Robertson’s (2008) article on The 3R’s For Coaching Learning Relationships provides an in-depth exploration of coaching partnership. In this partnership, each person contributes “to the creation of new knowledge and learning that subsequently takes place. The coach approaches this relationship as learner and not all-knower” (p.42). For effective adult professional learning to take place, Robertson identified the 3Rs that has to take place – reciprocity, relationship and reflection-on-reality. The 3Rs are developed from and contribute to “relational trust, respect for difference and reflexivity within practice –informed, committed action” (p.42).
Several things appealed to me as I read Robertson’s article. The first is that in Robertson’s coaching partnership model, the coach approaches the relationship as a learner and not as one who is all knowing. This therefore it makes it less intimidating to enter into a learning relationship with one’s colleagues. Like students, teachers also need to feel some sense of safety before they enter into a learning relationship. As this model allows the coach to sometimes be a teacher, sometimes a learner, sometimes a follower, sometimes an expert and sometimes a novice (Robertson, 2008), teachers are likely to reciprocate to another. Hence, not only will learning take place but their leadership capacity will be built up.
Secondly, like peer coaching that “provides educators with the opportunity to access the natural support at their school” (Little, 2005, p. 87), Robertson’s coaching partnership model also does likewise. From experience, I know that teachers, like their students, generally prefer to work in the comfort of their friends. This is only natural because they not only feel safe but there is also relational trust between them and the latter, according to Bryk and Schneider (2003), is core to school reform. Hence, pairing two teachers up to coach one another will help to bring about changes in their respective classroom as they will challenge each other and encourage each other to explore and enhance their own understanding about new concepts and teaching strategies used in their classrooms. This in turn will increase collegiality in the school and help the school to promote a learning culture. According to Pierce and Hunsaker (1996), having teachers explore new concepts and strategies in the comfort of friends is “an important factor when attempting new endeavors” (p.104).
Thirdly, Robertson’s coaching partnership model can also be extended for use in the classrooms. Personally, I see several benefits in adopting this model for use in the classroom. Other than developing leadership skills, this model can help to enhance the students’ critical and reflective thinking as well as peer assessment skills. As the students will be taught reflective questioning technique, they can use these questioning skills to help each other to develop critical perspectives about their work. As this model also entails the coaches to provide feedback, teachers can likewise get their students to provide feedback on their peers’ or partners’ work. Moreover, as the process also includes self-assessment and goal setting, this model will indeed enhance some of the strategies used in assessment for learning.
Fourthly, it is easy to implement as it only takes a pair to be engaged in a learning relationship. As there are only two teachers involved, it will probably be easier for them to meet on a regular basis. Unlike professional learning community (PLC) that is made of several people who meet on a monthly basis, I have found that through experience, it is not always easy to get the entire group members to meet on the designated or planned date and time. In Singapore, the teachers are so busy with co-curricular activities, external meetings and workshops that it is sometimes very difficult to have the entire PLC group come together even though the meeting time has been set aside by the school leaders. As a result, innovations may take a longer time to implement in the classrooms. In coaching partnership, as the pair is likely to be able to meet on a regular basis, they will perhaps accomplish their goals quicker than those in the PLC group will.
Unlike mentoring, coaching partnership is not featured in my school’s staff learning and development plan. It is an area I would like to explore as I see many benefits that can be derived from it. Personally, I see coaching partnership as an effective strategy for introducing changes in classroom practices as the partners are actively involved in confronting their own existing ways and concepts, exploring and trying new concepts, perspectives and methodologies and justifying the subsequent change of their existing practice in the light of reflection. For it to work effectively however, school leaders must equip the teachers with the necessary skills to facilitate this partnership. According to Robertson (2008), “communication and interpersonal skills are essential tools for working effectively with others and yet often overlooked in educators’ personal, professional and leadership development” (p.43). I wonder why this is so. Is it because teachers “have long been seen to be powerful talkers” (Cordingley, 2005, p.70) that they deemed it unnecessary to develop their communication and interpersonal skills? Yet, communication and interpersonal skills are necessary. Hence, school leaders will perhaps need to organize a school based workshop for the teachers to attend if they wish to implement coaching partnership in their schools and see it eventually cascade to the students in the classrooms.
To conclude, coaching partnership is a good strategy to introduce to effect changes in teaching and learning in the classrooms. The teachers should not only be the ones to use this strategy. They should also introduce this to their students as it will help the latter examine and think more deeply about their work. In schools that have PLCs, coaching partnership can be an offshoot. For schools that do not have PLCs, introducing coaching partnership can be a beginning step to take to building a professional learning culture in the school.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Teacher Supervision & Evaluation
Marshall’s (2005) article evaluates the conventional model of teacher supervision and evaluation and proposes a new model. This is because he found the conventional model to be flawed and ineffective in improving teaching and learning. At the same time, it was also inefficient and failed to maximize the use of the principal’s time. As conventional supervision and evaluation is not “the best way to truly change what happens in the classrooms” (p.731), he has suggested a new process – one that shifts the process from being owned by the principal to a “more dynamic, informal process owned by the teacher teams” (p.732).
I can identify with conventional model of teacher supervision and evaluation that Marshall has outlined which entails the following: pre-conservation conference, lesson plan, lesson observation, evaluation write-up, post-observation conference with teacher and occasional walkthrough as I was taught how to use this model when I became a Head of Department. In Singapore, this is generally the most popular model used by nearly all schools at the present moment. Like Marshall, I do agree that this model is to some extent ineffective. As Marshall has observed, teachers who have been supervised and evaluated using this model “rarely changes what they do in their classrooms” (p.731). I concur with this observation made as well. Only a relatively small number of teachers do make an attempt to change what they do in their classrooms and often these are the teachers who are always looking for ways to improve their classroom practice. Hence, they welcome the feedback given by their school leaders. But, what about the others? How can teacher supervision and evaluation help to move them to impact student achievement in the classrooms?
