Many things in the chapter made me reflect on my own practise as a leader. When I read the section on the leader's role as an evaluator I agreed that often we confuse this term 'evaluation' with 'judgemental' and being judgemental stops a leader being open to discussing the views of others and being open about how learning is being evaluated.
We need to look at all the competing theories when making a decision on the criteria to be used to evaluate change. If we don't we will not engage all the stakeholder. The five steps for agreeing upon a set of evaluation criteria were clearly delineated but the main point that resonated with me was that improvement will only happen if the problem is analysed and the criteria used to evaluate the solution are closely aligned and as it states later in the chapter monitored within a selected time frame.
I found the section where leaders were in a 'communication tangle' caught between an honest evaluation and a personal/professional relationship also extremely interesting and the conflict between a leader's 'thoughts/ what they might say/ how they should say it ' very honest. One sentence I identified with was: "not to tone down or withhold the words but to change the thinking that produces such a judgemental evaluation." I could be more open minded in checking that my evaluation matches that of the teacher.
In phase IV, the implementation of a new shared theory of action, made me think that when we do introduce new actions do we offer enough support? do we ask teachers if they still have concerns? do we ask if they are implementing these new actions in their teaching and how do we ask this? Each teacher needs to attended to individually. It is true that as leaders we want all students to improve not just those students who happen to be in the class of a teacher who will more readily change their practice.
Figure 4.5 summed up the last section succinctly and I think we need to make it very clear to teachers that as a part of regular classroom observations, classroom walk throughs and instructional walks what leaders are looking for when they give a respectful critique and as teachers that they can ask for feedback in an area they seek improvement or an area in which they have become more confident.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Chapter 3 delves deeper in the difference between the 'Bypass' and 'Engage' approaches and also reinforces the need to reduc... -
The first chapter focuses heavily on reducing change to increase improvement. The most interesting point I took out of th...
I agree phase 3 also had me evaluating my own practice. It is very easy to come across as judgemental even when you are trying to be evaluative. Finding time to have conversations where we can openly speak about our theories and come to an evaluative position is challenging. The more I realise the importance of the dialog the more important it is for leaders to find time to hold these conversations.
ReplyDeleteThe words " not to tone down or withhold the words but to change the thinking that produces such a judgemental evaluation.", definitely challenges me in my current role.
We have often discussed giving teachers time and the importance of discussions, especially during PLM, but we fall into the trap of over planning and not allowing the discussion to take place. Maybe it is time for us to reevaluate our espoused theory and make it our theory in action.
I agree with Jen's thoughts in her blog this week which were clear and well articulated. I agree that this text inspires one to examine their own practice - how could one not - as it all makes such sense when you read in context. I also agree that sometimes finding that opening line when speaking with a colleague is very tricky but critical. To be able to not only inquire as to the others thinking but to also disclose your own is indeed respectful. The current instructional walk model requires the leaders to not engage with the teacher or other teachers but to wait to go outside to have a chat about particular areas of agreed criteria. I have always and still question this. As a leader I would rather negotiate with the staff as to what critera evaluated solutions we are looking at together. The key question I am left with is "how to make critical evaluation part of the school culture." Leanda's comment on being true to our espoused theory of action that dialogue between colleagues that encourages identification of blocks, questioning and gaining and giving feedback is an important one for us to discuss further.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what has been said and like you we need to be much better at holding these 'courageous' conversations while remaining respectful. One phrase that jumped out at me was 'poor quality implementation is far more likely to be a matter of skill than of will'. This is so true; if teachers do not feel they have the skills to make a successful transition into change, then no matter how much they may want to change they do not have the 'tools' needed in their repertoire to do this. I feel that we, as a school, do offer many opportunities of PL for staff, both internal and external. Maybe there needs to be more equity in how teachers are 'chosen' when external courses are offered. However taking part in PL does not automatically equate to change.
ReplyDeleteFigure 4.5 on p68 was very reaffirming as under the Teaching Actions it listed Learning Intentions, Success Criteria, relevant lesson activities and feedback aligned to the success criteria, all of which we have been working on for the last few years. Further consolidation of these would probably be helpful particularly the feedback component.