Leadership in Others
“Working together as a cohort rather than as individuals, teacher leaders can build a new collaborative culture. Such a culture would have the capacity to support the diverse leadership approaches and configurations necessary to “reculture” a school (Fullan, 1995, as cited in Lieberman & Miller, 2004, p. 25). When teachers are developed as leaders with a mission and vision aligned with the principal, staff is more engaged and committed to the leader’s vision and mission. Shifts in leadership of this nature, although disconcerting, do not result in a loss for principals or students: “researchers found that principals do not lose influence as teachers gain influence” (Mendels, 2012, p. 56).
IV. Improving Instruction
Effective leaders, in their never-ending quest to improve instruction, “take advantage of the collaborative culture they work to create in their schools” (Mendels, 2012, p. 56), and use data to drive professional development needs for teachers- much in the way teachers use data to determine the instructional needs of their students. Although the principal is the instructional leader of the overall community, educators, like students, have a greater level of motivation when they “feel they are heard and respected, and they feel they have some control over what is transpiring in school milieu” (Brooks, 1999, p. 70).
Adult learners have unique needs, and planning for professional development must be respectful and accommodating in order to foster a culture of diversity as previously discussed. “Novice staff developers often do not understand that adult learners have unique needs. Adults must see an immediate application for what they are experiencing and it must be relevant in their world” (Rhoton, 2006, p. 132). It is extremely important to meet the teachers’ needs as learners when creating and implementing professional learning opportunities. Professional development, while aligned with student performance needs, must also be both engaging and relevant, and the concept of flipped learning is a strategy effective with adult learners as well as children. “Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight and Arfstrom define flipped learning as “the use of digital technologies to shift direct instruction outside of the group learning space to the individual learning space.” The goal of this approach to professional learning is to provide teachers the time they need to understand the new content (such as a key strategy) on their own, leaving the face-to-face time to focus on collaboration, discussion, activities, and analysis of the content” (Scott, 2014, p. 1).
Effective professional development is more than just a seminar on a new teaching technique or fad. “Professional development planning is always the result of a need for change. It can be designed to improve existing practices or to establish new ones, but it involves change nonetheless” (Rhoton, 2006, p. 140).
The issue of creating opportunities for effective and impactful professional development for educators is not just the problem of individual school leaders- it is a larger, more systemic problem with teacher preparation programs across the United States. “To provide educators with professional development offerings that affect student learning, districts must think about creating a system of training that is job-embedded and ongoing. Districts must begin to think of teachers and school leaders as classroom researchers who use their daily practice to learn about their students and to identify what works best for these students. To do this, these educators must be given guidance and support in understanding the basic concepts of evidence-centered instruction” (Rhoton, 2006, p.111).
V. The DATA
Why is such importance given to creating a culture in which students engage in high-level math and science learning? Research has found “an empirical link between school leadership and student achievement” (Mendels, 2012, p. 54). Education has evolved into a highly data driven field of social science, and strong school leaders must be fluent in translating data into action for increasing student achievement as well as increased teacher effectiveness.
Data on math instruction shows many implications for increased student achievement. “Findings from a number of additional studies, summarized in Brophy and Good (1986), reinforce the following claim: mathematics teaching that facilitates skill efficiency is rapidly paced, includes modeling by the teacher with many teacher-directed, product type of questions, and displays a smooth transition from demonstration to substantial amounts of error-free practice. The teacher plays a central role in organizing, pacing, and presenting information to meet well-defined learning goals” (Hiebert, 2007, p.2). The importance of looking at data from multiple sources (research, student assessments, etc.) in order to see the implications for increased student achievement. It’s important for the principal be fluent with this information in order to recommend instructional changes or identify what works and why. “To support teacher quality in mathematics and science, we should design powerful, content specific staff development that is data-driven and evaluated, and is based on using ideas that work and knowing how educators learn” (Rhoton, 2006, p 128).
Robert Marzano’s research on math stresses the importance and efficacy of a “guaranteed and viable curriculum”- proving that with a guaranteed and viable curriculum, student achievement is most impacted by the composite of time and OTL. OTL is “Opportunity to Learn” and it has “the strongest relationship with student achievement of all school-level factors identified” (Marzano, 2003, p.22).