Marshall’s proposed model of shifting the process from being owned by the principal to a more dynamic, informal process owned by the teacher teams is worth considering. This is because his model enables the principals to quickly and efficiently keep tabs on what is going on in the classroom, give teachers constant feedback, make fair judgments about teacher performance and get teams invested in improving student learning and focused on results (p.735). But this will require the school leaders to have courage to let go of the current model and launch into a more “powerful learning dynamic” (p.735). However, I wonder how many will have moral courage to do so? Many school leaders are answerable to their respective cluster superintendents back home and it may require them to have a lot of moral courage to convince their cluster superintendents to allow them to try out Marshall’s model in their schools as it is a marked departure from the conventional model. As courage is linked to moral purpose, school leaders with intense moral purpose, a mindset which Kaser and Halbert (2009) have deemed important for school leaders to have, will persist to get approval so as to give this model a go in their schools as they know that this is what will help close achievement and get their students to perform at high levels. According to Day et.al. (2008), persistence is one of the many traits which successful leaders possess and they will demonstrate it when they encounter challenging situations. This I believe they will as they are motivated by intense moral purpose.
While I see merits in Marshall’s model, I do wonder if this model will however work well for school leaders who have to head a large school of about 1,200 students and have about 70 - 80 staff or even a mega sized school where the school student population is over 2,000 and the staff size is twice the size of a large size school. I can see this new model being carried out with ease in a small or medium sized schools. For a large or mega sized school, the principal may need to carefully work out his schedule in order to, as suggested by Marshall, take 12 to 15 “snapshots” of every teacher’s performance in the course of the year and compile a “photo album” of each one’s overall performance. In a most likely scenario, I believe most principals in such schools may cut down the number of snapshots to make it more manageable. To make evaluation more objective, school leaders who practice distributed leadership, can also have his Vice-Principal take a number of snapshots of the staff and then compare notes concerning the performance of the individual staff. This perhaps is more objective and fair than just having the Principal to do the annual staff appraisal by himself.
My other concern with this model has to do with the need for the Principal to give feedback on unit plans and assessment developed by the teacher teams. It assumes that the Principal is well versed in curriculum and assessment. While school leaders are expected to be instructional leaders, it is unfortunate that not all school leaders are as knowledgeable as they should be to provide guidance regarding current curricula, instructional and assessment practices that impact their student learning and achievement. According to Leithwood et. al (2006), a leadership model that is based on content knowledge is something of the past (p.10). From my experience, the school leaders who I have worked with are good administrators but not good instructional leaders. Hence, how do such leaders add value to the unit plans and assessment developed by the teacher teams?
To conclude, supervision and evaluation should indeed be aligned to staff professional development that will contribute or impact student learning and achievement. As Marshall has so rightly pointed out, it is the school principal that needs to be the “’chief learner’ in this regard, reaching out to the knowledge base and orchestrating study groups, article and book groups, peer observations, and lessons videotapes” (p.734). In modeling this, they would as Blase and Kirby (1992) have observed, bring out the best in their teachers. And by setting the tone, they will also encourage the Vice-Principal, Heads of Department and senior teachers in the school to do likewise – engage in professional conversations with their colleagues. As one who will someday enter into school principalship, I see this model as a promising one to implement as it not only foster a culture of inquiry and learning but it will allow the school principal to spend quality time in doing what will make the most difference in his school and in student learning and achievement.
I can identify with conventional model of teacher supervision and evaluation that Marshall has outlined which entails the following: pre-conservation conference, lesson plan, lesson observation, evaluation write-up, post-observation conference with teacher and occasional walkthrough as I was taught how to use this model when I became a Head of Department. In Singapore, this is generally the most popular model used by nearly all schools at the present moment. Like Marshall, I do agree that this model is to some extent ineffective. As Marshall has observed, teachers who have been supervised and evaluated using this model “rarely changes what they do in their classrooms” (p.731). I concur with this observation made as well. Only a relatively small number of teachers do make an attempt to change what they do in their classrooms and often these are the teachers who are always looking for ways to improve their classroom practice. Hence, they welcome the feedback given by their school leaders. But, what about the others? How can teacher supervision and evaluation help to move them to impact student achievement in the classrooms?
Marshall’s proposed model of shifting the process from being owned by the principal to a more dynamic, informal process owned by the teacher teams is worth considering. This is because his model enables the principals to quickly and efficiently keep tabs on what is going on in the classroom, give teachers constant feedback, make fair judgments about teacher performance and get teams invested in improving student learning and focused on results (p.735). But this will require the school leaders to have courage to let go of the current model and launch into a more “powerful learning dynamic” (p.735). However, I wonder how many will have moral courage to do so? Many school leaders are answerable to their respective cluster superintendents back home and it may require them to have a lot of moral courage to convince their cluster superintendents to allow them to try out Marshall’s model in their schools as it is a marked departure from the conventional model. As courage is linked to moral purpose, school leaders with intense moral purpose, a mindset which Kaser and Halbert (2009) have deemed important for school leaders to have, will persist to get approval so as to give this model a go in their schools as they know that this is what will help close achievement and get their students to perform at high levels. According to Day et.al. (2008), persistence is one of the many traits which successful leaders possess and they will demonstrate it when they encounter challenging situations. This I believe they will as they are motivated by intense moral purpose.
