Professional Practice is one of the fundamental principles at the core of education. I described the three fundamental principles (standards, data, and practice) in a recent post.
The current evolution of the story of professional practice is being told with the APPR. Across the state, districts are working on their APPR plans -- plans they hope will not only comply with regulations but also result in better teaching and leading. While districts are working on their APPR plans, administrators are being trained to be Lead Evaluators. The APPR regulations describe nine components about which Lead Evaluators must be trained. Those nine required components are all well and good, but they are not compelling. Being trained in those nine components might not result in effective evaluations. The nine components of training and the best district-made APPR plan can't result in improved student learning if certain conditions are not first in place.
Duffy Miller (and other past and present members of the Danielson Group) is training Network Teams from across the state about how to do teacher evaluations. Before the training about teacher evaluation proceeded too far, Duffy described the three conditions that must be in place for teacher evaluation to have any shot at making a difference; he called them the three "gates" of evaluation. These gates have to be open in order for you to pass through: fairness, reliability, and validity.
You can't pass through to the land of effective and productive teacher evaluation unless teachers perceive the system as fair. Think about how acutely tuned a child's sense of fairness is. Adults are no different. If we don't feel like a system that is being used to judge our performance is fair there is absolutely no way that we will be able to receive and respond to feedback. Our fairness radar works 24-7; we have to have a system that is fair and perceived as fair -- that's the first gate.
The second gate is reliability. A system of evaluation has to be reliable, which means that different evaluators and different contexts result in a similar evaluation and in similar provision of feedback. If the system works differently for different people on different days it is easy to recognize how unlikely it is that the system will produce meaningful learning or change.
The third gate swings on whether the system is valid. This means that the system has to provide the right feedback at the right time. Neither nonspecific feedback nor inaccurate feedback is helpful feedback. It is not valid, growth-producing feedback; it won't produce growth.
So, it is critical that you attend to these gates and make sure you leave them open and unlocked. No APPR plan and no Lead Evaluator Training program hold the key to these three gates if locked. Make deliberate and thorough plans to open them and keep them open.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Stop Speaking in Tongues
Doctors have it. Pilots have it. CPAs have it. Educators do not. What don't we have that doctors, pilots, and accountants do? Why, they have a common language. While we can talk about our craft in general terms and we can describe the decisions and judgments we make in classrooms with sufficient specificity to get along, we don't have a common language. Common language, however, is a primary characteristic of a profession.
Consider the medical profession. Now there's an example of a common language. Generalists and specialists and nurses and doctors have to employ a common language. The repercussions of an imprecise and inexact language can be literally life threatening. We depend on their common language. Our life depends on it.
Consider another example of how important it is to have a common language among pilots and air traffic controllers. Bad things could happen on the ground if a precise and shared language wasn't used to direct planes to the correct runways and taxiways. And if common language wasn't used to direct pilots as they take off and land the results would be quite catastrophic. They depend on their common language (and we do, too).
Here's our chance to employ a common language in schools and classrooms across the state: The NYS Teaching Standards. These have to become our common language. Leaders have to use the language as they interact with their teachers. Teachers have to use the language when they talk to each other and co-labor on the implementation of the Common Core, common interim assessments, and the new APPR. Just imagine if the daily, routine conversations in schools were more often about learning and teaching. That can't happen if we don't share a common language. The Teaching Standards. That's our language. Let's use it.
Consider the medical profession. Now there's an example of a common language. Generalists and specialists and nurses and doctors have to employ a common language. The repercussions of an imprecise and inexact language can be literally life threatening. We depend on their common language. Our life depends on it.
Consider another example of how important it is to have a common language among pilots and air traffic controllers. Bad things could happen on the ground if a precise and shared language wasn't used to direct planes to the correct runways and taxiways. And if common language wasn't used to direct pilots as they take off and land the results would be quite catastrophic. They depend on their common language (and we do, too).
Here's our chance to employ a common language in schools and classrooms across the state: The NYS Teaching Standards. These have to become our common language. Leaders have to use the language as they interact with their teachers. Teachers have to use the language when they talk to each other and co-labor on the implementation of the Common Core, common interim assessments, and the new APPR. Just imagine if the daily, routine conversations in schools were more often about learning and teaching. That can't happen if we don't share a common language. The Teaching Standards. That's our language. Let's use it.
Friday, August 12, 2011
It's The Principle of the Thing
In a post at the Network Team Institute I described a shift in my thinking with regard to the three deliverables: Common Core Learning Standards, Data-Driven Instruction, and Teacher/Leader Evaluation. I explained how I had previously compartmentalized the three deliverables and how I was rethinking that compartmentalization. Of course these deliverables are interconnected and interdependent. As a result of this shift in thinking we had to adjust the way were planning our work. Rather than separate components for which implementation would proceed in parallel, we reoriented our design to be more integrated with greater overlap. I thought I was enlightened. Not so fast!
Now I've experienced another shift in my thinking that I think is important to write about. This work is not about deliverables. It is not about the next generation of reform. If we speak in terms of deliverables and initiatives and reforms we will simply be the bringers of another new thing. We've all heard the "flavor of the month" or "this too shall pass" remarks. We might be headed in that direction with those same epitaphs on our tombstones. These easy excuses for avoiding change can be averted. Thanks to Giselle Martin-Kneip and the coaching she is providing for a group of Network Teams in Central New York, there's a better way to think about this work. This work is about principles, not deliverables.
When doing this work, we have to talk in terms of principles. Principles of teaching and learning are far superior to any plan, reform, initiative, effort, or deliverable. Don't talk about the Common Core as if it is a unique thing. That can imply that it will pass. The Common Core is the next phase of the evolution of standards. We've always had standards and we always will -- standards are the things we teach; the goals of our system.
Common interim assessments and inquiry teams are discreet manifestations of the use of data. The principle here is data and that's where the focus should be: How do you know?
The third principle at work here is professional practice, not evaluation and supervision. Our practice is the "how" principle. What do we need to do to be effective teachers and leaders whose actions result in the right learning? If we think (and talk) about our practice like physicians talk about practice we are then talking about the principle rather than a specific technique, development, trend, or fad.
In our work, we’re going to change our language and talk about enduring principles of education rather than deliverables and another set of reforms. We think it will make a difference.
Now I've experienced another shift in my thinking that I think is important to write about. This work is not about deliverables. It is not about the next generation of reform. If we speak in terms of deliverables and initiatives and reforms we will simply be the bringers of another new thing. We've all heard the "flavor of the month" or "this too shall pass" remarks. We might be headed in that direction with those same epitaphs on our tombstones. These easy excuses for avoiding change can be averted. Thanks to Giselle Martin-Kneip and the coaching she is providing for a group of Network Teams in Central New York, there's a better way to think about this work. This work is about principles, not deliverables.
When doing this work, we have to talk in terms of principles. Principles of teaching and learning are far superior to any plan, reform, initiative, effort, or deliverable. Don't talk about the Common Core as if it is a unique thing. That can imply that it will pass. The Common Core is the next phase of the evolution of standards. We've always had standards and we always will -- standards are the things we teach; the goals of our system.
Common interim assessments and inquiry teams are discreet manifestations of the use of data. The principle here is data and that's where the focus should be: How do you know?
The third principle at work here is professional practice, not evaluation and supervision. Our practice is the "how" principle. What do we need to do to be effective teachers and leaders whose actions result in the right learning? If we think (and talk) about our practice like physicians talk about practice we are then talking about the principle rather than a specific technique, development, trend, or fad.
In our work, we’re going to change our language and talk about enduring principles of education rather than deliverables and another set of reforms. We think it will make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