Effective school leadership in which the leader shapes and sustains a positive school culture where all learners are challenged and supported as they engage in high-level math, science, and STEM teaching and learning is the result of a vision that demonstrates how “leadership supportive of adult development makes schools better places of learning for children and youth” (Drago-Severson, 2004, p.71). When there is an emphasis on adult learning and mastery, data shows a positive impact on student achievement. To quote President John F. Kennedy, “a rising tide lifts all boats”.
Citations
Brooks, R. (1999). “Creating a Positive School Climate: Strategies for Fostering Self-Esteem, Motivation and Resilience.” In Cohen, J. (Ed.) Educating Minds and Hearts. Teachers College Press.
Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Helping New Teachers Learn, Leadership for Adult Growth and Development. Corwin Press.
Evans, R. (2009). The Human Side of School Change: Reform, Resistance, and the Real-Life Problems of Innovation. Jossey-Bass.
Gates, Bill. (May 8, 2013). Teachers need real feedback [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_teachers_need_real_feedback/up-next
Heibert, James, et.al. (1997). Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding. Heinemann. pp. 1 – 27.
Leithwood, K., Aitken, R., and Jantzi, D. (2001). Making Schools Smarter. CA: Corwin Press.
Lieberman, A. and Miller, L. (2004). Teacher Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools? Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mendels, P. (2012, February) “The Effective Principal.” The Learning Professional/JSD. (33)1. p. 54-58.
Noyce Foundation (2012). Inside Mathematics. Videos. Online at: http://insidemathematics.org/index.php/mathematical - content - standard
Rhoton, J. & Shane, P. (2006). Teaching Science in the 21st Century. NASTA Press.
Richardson, J. (May, 2011). “Tune In to What the New Generation of Teachers Can Do.” Phi Delta Kappan. pp. 14-19.
Rousmaniere, K. (2013, November) “The Principal: The Most Misunderstood Person in All of Education.” The Atlantic. Online adaptation.
Scott, P. G. (2014). “Flipping the Flip.” Educational Leadership. 71(8), pp. 73 - 75.
Sergiovanni, T. (2007) “The Lifeworld of Leadership.” Rethinking Leadership. Corwin Press. pp. 145-151.
Stevenson, H. (2014). Promoting Racial Literacy in Schools: Differences That Make a Difference. Teachers College Press.
Locust Walk in Spring
Field Investigation: Qualities of Effective Meetings
In my experience and observations, an effective meeting is defined by the following criteria: Prior to the meeting, priorities are considered and an agenda is made that considers all the items for discussion or decision, provides a mechanism for participants to weigh in on those items being considered, and is composed in a manner that facilitates efficiency and adherence to time management. An effective meeting seeks to begin with positivity and celebration, engaging the participants in successes that build buy-in for long term and more difficult goals. The meeting design is focused on addressing specific goals and keeping focus on those goals while discussing. Decision making and determining appropriate courses of action are clearly incorporated into the body of the meeting as well. The conclusion of an effective meeting clearly states follow-up actions and parties responsible for completion of those actions, answering questions such as: who will do what by when? Who will communicate with whom? What will be communicated and how? What are next steps as a group? When will subsequent meetings be held? Norms for an effective meeting vary by organizational context, but all effective meetings include consistent and sustained respect for all participants, observers, and stakeholders, evident through reflective and meaningful engagement with the items presented.
Part 1: Observation and Analysis of Meetings
The first meeting I observed was a School District of Philadelphia School Reform Commission (SRC) Action Meeting. The SRC is the governing body of the School District of Philadelphia, and the SRC website describes Action Meetings as “Monthly meetings where formal actions are taken regarding the School District by Commissioners voting on resolutions”. The meeting was highly structured to the point where most of the non-public input portions of the meeting appeared highly scripted, and extremely formal. In order for members of the public to speak and participate at SRC meetings, there are strict requirements and deadlines for registration prior to the meeting.
Decision making appeared to be done by voting on resolutions via oral roll call, but there was no apparent discussion among SRC members prior to voting. The resolution was simply read and voted upon. It leads me to question if SRC members come to the meetings with their decisions already made, or if the decision to vote can be impacted by the public speakers. I am doubtful, however, that the public speakers are influencing the SRC members. During the public input portion of the meeting, most SRC members were clearly not attending to the speakers. They were talking to each other, playing with phones, shuffling papers, and generally acting as if no one was speaking. They would occasionally glance up at the speakers, but the SRC members were disengaged from the members of the public who had signed up to speak to them. It was actually quite disrespectful.