While I see merits in Marshall’s model, I do wonder if this model will however work well for school leaders who have to head a large school of about 1,200 students and have about 70 - 80 staff or even a mega sized school where the school student population is over 2,000 and the staff size is twice the size of a large size school. I can see this new model being carried out with ease in a small or medium sized schools. For a large or mega sized school, the principal may need to carefully work out his schedule in order to, as suggested by Marshall, take 12 to 15 “snapshots” of every teacher’s performance in the course of the year and compile a “photo album” of each one’s overall performance. In a most likely scenario, I believe most principals in such schools may cut down the number of snapshots to make it more manageable. To make evaluation more objective, school leaders who practice distributed leadership, can also have his Vice-Principal take a number of snapshots of the staff and then compare notes concerning the performance of the individual staff. This perhaps is more objective and fair than just having the Principal to do the annual staff appraisal by himself.
My other concern with this model has to do with the need for the Principal to give feedback on unit plans and assessment developed by the teacher teams. It assumes that the Principal is well versed in curriculum and assessment. While school leaders are expected to be instructional leaders, it is unfortunate that not all school leaders are as knowledgeable as they should be to provide guidance regarding current curricula, instructional and assessment practices that impact their student learning and achievement. According to Leithwood et. al (2006), a leadership model that is based on content knowledge is something of the past (p.10). From my experience, the school leaders who I have worked with are good administrators but not good instructional leaders. Hence, how do such leaders add value to the unit plans and assessment developed by the teacher teams?
To conclude, supervision and evaluation should indeed be aligned to staff professional development that will contribute or impact student learning and achievement. As Marshall has so rightly pointed out, it is the school principal that needs to be the “’chief learner’ in this regard, reaching out to the knowledge base and orchestrating study groups, article and book groups, peer observations, and lessons videotapes” (p.734). In modeling this, they would as Blase and Kirby (1992) have observed, bring out the best in their teachers. And by setting the tone, they will also encourage the Vice-Principal, Heads of Department and senior teachers in the school to do likewise – engage in professional conversations with their colleagues. As one who will someday enter into school principalship, I see this model as a promising one to implement as it not only foster a culture of inquiry and learning but it will allow the school principal to spend quality time in doing what will make the most difference in his school and in student learning and achievement.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Changing Classroom Practice
William’s article generally supports the research made in formative assessments ( Black & William,1998; Crooks, 1988; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Natriello, 1987; Nyquist, 2003). In his opinion, when formative assessment is implemented well, it can increase the speed of student learning (Williams, 2007). However, William cites Popham (2006) in saying that “there is no evidence at this time that such assessments increase student achievement”. Instead, he states that schools need to “implement the kind of formative assessment that research supports” (p.37). In his work with the numerous schools in the US, he learned that changes in classroom practice are “actually difficult to achieve” (p.38). However, if schools put the right supports in place, the changes in the classrooms are achievable and to bring about these changes, the schools will need to make “sustained investments in a new kind of teacher professional development” (p.38) – teacher learning communities. According to William, these teacher learning communities are perhaps the “most effective, practical method for changing day-to-day classroom practice” (p.39) and his article describes how teacher learning communities can be established.
As I read William’s article a few things stood out for me concerning teaching learning communities. The first thing that stood out was the composition of the community. Essentially, it was made up of volunteers who William found to be more trustworthy, are able to find ways around obstacles encountered and able to provide a “beaten path that the less enthusiastic can follow” (p.39). Having read William’s article, I now begin to question whether it is wise for schools back home to make it compulsory for every teacher to be a member of a professional development team or professional learning community (PLC) so as to bring about changes in the respective schools. From experience, anything that is made mandatory or compulsory may not achieve the desired outcome as compared to things being done on a voluntary basis. As William’s article has advised – start with volunteers. Having worked with volunteers, I have found them to be usually committed to the work undertaken and positive in outlook. Hence, the chances of seeing formative assessment being successfully implemented in the classrooms are more promising in those teachers who have volunteered to be a part of the teacher learning communities. William’s article confirms my belief that I would need to select teacher volunteers who would be willing to a part of my inquiry project in using self-assessment to help students overcome learned helplessness. As William has so correctly pointed out, “Formative assessment, like any reform, is a match you get to strike only once; make sure there’s enough kindling to allow it to catch” (p.39). It’s a good observation made by William and one that school administrators should take to heart when they want to implement or initiate changes in their schools.
The second thing that stood out for me was the importance of the PLC meeting structure or format. This, I realized, gave the meeting a purpose, direction and sustainability. In the past, when I sat in some of the professional development meetings chaired by my Heads of Department, I realized that the meetings conducted were not as effective as I would like them to be. How then, I asked myself, could the meeting’s effectiveness be improved? How could the teachers be made more engaged at these meetings? How could the meetings be sustained and be beneficial for the teachers? William’s article clearly answered these questions for me – have a structure. William’s suggested format or structure can, in my opinion, be adapted for use for department and curriculum meetings in my school as well. At a recent meeting which I had with a school administrator in Prince George, she concurred with me on the importance of abiding to the structure of the meeting. As school leaders, it is perhaps good to ensure that teachers who are facilitating these meetings follow the given format or structure so that the meetings can be sustained and effective. If the teacher facilitator is new, perhaps school leaders who are instructional leaders as well, can model the structure for them and William’s model is certainly a simple and practical model to use. Black et. al. (2004) state that “support from school administrators is essential” (p.20) for any innovation. I fully agree and modeling done by school administrators is a form of support that can be given to new teacher facilitator. The latter I believe will truly appreciate it.
