What are your philosophical beliefs about the purpose of school, about what subjects should be taught, and about how students learn? How does your work demonstrate your belief?
I believe the children and young adults of a society are its most valuable resource. Our wealth is held not so much in land and goods as in creativity and innovation, hard work and inspiration, individual and collective knowledge and skill. If we fail to invest in providing a high quality education to our youth, we neglect our own future prosperity.
Schools must be inclusive, serving all students and addressing the needs of learners throughout the entire continuum of needs and abilities. This means nurturing and lifting up our disadvantaged youth and also challenging our gifted and talented students so that all learners can reach their full potential. A high-quality education is a moral and ethical imperative; it should be the right of every child, not just the wealthy or elite. I believe very strongly in the value of the public education system and that we need to make that system work for all of our students.
What is the purpose of schooling and what does it mean to be an educated person? Today, it means more than simply becoming proficient in reading, writing and arithmetic. The skill set necessary to survive and prosper in our current (and future) society is quite different than what was required fifty, thirty, or even fifteen years ago. Since our knowledge base is constantly growing and evolving, we cannot possibly teach our children everything they need to know. We must help students achieve fundamental skills and conceptual understanding – and also prepare them to access and critically evaluate vast amounts of information; effectively communicate using multiple formats and technologies; and collaborate to solve problems that have an impact on local and global levels.
I am currently an instructional technolgist for Oakland Unified School District. I work with a small team to assist school sites with tech planning, integration and professional development. We try to help teachers incorporate information and technology literacy into all curricular areas and to use various technologies and multimedia as tools to enhance delivery of content, increase student engagement, support collaboration (among and between teachers, students and outside experts), and to allow students to access, evaluate and create information in ways they could not without the technology. Our instructional technology team is part of the larger district department of Leadership, Curriculum & Instruction, so I also collaborate with content area specialists and instructional coaches.
I believe that one’s philosophy of educational leadership should reflect and support his/her overall philosophy of education. Although this seems to be a simple and obvious statement, our beliefs and ideals are often tempered by daily realities and constraints. Educational leaders must strive to create and maintain a school culture in which the focus is on student learning and effective teaching and all staff engages in professional reflection and growth.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Monday, November 15, 2010
Reflection on Post-observation Conference
A requirement of the Supervision and Professional Development course is to conduct a full clinical observation cycle with a teacher. This included a pre-observation conference, a classroom observation, data analysis and interpretation, and a post-observation conference. We video taped the post-observation conference and then reviewed the video to analyze and critique the process and identify our strengths and areas for improvement as supervisors. The following are my reflections on the full clinical observation process and my skills.
What strengths and/or improvement areas did you notice about the environment and tone of the post-observation?
Ms. C and I originally planned to have our post-observation conference in the teacher’s lounge/workroom; however, there were two other teachers there and the copier was running so it was not conducive to confidential discussion and reflection. We found another room that was not in use and sat together at one of the tables. I set up the video camera and brought out a folder with my observation notes (scripted narrative and selected verbatim), analysis and the district observation forms. I sat to the left of Ms. C, around the corner of the table rather than across the table as this made it easier to go through the observation notes together. I felt this was a more personal, collaborative seating arrangement compared to sitting across from each other. This was an important consideration since the feedback session we had after I observed Ms. C in Practice Observation #2 had not started smoothly. There had been significant deficiencies that my supervisor and I had observed in the first lesson and these issues had not initially been apparent to Ms. C. It took a lot of delicate maneuvering to build trust and get to the point that Ms. C was able to accept the observations and actively participate in planning improvement. This lesson was a tremendous improvement over that first lesson and I wanted to move forward to a less directive and more collaborative approach.
In reviewing the videotape, I noticed that I made a concerted effort to put Ms. C at ease and be positive and encouraging. A strength was my preparation; I had made two copies of my scripted notes, analysis and evaluation forms and had reviewed everything ahead of time. I was animated and clear in presenting and explaining, but I also “talk with my hands” a lot and use “ummm” a little too frequently.
What strengths and/or improvement areas did you notice in the conference about strategies to improve instruction?
In our pre-observation conference (the first half of which was also a feedback session from Practice Observation #2), we discussed student engagement and addressing the needs of all levels of readiness. In the prior lesson, both of these were areas of concern as was maintaining a tighter focus on the lesson objectives. I offered several suggestions for increasing student engagement and having students work with partners and groups. Ms. C stated that she did use some of those techniques in math but had not done them in ELA. We agreed that I would observe her teaching a math lesson and that she would implement strategies to increase student participation, do frequent checks for understanding and adjust content delivery accordingly. While observing the lesson, I did narrative scripting along with tallying both engagement strategies and off-task behaviors.