The SRC Action Meeting met some, but not all, of my personal criteria for an effective meeting. Besides the lack of obvious reflection on the elements of the meeting, the most glaringly obvious omission was the respect for participants in the form of public speakers. Many of the speakers were completely ignored by SRC members, and unceremoniously silenced when they went over their allotted time to speak and the microphones were simply disconnected. The meeting was also extremely long, with a resolution list for voting consisting of 42 separate items. The agenda was clear and prepared in advance, and decisions were made. Overall the business element of the SRC meeting was effective, but the areas of the meeting designed to connect with stakeholders and the public were largely ineffective. The celebration of “Students of the Month” was a highlight of the meeting.
Enhancing the effectiveness of a meeting of this size would be a difficult task, but clearly the SRC needs to reflect on their interactions (or lack thereof) with their audience and stakeholders during the public speaker portion of the meeting. I would also consider holding the meeting more frequently to reduce the amount of time spent on resolutions and increase the amount of public input heard (via public speakers) on a monthly basis. I would absolutely continue to highlight the positive occurrences that have happened since the last meeting, and perhaps bring in more students to participate.
I also had opportunity to observe a grade level professional development meeting at my school (Martha Washington). Although not explicitly stated, the goal of the meeting was to convey information and present a short professional development on math strategies. The meeting was not made available prior to the meeting but given out as participants entered the meeting space. Participants did not all arrive at the same time, instead arriving one or two at a time over the span of about 10 minutes. The meeting was scheduled to start at 10:45, which is the same time that teachers are dropping their students off at various locations throughout the building. The meeting was led in a very top-down manner- led by the principal for all agenda items. Any decision making evident during the meeting was done by the principal in response to a teacher’s question. There was little teacher input sought on the “business” items in the agenda, items involving the scheduling and administration of benchmark tests and the establishment of a PSSA Countdown timeline for instruction and test prep. Teacher participation was rich during the professional development activity, although there were clear differences in teachers’ levels of proficiency with teaching problem solving strategies. The Math Lead teacher seemed slightly disengaged, only brightening and visibly enjoying the session when she was responding to questions about pedagogy or teachers asking her for advice. The conclusion of the meeting seemed rushed and did not explicitly restate next steps and/or follow up responsibilities.
Like the SRC Action Meeting, the Martha Washington Grade Group meeting met some, but not all of the criteria for an effective meeting. There was no opportunity for participants to provide input on the agenda and it was not available beforehand. An attempt was made to begin with positivity, as the principal in her role as meeting leader asked for teachers to relate positive news. Unfortunately, only two teachers contributed to this portion. (There were 6 teachers present.) Considering as the primary goal of the meeting as the conveyance of information to the teachers, the meeting was effective using that narrow criteria. Decision making was obviously the sole responsibility of the principal and not an important element of the meeting. Follow up actions, while discussed throughout the meeting, were not listed/restated at the conclusion of the meeting with the responsible parties attached. In fact, the meeting adjourned with no follow-up duties assigned to any of the teachers for the next meeting other than to fill out and submit their class PSSA Countdown Timeline according to the principal’s specified criteria. Teacher engagement with the professional development task was largely a success although certain elements could be improved to maximize the experience for all participants. Overall, everyone involved was very respectful of each other and engaged in listening carefully to the principal’s information.
To enhance the meeting, I would have made it more collaborative, starting with the planning and agenda development. Teachers could have input on items to discuss during the meeting and even perhaps choose the order of the various math strategies being presented over the course of the year to better complement their instructional timelines and planning. Another consideration to enhance the meeting would be to allow the Math Lead to structure and guide the professional development portion of the meeting. In addition, I would make sure follow up responsibilities are clearly delineated at the end of the meeting and encourage distributed leadership so that not all follow up is the responsibility of the principal.
The third meeting I attempted to observe was a parent meeting conducted by the school climate manager with the goal of informing the parent of the nature of disciplinary actions facing her child and preparing her for the process of the school referring her child for a disciplinary hearing. The meeting had no agenda or apparent structure, and the climate manager did not come prepared with the necessary forms and information for the parent. When I began observing, the parent was very clearly frustrated and upset, and the climate manager seemed unable to address the parent’s concerns in a way that satisfied her. As the parent became increasingly upset and angry, the climate manager asked me to step in and explain the referral process and the paperwork to the parent since I am well-versed in the process and I am able to establish a rapport with parents quickly and effectively in these situations. Once I became a participant in the meeting, I was unable to observe in a meaningful way.