The third thing that stood out was the duration and frequency of the meeting. William suggested that it should be held monthly for at least 75 minutes, if not two hours at most. Back home, schools have their PLC teams meet weekly. As I reflect on this, I realized this can contribute to the meeting’s ineffectiveness as “teachers would not have had the time to try out new ideas in their classrooms” (William, 2007, p.39). Hence, attending weekly meeting would simply be a sheer waste of time. In the light of William’s findings, there is a need for school administrators back home to rethink on how PLC should be conducted in order for these meetings to be beneficial to all who attend.
To conclude, implementing formative assessments in the classroom takes time. So does the raising of student achievement standards. While PLC is one of the best ways for teachers to develop their skills at formative assessments, PLC meetings should follow a set format and they should run for a two or three year period. Only then, can an observable change be seen in classroom practice.
As I read William’s article a few things stood out for me concerning teaching learning communities. The first thing that stood out was the composition of the community. Essentially, it was made up of volunteers who William found to be more trustworthy, are able to find ways around obstacles encountered and able to provide a “beaten path that the less enthusiastic can follow” (p.39). Having read William’s article, I now begin to question whether it is wise for schools back home to make it compulsory for every teacher to be a member of a professional development team or professional learning community (PLC) so as to bring about changes in the respective schools. From experience, anything that is made mandatory or compulsory may not achieve the desired outcome as compared to things being done on a voluntary basis. As William’s article has advised – start with volunteers. Having worked with volunteers, I have found them to be usually committed to the work undertaken and positive in outlook. Hence, the chances of seeing formative assessment being successfully implemented in the classrooms are more promising in those teachers who have volunteered to be a part of the teacher learning communities. William’s article confirms my belief that I would need to select teacher volunteers who would be willing to a part of my inquiry project in using self-assessment to help students overcome learned helplessness. As William has so correctly pointed out, “Formative assessment, like any reform, is a match you get to strike only once; make sure there’s enough kindling to allow it to catch” (p.39). It’s a good observation made by William and one that school administrators should take to heart when they want to implement or initiate changes in their schools.
The second thing that stood out for me was the importance of the PLC meeting structure or format. This, I realized, gave the meeting a purpose, direction and sustainability. In the past, when I sat in some of the professional development meetings chaired by my Heads of Department, I realized that the meetings conducted were not as effective as I would like them to be. How then, I asked myself, could the meeting’s effectiveness be improved? How could the teachers be made more engaged at these meetings? How could the meetings be sustained and be beneficial for the teachers? William’s article clearly answered these questions for me – have a structure. William’s suggested format or structure can, in my opinion, be adapted for use for department and curriculum meetings in my school as well. At a recent meeting which I had with a school administrator in Prince George, she concurred with me on the importance of abiding to the structure of the meeting. As school leaders, it is perhaps good to ensure that teachers who are facilitating these meetings follow the given format or structure so that the meetings can be sustained and effective. If the teacher facilitator is new, perhaps school leaders who are instructional leaders as well, can model the structure for them and William’s model is certainly a simple and practical model to use. Black et. al. (2004) state that “support from school administrators is essential” (p.20) for any innovation. I fully agree and modeling done by school administrators is a form of support that can be given to new teacher facilitator. The latter I believe will truly appreciate it.
The third thing that stood out was the duration and frequency of the meeting. William suggested that it should be held monthly for at least 75 minutes, if not two hours at most. Back home, schools have their PLC teams meet weekly. As I reflect on this, I realized this can contribute to the meeting’s ineffectiveness as “teachers would not have had the time to try out new ideas in their classrooms” (William, 2007, p.39). Hence, attending weekly meeting would simply be a sheer waste of time. In the light of William’s findings, there is a need for school administrators back home to rethink on how PLC should be conducted in order for these meetings to be beneficial to all who attend.
To conclude, implementing formative assessments in the classroom takes time. So does the raising of student achievement standards. While PLC is one of the best ways for teachers to develop their skills at formative assessments, PLC meetings should follow a set format and they should run for a two or three year period. Only then, can an observable change be seen in classroom practice.
Formative Assessment
Black’s and William’s article argues that formative assessment is an essential component of classroom instruction and its implementation can significantly improve student learning outcomes. They found that students who had experienced formative assessment strategies, particularly the low achievers, had demonstrated significant learning gains. For students to achieve these gains, they must be actively involved by using the feedback themselves for effective learning. According to the authors, the feedback given should focus on the quality of the student’s work, along with advice given on what the student can do to improve. It should avoid making comparison with other students. The authors also suggested that students be trained on how to self-assess and that teachers create opportunities for students to dialogue with them as ways to improve formative assessment. They also recommended for a change of policy and advocated four steps to implementation. This implementation is via teacher development and it entails the following: learning from development, dissemination, reducing obstacles and research. On the whole, both authors maintain that formative assessment is essential to effective teaching.
One thing that really caught my attention as I read this article was how “frequent assessment feedback” (p.83) has helped not only the low achievers but also those students with learning disabilities to enhance their learning. This is a wonderful piece of news to me as it not only validates my inquiry proposal project on the use of self-assessment to help high functioning children with special needs to overcome learned helplessness, but it helps to add on the sparse literature on the use of assessment for learning with children with special needs. For these students, the teachers will inevitably need to spend extra time to both teach and show them how to self-assess their work. But it is time well invested as self-assessment will help the children to become motivated, engaged and independent learners. According to Millar and Turner (1987) , “mildly handicapped students, particularly the learning disabled, have been described as ‘ inactive ’ (Torgeson, 1982), ‘passive,’ evidencing ‘learned helplessness’ (Gavalek and Raphel, 1982 ) ” (p.4) or “ showing a ‘ production deficit ’ (that is having ability, but not applying it)” (Millar, 1988, p.4). Self-assessment will therefore help these children to move out of their state of learned helplessness to one of active engagement. At the same time, it will shift the traditional decision making responsibility from the teacher to the students and cause teachers to rethink about their role, their students’ role and how they plan their lesson. While I am confident that the high functioning children with special needs can be taught how to self-assess, I wonder if low functioning children with special needs can be trained in like manner. Perhaps, there is a need for the authors of the article to define learning disabilities further.