During the conference, I showed the scripting & data first and explained my shorthand & use of asterisks. We both made comments & clarifications as we went through the scripting together.
I commented that she put several items into place & gave praise for jumping in with trying new techniques (group work – new protocols to promote engagement, students collaborating & helping each other as a way to support students at all readiness levels.) Ms. C. commented, “You see me applying some of the things you suggested”
We then looked at my analysis of the notes/scripting and tallies. This was where the evidence was really confirmed. She was able to make the connection between the first lesson and the much improved second one– the difference being the greater student engagement.
I made specific comments on positives & improvements & changes in teacher activities and how they affected student engagement, ability to address different levels. Not only was the student engagement much higher and off-task behaviors reduced, Ms. C was also able to easily and quickly check for understanding.
About halfway through – Ms. C was coming up with additional ideas and was displaying confidence that they would be practical and would improve learning.
In the conference, which behavior did you seem to predominantly use? Do you think this was an appropriate approach given the developmental level of the teacher? Briefly explain.
I used a range of behaviors on the continuum but the overall conference was predominantly collaborative. During our previous feedback session, after practice observation # 2, I had taken a more directive informational approach, making several suggestions to Ms. C. I had been very pleased that she had incorporated a number of the engagement techniques we discussed, some which she had previously done and one completely new one. I knew before I left her room that she had realized how much of an improvement these strategies had made in the lesson. This created the right circumstances for moving to a collaborative approach. I was able to present my notes and data and let Ms. C do some clarifying and reflecting. During this post-observation conference, Ms. C was interested and involved in confirming the analysis and took an active role in planning next steps and coming up with further activities. Although I had an objective for further professional growth in mind and was ready to present it to Ms. C, we were actually able to arrive at the same objective together through the discussion and mutual planning. Together we reiterated bringing engagement & group protocols & techniques used in Math into ELA and other subject areas.
One of the biggest positives is that Ms. C is looking forward to my coming back to observe her after winter break and in the early spring and she has a plan for moving forward and incorporating the strategies for student engagement and addressing the needs of all levels of her students. She will gradually incorporate the strategies she is using (and increasing) in math into ELA and other areas of the curriculum.
The full clinical evaluation process was very useful to me as it not only helped me to hone my observation skills, but more importantly helped me to improve on my interpersonal skills I found that I was able to take a situation that started out a little rocky and contentious and turn it around and help to move a teacher forward in her practice. It also helped shed light on areas in which I will need to refine my skills and approach and walk that line between being personable and maintaining professionalism and being a leader.
What strengths and/or improvement areas did you notice about the environment and tone of the post-observation?
Ms. C and I originally planned to have our post-observation conference in the teacher’s lounge/workroom; however, there were two other teachers there and the copier was running so it was not conducive to confidential discussion and reflection. We found another room that was not in use and sat together at one of the tables. I set up the video camera and brought out a folder with my observation notes (scripted narrative and selected verbatim), analysis and the district observation forms. I sat to the left of Ms. C, around the corner of the table rather than across the table as this made it easier to go through the observation notes together. I felt this was a more personal, collaborative seating arrangement compared to sitting across from each other. This was an important consideration since the feedback session we had after I observed Ms. C in Practice Observation #2 had not started smoothly. There had been significant deficiencies that my supervisor and I had observed in the first lesson and these issues had not initially been apparent to Ms. C. It took a lot of delicate maneuvering to build trust and get to the point that Ms. C was able to accept the observations and actively participate in planning improvement. This lesson was a tremendous improvement over that first lesson and I wanted to move forward to a less directive and more collaborative approach.
In reviewing the videotape, I noticed that I made a concerted effort to put Ms. C at ease and be positive and encouraging. A strength was my preparation; I had made two copies of my scripted notes, analysis and evaluation forms and had reviewed everything ahead of time. I was animated and clear in presenting and explaining, but I also “talk with my hands” a lot and use “ummm” a little too frequently.
What strengths and/or improvement areas did you notice in the conference about strategies to improve instruction?
In our pre-observation conference (the first half of which was also a feedback session from Practice Observation #2), we discussed student engagement and addressing the needs of all levels of readiness. In the prior lesson, both of these were areas of concern as was maintaining a tighter focus on the lesson objectives. I offered several suggestions for increasing student engagement and having students work with partners and groups. Ms. C stated that she did use some of those techniques in math but had not done them in ELA. We agreed that I would observe her teaching a math lesson and that she would implement strategies to increase student participation, do frequent checks for understanding and adjust content delivery accordingly. While observing the lesson, I did narrative scripting along with tallying both engagement strategies and off-task behaviors.