This meeting did not meet any of the criteria for an effective meeting, and was essentially just spinning wheels but going nowhere. The first strategy I would implement for future meetings of this nature would be to thoughtfully prepare for the meeting, starting with an informal agenda for the parent in the form of a list of the things that will be discussed. All materials and paperwork would be organized and available, with additional parent resources included as appropriate to the situation. Before discussing the behavioral incident or the disciplinary process, connect with the parent and provide positive feedback about the student and the parent’s willingness to support their child by attending the meeting. This positive start shows respect for the parent and child participating and most times engenders a spirit of cooperation. Using the informal agenda, each step would be explained to the parent with frequent checks to gauge the comfort and understanding of the parent. Finally, I would very explicitly state the school’s next steps as well as the parents.
Part 2: Leading a Self-Planned Meeting
I planned and led a meeting for the core subject academic teachers of the middle school grade band during our common planning time. The goal of discussing the status of students involved in the various tiers of academic RTII and determining appropriate action to move students up or down tiers as appropriate, as well as discussing students presenting with academic concerns that may need to be put into one of the tiers. Although only the core subject/homeroom teachers were able to attend to the meeting, input was sought from specialist teachers and school staff such as the climate manager and counselor who interact with the middle years students but do not have common planning time. (Unfortunately, no input was received.) The agenda was developed in consultation with the grade team, as was the list of students to be discussed. Both the agenda and the student list were distributed a few days prior to the meeting. (Both are attached, with student initials changed for privacy.) Planning was slightly difficult due to the lack of response from members of the grade team. Only two teachers provided student-specific input, and it was these same teachers who were the only active participants in the meeting. During the meeting, the agenda was followed and at the conclusion of the meeting, very clear follow up responsibilities were identified and assigned.
It was difficult to gain support for this meeting despite its agreed-upon necessity. In reflection, I feel that this stems from a frustration with the imposed structures and lack of resources available to the team. This meeting was not the first (or second) focused on this specific task. We have been meeting throughout the past year and the list has not significantly changed with the exception of more at-risk students being added. Some students have been languishing on the RTII list for years, stagnant at Tier 2. Teachers are frustrated with the lack of available research-based interventions to implement with students who exhibit greater academic needs. Right now the only research-based interventions available to regular education teachers are Achieve3000 and STMath. Both are computer-based programs used as part of the Blended Learning Model and implemented for ALL students. There is nothing additional available to the severely struggling students. A small number of eighth graders receive additional Small Group Instruction with the Special Education teacher.
Disenfranchisement with the RTII system stems primarily from the fact that the five middle years grade teachers (Math, Literacy, Science, Social Studies, and Learning Support) receive NO outside support to remediate the deficits of consistently Below Basic and below grade level students. It is up to the grade level team to create and implement additional RTII interventions without access to research based programs and with few resources beyond what they carry in their personal toolkits. Compounding the problem of students stagnating on the list is a significant backlog of Special Education Evaluations and insufficient access to a school psychologist to facilitate these evaluations. Consequently, there is little motivation to discuss the RTII process for students who, despite clearly demonstrating criteria needed to move to a higher tier, languish on “the list” due to insufficient institutional support.
As the school leader in this situation, I would start by advocating for increased hours for the school psychologist in an effort to work through the backlog of evaluations in a more timely and efficient manner. I would also investigate additional research-based interventions that meet the district’s criteria and set aside money in the upcoming year’s budget to fund additional resources. Teachers would also be encouraged to seek out research based interventions that they feel would be beneficial for students in RTII, and as a team we would also consider those interventions for purchase. Along with the purchase of intervention materials, I would set aside Professional Development funds and strongly encourage teachers to take advantage and become proficient with interventions for students in need of the most significant interventions. Our school is also fortunate enough to have a fully-released School Based Teacher Leader. As the overall instructional leader, I would direct her to provide additional support to teachers and RTII students in the form of additional daily Small Group Instruction. I would hope that by addressing the systemic issues impacting the efficacy of my meeting, progress and success would be more readily apparent and a motivating factor in teacher engagement.
Field Investigation: Effective School Schedules
Team Inquiry: School Climate Memorandum
Team Inquiry: Fostering Democratic Social Studies