As I read Black’s and William’s article, I was made to wonder about the role of school leaders. Other than giving support to the teachers to enable them try out and implement assessment for learning in the classroom, what else is required from them. I believe along with support, be it financial or technical, there is a need for school leaders to show patience. Making a fundamental change such as the introduction of assessment for learning into the classroom does take time. Both Black and William (2005) highlighted this in their article as well. They state that “fundamental change in education can be achieved only slowly – through programs of professional development that build on existing good practice” (p.82). It is interesting to see the use of the adverb “only” before another adverb “slowly” and I believe this is deliberate as the authors intend to impress upon the readers, in particular school leaders, of how slow change occurs. The idea of slowness is again reiterated by the authors when they discussed about the substantial rewards that comes from the use of formative assessment. Black and William state that the rewards are not seen quickly but it is a “relatively slow one and takes place through sustained programs of professional development and support” (p.88). In putting the adverb “relatively” before the verb “slow”, the authors not only stresses how slow rewards come from using formative assessment but it also implies the need to exercise patience when using formative assessments to help raise student achievement standards. In the light of this, school administrators must therefore give their teachers sufficient time to raise these standards in the classrooms as the latter is not achieved within a short period of time. They should exercise patience as well. Patience is a virtue which unfortunately some school leaders, who are so result oriented, may seriously lack. It a virtue that needs to be cultivated and will certainly be well appreciated by teachers who are embarking on innovative practices in the classrooms.
Other than patience, I believe it is equally important for school administrators to demonstrate assessment literacy if they want to implement the use of formative assessments in their schools. According to Stiggins (2001), “Sound assessment represents one essential key to school effectiveness” (p.13) and a principal’s role is “to advocate on behalf of balanced development and use of assessments” (p. 15). To take on this role, a school leader has to be sufficiently “assessment literate” (p. 15) so that he can “understand assessment results and promote an open and honest analysis of student success, both in the community and classroom” (p.15). But how many school leaders are sufficiently “assessment literate”? Stiggins states that there has been a “long history of failure in training teachers and administrators in effective assessments practice” (Stiggins, 2001, 26). What therefore is being done to address the lack of assessment literacy amongst school administrators? While I know that there are perhaps assessment courses offered for teachers to attend back at home, I am not sure if there are any being offered to school administrators. If there is none, perhaps school administrators should want to seriously consider enrolling themselves in those that are being offered to their staff. This is because knowledge of formative assessment will enhance the instructional leadership capacity of the school administrator. It would also, as Blase and Kirby (1992) state, enable them to lead effectively by standing behind. Leading by standing behind is amongst one of the many strategies effective school leaders use to bring out the best in the teachers.
One thing that really caught my attention as I read this article was how “frequent assessment feedback” (p.83) has helped not only the low achievers but also those students with learning disabilities to enhance their learning. This is a wonderful piece of news to me as it not only validates my inquiry proposal project on the use of self-assessment to help high functioning children with special needs to overcome learned helplessness, but it helps to add on the sparse literature on the use of assessment for learning with children with special needs. For these students, the teachers will inevitably need to spend extra time to both teach and show them how to self-assess their work. But it is time well invested as self-assessment will help the children to become motivated, engaged and independent learners. According to Millar and Turner (1987) , “mildly handicapped students, particularly the learning disabled, have been described as ‘ inactive ’ (Torgeson, 1982), ‘passive,’ evidencing ‘learned helplessness’ (Gavalek and Raphel, 1982 ) ” (p.4) or “ showing a ‘ production deficit ’ (that is having ability, but not applying it)” (Millar, 1988, p.4). Self-assessment will therefore help these children to move out of their state of learned helplessness to one of active engagement. At the same time, it will shift the traditional decision making responsibility from the teacher to the students and cause teachers to rethink about their role, their students’ role and how they plan their lesson. While I am confident that the high functioning children with special needs can be taught how to self-assess, I wonder if low functioning children with special needs can be trained in like manner. Perhaps, there is a need for the authors of the article to define learning disabilities further.
As I read Black’s and William’s article, I was made to wonder about the role of school leaders. Other than giving support to the teachers to enable them try out and implement assessment for learning in the classroom, what else is required from them. I believe along with support, be it financial or technical, there is a need for school leaders to show patience. Making a fundamental change such as the introduction of assessment for learning into the classroom does take time. Both Black and William (2005) highlighted this in their article as well. They state that “fundamental change in education can be achieved only slowly – through programs of professional development that build on existing good practice” (p.82). It is interesting to see the use of the adverb “only” before another adverb “slowly” and I believe this is deliberate as the authors intend to impress upon the readers, in particular school leaders, of how slow change occurs. The idea of slowness is again reiterated by the authors when they discussed about the substantial rewards that comes from the use of formative assessment. Black and William state that the rewards are not seen quickly but it is a “relatively slow one and takes place through sustained programs of professional development and support” (p.88). In putting the adverb “relatively” before the verb “slow”, the authors not only stresses how slow rewards come from using formative assessment but it also implies the need to exercise patience when using formative assessments to help raise student achievement standards. In the light of this, school administrators must therefore give their teachers sufficient time to raise these standards in the classrooms as the latter is not achieved within a short period of time. They should exercise patience as well. Patience is a virtue which unfortunately some school leaders, who are so result oriented, may seriously lack. It a virtue that needs to be cultivated and will certainly be well appreciated by teachers who are embarking on innovative practices in the classrooms.