During the conference, I showed the scripting & data first and explained my shorthand & use of asterisks. We both made comments & clarifications as we went through the scripting together.
I commented that she put several items into place & gave praise for jumping in with trying new techniques (group work – new protocols to promote engagement, students collaborating & helping each other as a way to support students at all readiness levels.) Ms. C. commented, “You see me applying some of the things you suggested”
We then looked at my analysis of the notes/scripting and tallies. This was where the evidence was really confirmed. She was able to make the connection between the first lesson and the much improved second one– the difference being the greater student engagement.
I made specific comments on positives & improvements & changes in teacher activities and how they affected student engagement, ability to address different levels. Not only was the student engagement much higher and off-task behaviors reduced, Ms. C was also able to easily and quickly check for understanding.
About halfway through – Ms. C was coming up with additional ideas and was displaying confidence that they would be practical and would improve learning.
In the conference, which behavior did you seem to predominantly use? Do you think this was an appropriate approach given the developmental level of the teacher? Briefly explain.
I used a range of behaviors on the continuum but the overall conference was predominantly collaborative. During our previous feedback session, after practice observation # 2, I had taken a more directive informational approach, making several suggestions to Ms. C. I had been very pleased that she had incorporated a number of the engagement techniques we discussed, some which she had previously done and one completely new one. I knew before I left her room that she had realized how much of an improvement these strategies had made in the lesson. This created the right circumstances for moving to a collaborative approach. I was able to present my notes and data and let Ms. C do some clarifying and reflecting. During this post-observation conference, Ms. C was interested and involved in confirming the analysis and took an active role in planning next steps and coming up with further activities. Although I had an objective for further professional growth in mind and was ready to present it to Ms. C, we were actually able to arrive at the same objective together through the discussion and mutual planning. Together we reiterated bringing engagement & group protocols & techniques used in Math into ELA and other subject areas.
One of the biggest positives is that Ms. C is looking forward to my coming back to observe her after winter break and in the early spring and she has a plan for moving forward and incorporating the strategies for student engagement and addressing the needs of all levels of her students. She will gradually incorporate the strategies she is using (and increasing) in math into ELA and other areas of the curriculum.
The full clinical evaluation process was very useful to me as it not only helped me to hone my observation skills, but more importantly helped me to improve on my interpersonal skills I found that I was able to take a situation that started out a little rocky and contentious and turn it around and help to move a teacher forward in her practice. It also helped shed light on areas in which I will need to refine my skills and approach and walk that line between being personable and maintaining professionalism and being a leader.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Classroom Arrangements
As a district Instructional Technologist, I am not assigned to a single school site but instead make visits to various schools throughout the district at the elementary, middle school and high school level. Over the past three weeks, I have been in three middle schools and four elementary schools. Room arrangements vary between schools and within individual school sites. In general there are higher percentages of traditional room arrangements in middle and high school classrooms than in elementary classrooms, but I have seen various types of arrangements at each level.
Although room arrangements are often a clue to the teacher’s primary teaching style, his/her predominant instructional strategies and preferences for students working independently or collaboratively, it not always correct to assume a particular teaching style based upon one walkthrough. In many classrooms, room arrangements are not static and desks, tables, other furniture, and equipment can be rearranged regularly to facilitate whole class direct instruction, collaborative group work, centers, presentations, hands-on science, etc. In smaller or more crowded rooms, teachers and students may push desks together with a partner/buddy or with three or more students to do group work and then separate desks during assessment. In larger rooms, the space may be sufficient to allow a section for whole class instruction, tables for small groups, a reading center, computer center, etc. at the same time.
Some room arrangements are subject specific (especially science) or are designed for specific programs or instructional models. Our district uses Scholastic’s Read 180, a reading intervention program, in quite a few of our secondary schools. The instructional model for this program is a 90 minute time block in which the first 20 minutes are whole class instruction followed by students split into three groups and rotating between small group instruction with the teacher, independent reading on couches or bean bags in the reading/listening center and one third of the students on computers using the interactive, adaptive software. This program requires a large room with the three areas for rotations, plus an area for whole class instruction.
Observations of connections between room arrangement and teaching style:
I did make several visits last week to Parker Elementary school, assisting teachers with their Interactive Whiteboard and software setup in preparation for a training I will be doing at the site next week. Six out of twelve classrooms are now equipped with IWBs. Three of the rooms have had boards for almost two years and the other three were installed around the middle of the last school year. Two of the teachers are returning teachers and have experience with the IWBs. The other teachers are either new to the school and/or have an IWB in their room for the first time. One teacher is a first year teacher. In most of the rooms I looked into, the arrangement of desks were in tables or clusters or were in a horseshoe or semi-horseshoe with one or more openings in the horseshoe to facilitate traffic. All rooms had at least one separate table for small group instruction. The teacher's desk was usually off to the side or in the back. Some rooms had an open center area with a rug.