Other than patience, I believe it is equally important for school administrators to demonstrate assessment literacy if they want to implement the use of formative assessments in their schools. According to Stiggins (2001), “Sound assessment represents one essential key to school effectiveness” (p.13) and a principal’s role is “to advocate on behalf of balanced development and use of assessments” (p. 15). To take on this role, a school leader has to be sufficiently “assessment literate” (p. 15) so that he can “understand assessment results and promote an open and honest analysis of student success, both in the community and classroom” (p.15). But how many school leaders are sufficiently “assessment literate”? Stiggins states that there has been a “long history of failure in training teachers and administrators in effective assessments practice” (Stiggins, 2001, 26). What therefore is being done to address the lack of assessment literacy amongst school administrators? While I know that there are perhaps assessment courses offered for teachers to attend back at home, I am not sure if there are any being offered to school administrators. If there is none, perhaps school administrators should want to seriously consider enrolling themselves in those that are being offered to their staff. This is because knowledge of formative assessment will enhance the instructional leadership capacity of the school administrator. It would also, as Blase and Kirby (1992) state, enable them to lead effectively by standing behind. Leading by standing behind is amongst one of the many strategies effective school leaders use to bring out the best in the teachers.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Trust & Improvement in Schools
Louis’ article examines how trust affects teachers’ willingness to work with innovations introduced by central office administrators. Data was collected over a three-year period in five schools and were used to analyse “the centrality of trust to teachers’ willingness to work with administrators to implement continuous improvement and quality management practices for their schools and classrooms” (Louis, 2007,p.1). Two of the schools were characterized by high trust and high willingness to change. The remaining three were characterised by mistrust. Louis’ findings generally support Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) conclusion that trust is a core resource for school improvement and change. Where the trust level was high, change was easily introduced and vice-versa.
Three things stood out for me when I read the article. The first was this statement: “Many schools have weak overall levels of relational trust among adult employees, even when there are pockets of high relational trust in small groups of like-minded teachers (Goddard et.al, 2001, cited by Louis)”. As I reflect on this statement, I believe this is also generally reflective not only of the schools back home but my previous school as well. Louis’ states that it is the leaders who need to create and maintain trust. Between institutional and relational trust, the former is perhaps ranked higher than the former in our schools. Louis (2007) states that school leaders are required to create trust by having “daily relationships” (p.18) with their staff. This generally requires a conscientious effort on the part of school leaders to create this relationship. Also, it entails putting administrative work on the back burner rather than on the front burner as day-to day social exchanges take up time. Generally, most school leaders are so swamped by administrative work and deadlines that to find the time to engage in “daily relationships” or “day-to-day social exchanges” (Bryk and Schneider, 2003, p. 43) with their teachers is sometimes difficult, if not impossible for them to do. Perhaps that explains why many schools have weak overall levels of relational trust among adult employees Once a school administrator, I realized that I had not taken the time to engage in daily relationships with my staff due to heavy administrative work. Having read Louis’ article as well as Bryk and Schneider’s article, I am convinced that school administrators “must pay more attention to transactional considerations (usually categorized as manager)” (p.18) even while they try to achieve their “transformative goals (often associated with leadership). The phrase “more attention” indicates the tipping of the scale towards transactional considerations. This is something school administrators back home need to be conscious about and make every effort to ensure that the scale tips more to transactional considerations so that a climate of trust can be built up in their schools and trust as seen in Bryk and Schneider’s (2003) study has suggested that it can enlarge “the arena for legitimate action on the part of the administrators, and during a change process, this ‘goodwill’ can be an important resource” (p.18).
The second thing that stood out was the need for administrators to “assess current level of trust in a building prior to initiating a significant change” (Louis, 2007, p,18). This is indeed a wise step to take. Yet, this is not done. Often school administrators back home initiate change because of the directives that have from higher authorities. When they encounter resentment from the staff or when the outcome is unexpected, they often wonder why. The answer is possibly due to low relational trust in their schools. It is therefore wise to assess and address trust issues before initiating changes especially in schools where the level of trust is low. Personally, I feel that school leaders should also consider two other factors - timeliness and availability of resources when implementing a change in their organizations as these factors can affect the implementation and outcome of new initiative.
The third thing that stood out for me in the article was that “administrators …must be ruthless in scrutinizing how their behavior and context are interpreted by others” (Louis, 2007, p.19). Louis (2007) suggested using “techniques like rapid feedback 360 evaluations, in which subordinates and peers provide anonymous assessments of performance” (p.19). What troubles me is how many school administrators actually do this? Scrutinizing one’s own behavior and how one’s context is being interpreted by others can be a very sensitive issue for some school administrators. School administrators must have an open mind if they are to undertake such a task. Also, there needs to be a follow-up of the feedback from the 360 evaluations. For school administrators who are not ready for the 360 evaluation, perhaps they can ruthlessly engage in reflective practice as it can help increase their awareness of their professional performance and enable them to improve their performance (Blase and Blase, 2004). In a society such as ours that is so Asian and conservative in nature, reflective practice is perhaps more acceptable and non-threatening to the school leaders.