One of the teachers who had used her IWB extensively last year and had started this year using the board, had the projector bulb burn out and unfortunately, there were no extra bulbs on hand. I assisted the principal in ordering new bulbs and then went to observe the teacher and let her know that bulbs were ordered. I was dismayed to see that the double-desks were rearranged in traditional neat rows, turned to face the regular low-tech whiteboard. Each desk-table consists of two connected desks with one tabletop. The lesson I observed was an Open Court reading lesson with choral reading. It was almost entirely teacher-directed. Students participated but were not deeply engaged in the reading selection. Ms. S moved around the room assisting students, but it was apparent that she was somewhat frustrated and not at ease. She had become reliant on the technology and without it she fell back on a very traditional arrangement and methodology. I am hoping to observe this teacher again to 1) see if the instructional strategy was more a function of the Open Court routine for that day of the week, 2) to see if the room arrangement and the strategies are different when the IWB is back up and running, and 3) to ask if she would like any assistance or suggestions.
In the second IWB classroom I visited on the same day, the teacher had arranged the double desks (two connected desks with one top) in a semi-horseshoe configuration. This teacher had minimal training on the IWB, but she had a flipchart lesson displayed. She used a variety of tools and techniques to engage the students (shoulder buddies, think-pair-share, individual wipe-off whiteboards, questioning techniques, echo and choral answering) in addition to the IWB and she utilized the desk configuration to be in the center of the students, moving freely around them. Students were not particularly still in their seats, but they were engaged and there was a lot of energy in the room. Ms. M enhanced the lesson through technology and she used the room set up to increase her ability to interact with all of the students. More than the room arrangement or the technology, the greatest effect was through the teacher’s strong and solid pedagogy.
Although room arrangements are often a clue to the teacher’s primary teaching style, his/her predominant instructional strategies and preferences for students working independently or collaboratively, it not always correct to assume a particular teaching style based upon one walkthrough. In many classrooms, room arrangements are not static and desks, tables, other furniture, and equipment can be rearranged regularly to facilitate whole class direct instruction, collaborative group work, centers, presentations, hands-on science, etc. In smaller or more crowded rooms, teachers and students may push desks together with a partner/buddy or with three or more students to do group work and then separate desks during assessment. In larger rooms, the space may be sufficient to allow a section for whole class instruction, tables for small groups, a reading center, computer center, etc. at the same time.
Some room arrangements are subject specific (especially science) or are designed for specific programs or instructional models. Our district uses Scholastic’s Read 180, a reading intervention program, in quite a few of our secondary schools. The instructional model for this program is a 90 minute time block in which the first 20 minutes are whole class instruction followed by students split into three groups and rotating between small group instruction with the teacher, independent reading on couches or bean bags in the reading/listening center and one third of the students on computers using the interactive, adaptive software. This program requires a large room with the three areas for rotations, plus an area for whole class instruction.
Observations of connections between room arrangement and teaching style:
I did make several visits last week to Parker Elementary school, assisting teachers with their Interactive Whiteboard and software setup in preparation for a training I will be doing at the site next week. Six out of twelve classrooms are now equipped with IWBs. Three of the rooms have had boards for almost two years and the other three were installed around the middle of the last school year. Two of the teachers are returning teachers and have experience with the IWBs. The other teachers are either new to the school and/or have an IWB in their room for the first time. One teacher is a first year teacher. In most of the rooms I looked into, the arrangement of desks were in tables or clusters or were in a horseshoe or semi-horseshoe with one or more openings in the horseshoe to facilitate traffic. All rooms had at least one separate table for small group instruction. The teacher's desk was usually off to the side or in the back. Some rooms had an open center area with a rug.
One of the teachers who had used her IWB extensively last year and had started this year using the board, had the projector bulb burn out and unfortunately, there were no extra bulbs on hand. I assisted the principal in ordering new bulbs and then went to observe the teacher and let her know that bulbs were ordered. I was dismayed to see that the double-desks were rearranged in traditional neat rows, turned to face the regular low-tech whiteboard. Each desk-table consists of two connected desks with one tabletop. The lesson I observed was an Open Court reading lesson with choral reading. It was almost entirely teacher-directed. Students participated but were not deeply engaged in the reading selection. Ms. S moved around the room assisting students, but it was apparent that she was somewhat frustrated and not at ease. She had become reliant on the technology and without it she fell back on a very traditional arrangement and methodology. I am hoping to observe this teacher again to 1) see if the instructional strategy was more a function of the Open Court routine for that day of the week, 2) to see if the room arrangement and the strategies are different when the IWB is back up and running, and 3) to ask if she would like any assistance or suggestions.