Three things stood out for me when I read the article. The first was this statement: “Many schools have weak overall levels of relational trust among adult employees, even when there are pockets of high relational trust in small groups of like-minded teachers (Goddard et.al, 2001, cited by Louis)”. As I reflect on this statement, I believe this is also generally reflective not only of the schools back home but my previous school as well. Louis’ states that it is the leaders who need to create and maintain trust. Between institutional and relational trust, the former is perhaps ranked higher than the former in our schools. Louis (2007) states that school leaders are required to create trust by having “daily relationships” (p.18) with their staff. This generally requires a conscientious effort on the part of school leaders to create this relationship. Also, it entails putting administrative work on the back burner rather than on the front burner as day-to day social exchanges take up time. Generally, most school leaders are so swamped by administrative work and deadlines that to find the time to engage in “daily relationships” or “day-to-day social exchanges” (Bryk and Schneider, 2003, p. 43) with their teachers is sometimes difficult, if not impossible for them to do. Perhaps that explains why many schools have weak overall levels of relational trust among adult employees Once a school administrator, I realized that I had not taken the time to engage in daily relationships with my staff due to heavy administrative work. Having read Louis’ article as well as Bryk and Schneider’s article, I am convinced that school administrators “must pay more attention to transactional considerations (usually categorized as manager)” (p.18) even while they try to achieve their “transformative goals (often associated with leadership). The phrase “more attention” indicates the tipping of the scale towards transactional considerations. This is something school administrators back home need to be conscious about and make every effort to ensure that the scale tips more to transactional considerations so that a climate of trust can be built up in their schools and trust as seen in Bryk and Schneider’s (2003) study has suggested that it can enlarge “the arena for legitimate action on the part of the administrators, and during a change process, this ‘goodwill’ can be an important resource” (p.18).
The second thing that stood out was the need for administrators to “assess current level of trust in a building prior to initiating a significant change” (Louis, 2007, p,18). This is indeed a wise step to take. Yet, this is not done. Often school administrators back home initiate change because of the directives that have from higher authorities. When they encounter resentment from the staff or when the outcome is unexpected, they often wonder why. The answer is possibly due to low relational trust in their schools. It is therefore wise to assess and address trust issues before initiating changes especially in schools where the level of trust is low. Personally, I feel that school leaders should also consider two other factors - timeliness and availability of resources when implementing a change in their organizations as these factors can affect the implementation and outcome of new initiative.
The third thing that stood out for me in the article was that “administrators …must be ruthless in scrutinizing how their behavior and context are interpreted by others” (Louis, 2007, p.19). Louis (2007) suggested using “techniques like rapid feedback 360 evaluations, in which subordinates and peers provide anonymous assessments of performance” (p.19). What troubles me is how many school administrators actually do this? Scrutinizing one’s own behavior and how one’s context is being interpreted by others can be a very sensitive issue for some school administrators. School administrators must have an open mind if they are to undertake such a task. Also, there needs to be a follow-up of the feedback from the 360 evaluations. For school administrators who are not ready for the 360 evaluation, perhaps they can ruthlessly engage in reflective practice as it can help increase their awareness of their professional performance and enable them to improve their performance (Blase and Blase, 2004). In a society such as ours that is so Asian and conservative in nature, reflective practice is perhaps more acceptable and non-threatening to the school leaders.
Relational Trust
In their article, both Bryk and Schneider (2003) identified relational trust as a key variable in increasing student learning. In their 4 year longitudinal study with 12 different school communities, they found that schools that had scored high on relational trust demonstrated marked improvements in students learning as opposed to schools that had low score on relational trust. They also identified four key components of trusting relationships: respect, personal regard, personal integrity and competence in core responsibilities and discussed the conditions or factors that fostered it.
Personally, I agree that it is essential for school leaders to build up relational trust with the school community. This is because teachers generally feel safe to take on new initiatives if there is a culture of trust in the school. From experience, I have seen how good school leaders, who I have worked under, take their schools to greater heights because of the relational trust that they have established with their staff. While it is essential for all school leaders to develop relational trust, it is strangely, not a topic of discussion back home and I wonder why. Perhaps it is time that relational trust becomes a conversational topic between school leaders and their middle managers and their staff so that a culture of trust can be built up.
Relational trust, I realize is not built overnight. Back home, everyone wants to see instant result or outcomes. Building up relational trust however takes time and school leaders must realize this. In trying to build relationships, it is common to see school leaders in Singapore organizing staff retreats and workshops for their respective schools. Bryk and Schneider however have so correctly pointed out that a “school cannot achieve relational trust simply through some workshop, retreat, or form of sensitivity training, although all of these activities can help” (p.43). Yet, school leaders continue to organize retreats and workshops for their staff. For me, retreats and workshops are seen as quick fixes and quick fixes are only temporary and do have lasting outcomes. School leaders should instead look into building lasting and sustainable relationships and Bryk and Schneider (2003) have shown that this can be done through “day-to-day social exchanges” (p.43) as trust “grows through exchanges in which actions validate these expectations”(p.43). As I will assume the role of a school leader upon my return, this article serves as a good reminder that I should make a conscientious effort to build relational trust. In fact, it should be my main priority and administrative work secondary as it is “a core resource for school reforms”. It is an area that I would also like to impress upon my Heads of Department as they too take on department initiatives with their teachers so as to contribute to school wide improvements. According to Kaser and Halbert (2009) “strong levels of trust and respectful relationships are precondition for successful school improvement initiatives. When adult relationships are characterised by trust, the stories about change shift from indifference or negativity to possibility and hope” (p.43). As trust is amongst one of six important leadership mindsets that Kaser and Halbert (2009) have identified, every leader should therefore seriously consider the building of relational trust a priority because it serves to enhance the overall school climate as well as contribute to student learning.