In the second IWB classroom I visited on the same day, the teacher had arranged the double desks (two connected desks with one top) in a semi-horseshoe configuration. This teacher had minimal training on the IWB, but she had a flipchart lesson displayed. She used a variety of tools and techniques to engage the students (shoulder buddies, think-pair-share, individual wipe-off whiteboards, questioning techniques, echo and choral answering) in addition to the IWB and she utilized the desk configuration to be in the center of the students, moving freely around them. Students were not particularly still in their seats, but they were engaged and there was a lot of energy in the room. Ms. M enhanced the lesson through technology and she used the room set up to increase her ability to interact with all of the students. More than the room arrangement or the technology, the greatest effect was through the teacher’s strong and solid pedagogy.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Second-Order Change
Change: Based on your understanding of the Marzano reading, which of the 21 responsibilities and day-to-day management of a school are most necessary for second-order change?
Administrators must emphasize seven of the 21 responsibilities to lead and manage a second-order change initiative. Applying them to second-order change also differs slightly from first-order change and day-to-day management of a school in that they include how the larger change/innovation will affect these responsibilities. These are, in rank order of their relationship with second-order change:
How does the complexity of second order change demand a very thoughtful and flexible administrator?
Marzano (2005) states, “One of the difficult aspects of identifying the magnitude of change for a given initiative is that one person’s first-order change might be another’s second order change.” (p. 112). He gives an example of a school moving from a traditional report card to one that is standards-based. For a teacher that has already been moving towards recording grades on a more detailed standards-based model, changing the school report card is “an extension of her experiences – the next logical step.” For another teacher who has not been experimenting with new reporting systems, it is a bigger change and a dramatic departure from her existing paradigm. While first-order change is incremental, a series of small steps that fine-tunes the system, second-order change is deep change that “alters the system in fundamental ways, offering a dramatic shift in direction and requiring new ways of thinking and acting.’ (p. 66).
Administrators need to understand that the staff will vary on both the reality and their perceptions of the degree to which a change or innovation is different from their existing practices. Generally, the bigger/more significant the change, the more difficult it will be perceived to be and the more effort it will take.
When leading and managing second-order change, administrators may want to make use of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)
Marzano, R. Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005) School Leadership That Works. From Research to Results. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
The National Academies (2005). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals. Retrieved from: http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm
Administrators must emphasize seven of the 21 responsibilities to lead and manage a second-order change initiative. Applying them to second-order change also differs slightly from first-order change and day-to-day management of a school in that they include how the larger change/innovation will affect these responsibilities. These are, in rank order of their relationship with second-order change:
- Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment- not just having knowledge of research and best practices, but also being knowledgeable about how the innovation will affect curricular, instructional and assessment practices
- Optimizer
- Intellectual Stimulation
- Change Agent
- Monitoring/Evaluating
- Flexibility
- Ideals/Beliefs
How does the complexity of second order change demand a very thoughtful and flexible administrator?
Marzano (2005) states, “One of the difficult aspects of identifying the magnitude of change for a given initiative is that one person’s first-order change might be another’s second order change.” (p. 112). He gives an example of a school moving from a traditional report card to one that is standards-based. For a teacher that has already been moving towards recording grades on a more detailed standards-based model, changing the school report card is “an extension of her experiences – the next logical step.” For another teacher who has not been experimenting with new reporting systems, it is a bigger change and a dramatic departure from her existing paradigm. While first-order change is incremental, a series of small steps that fine-tunes the system, second-order change is deep change that “alters the system in fundamental ways, offering a dramatic shift in direction and requiring new ways of thinking and acting.’ (p. 66).
Administrators need to understand that the staff will vary on both the reality and their perceptions of the degree to which a change or innovation is different from their existing practices. Generally, the bigger/more significant the change, the more difficult it will be perceived to be and the more effort it will take.
When leading and managing second-order change, administrators may want to make use of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)
“…acknowledging these concerns and addressing them are critical to progress in a reform effort …. The strength of the concerns model is in its reminder to pay attention to individuals and their various needs for information, assistance, and moral support.”References
Marzano, R. Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005) School Leadership That Works. From Research to Results. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
The National Academies (2005). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals. Retrieved from: http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)