While I agree with Bryk and Schneider that a school principal in a troubled school community may need to “remove a few problematic teachers” as they undermine trust, the removal of such teachers however requires moral courage. What troubles me is that most school leaders find the job of removing problematic teachers uncomfortable. I have often heard school leaders saying, “I prefer not to rock the boat”. As I reflect on this statement, I begin to wonder how fair this is to the school or the children under their charges? If indeed school leaders genuinely want their schools to make progress, they must have the moral courage to remove such teachers from their schools. To me, courage is linked to intense moral purpose. School leaders with intense moral purpose will know that it is their responsibility to change those things that “they have control over in order to alleviate disadvantage and promote the deeply human fulfillment of young people” (Starratt, 2004, p.144). They will also be determined to improve the life chances of their learners and be committed to providing with the highest possible quality learning experience. Having a moral purpose is therefore essential as it provides one with the moral courage to do what is right for the common good. It is also essential to “sustaining successful leadership” (Day and Littlewood (eds), 2007, p.176) and an equally important leadership mindset to acquire other than relational trust.
Personally, I agree that it is essential for school leaders to build up relational trust with the school community. This is because teachers generally feel safe to take on new initiatives if there is a culture of trust in the school. From experience, I have seen how good school leaders, who I have worked under, take their schools to greater heights because of the relational trust that they have established with their staff. While it is essential for all school leaders to develop relational trust, it is strangely, not a topic of discussion back home and I wonder why. Perhaps it is time that relational trust becomes a conversational topic between school leaders and their middle managers and their staff so that a culture of trust can be built up.
Relational trust, I realize is not built overnight. Back home, everyone wants to see instant result or outcomes. Building up relational trust however takes time and school leaders must realize this. In trying to build relationships, it is common to see school leaders in Singapore organizing staff retreats and workshops for their respective schools. Bryk and Schneider however have so correctly pointed out that a “school cannot achieve relational trust simply through some workshop, retreat, or form of sensitivity training, although all of these activities can help” (p.43). Yet, school leaders continue to organize retreats and workshops for their staff. For me, retreats and workshops are seen as quick fixes and quick fixes are only temporary and do have lasting outcomes. School leaders should instead look into building lasting and sustainable relationships and Bryk and Schneider (2003) have shown that this can be done through “day-to-day social exchanges” (p.43) as trust “grows through exchanges in which actions validate these expectations”(p.43). As I will assume the role of a school leader upon my return, this article serves as a good reminder that I should make a conscientious effort to build relational trust. In fact, it should be my main priority and administrative work secondary as it is “a core resource for school reforms”. It is an area that I would also like to impress upon my Heads of Department as they too take on department initiatives with their teachers so as to contribute to school wide improvements. According to Kaser and Halbert (2009) “strong levels of trust and respectful relationships are precondition for successful school improvement initiatives. When adult relationships are characterised by trust, the stories about change shift from indifference or negativity to possibility and hope” (p.43). As trust is amongst one of six important leadership mindsets that Kaser and Halbert (2009) have identified, every leader should therefore seriously consider the building of relational trust a priority because it serves to enhance the overall school climate as well as contribute to student learning.
While I agree with Bryk and Schneider that a school principal in a troubled school community may need to “remove a few problematic teachers” as they undermine trust, the removal of such teachers however requires moral courage. What troubles me is that most school leaders find the job of removing problematic teachers uncomfortable. I have often heard school leaders saying, “I prefer not to rock the boat”. As I reflect on this statement, I begin to wonder how fair this is to the school or the children under their charges? If indeed school leaders genuinely want their schools to make progress, they must have the moral courage to remove such teachers from their schools. To me, courage is linked to intense moral purpose. School leaders with intense moral purpose will know that it is their responsibility to change those things that “they have control over in order to alleviate disadvantage and promote the deeply human fulfillment of young people” (Starratt, 2004, p.144). They will also be determined to improve the life chances of their learners and be committed to providing with the highest possible quality learning experience. Having a moral purpose is therefore essential as it provides one with the moral courage to do what is right for the common good. It is also essential to “sustaining successful leadership” (Day and Littlewood (eds), 2007, p.176) and an equally important leadership mindset to acquire other than relational trust.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Reclaiming the Intellect, Owning Our Learning
This phrase captures my thoughts today on research method limitations and their effect on teacher inquiry. The philosophy underlying quantitative research assumes that if the method is appropriate, the results will be generalizable to other settings. In other words, an expert can tell you from studying a large enough sample elsewhere, what you should be doing in your school. However, in education, few practices can be imported to a new setting with dependably reliable results. So much is at play in how teachers understand any given innovation and whether it corresponds with their existing beliefs. The degree and quality of implementation can vary widely, based on local conditions. So perhaps the whole assumption that others can generate knowledge that we, as educators, implement blindly, is to be questioned.
However, the quantitative research tradition has mystified the tools for knowledge construction and made them inaccessible to teachers trying to turn observations into knowledge into their own classrooms and schools. Last summer I heard about a school improvement book that I have mean meaning to order, about teachers "reclaiming the intellect". In order for this reclaiming to occur, and for teachers to become critical thinkers about their own professional actions, I think researchers need to legitimize rather than undermine professional inquiry. The ways that teachers make informed instructional decisions needs to be articulated and validated and not dismissed as "unreliable" or "anecdotal". Only then will teachers own their learning and have the confidence to critique it for themselves.
Why is this troubling me now? I've been helping so many students develop inquiry projects and research proposals and there is always so much that must be written about the limitations of the method, an academic tradition.However, one colleague, an expert in narrative research, insists that we should never apologize for our method. I hope there will come a time when the opportunities or affordances of a qualitative research method, such as professional inquiry, are richly understood and appreciated and the limitations are acknowledged in a way that doesn't limit teachers' ability to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)