Bambrick-Santoyo (2018) discussed that good and effective educators and instructional leaders are aware of the degree to which students are learning. In addition, the teachers and leaders take action when student learning is not progressing as expected. As a teacher, I am very in tune with my class and their progress. I do not take it for granted that students have learned the material because I have taught it. I routinely reflect on the lesson after I teach it and look for data to help me guide my instruction. Each year and class of students is unique, and I find that a variety of hard and soft data help me reach all of my students.
As I moved through this week's material, I have expanded my view of data and classroom impact. I have been forced to look beyond my class and students and view the school as a whole. At the same time, I have also had to look at individual classes. It is a very different perspective and a unique focus. I have leaned on my experiences over the years to help guide me as I shift my focus from inward to outward. The change has taken some effort and has been interesting. As I move forward, I think more about my campus as a whole and my role in it. In the short term, I can see how this will help me through the field experience and internship phases to get more out of the opportunity. In the long term, I will have to continue to strive to keep my focus outward. I cannot compare my class experience to that of other teachers. Instead, I need to use it to help me see the data in front of me for what it is, a unique picture with its own context. Reference Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. John Wiley & Sons.
0 Comments
Data-driven instruction starts with the assessment design, according to Banbrick-Sanoyou (2019). A common assessment with clearly defined and agreed upon terminology will provide all teachers with a clear goal for instruction. From there, the lesson is created to drive learning toward the assessment. The alignment of these two aspects will provide data to help gauge student learning. Throughout the lesson, teachers should be checking for understanding from all students. This early, formative data will help teachers adjust to problems before the assessment instead of after. After the assessment, the teaching team and leader should review the results to plan for the next steps. The data gained from the assessment will determine reteaching needs, student strengths, and other instructional aspects. Desravines et al. (2016) refer to reteaching as corrective action. The corrective action derives from the analysis of the assessment.
James-Ward and Abuyen (2015) explain that the necessary data for leaders is both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data provides specific, hard facts such as dates, scores, and totals. On the other hand, qualitative data comes from observations and conversations. This soft data helps provide context for the hard, quantitative data. Bambrick-Santoyo (2018) discusses data meetings in which the instructional team analyzes data from formative and summative assessments to adjust instruction, plan future assessments, and identify student needs. These meetings happen ideally on a regular, frequent basis so that the team can respond to data findings quickly. Data should be analyzed as soon as possible so that students may get the most benefit from the assessment. A suggested protocol for data teams to follow is “See It, Name It, Do It.” This protocol starts with the team reviewing an exemplar to compare to student work and identify gaps. The team then identifies and collectively agrees on the gaps identified. Finally, the team determines the corrective action necessary to support student learning. References Banbrick-Sanoyou, P. (2019). Driven by Data 2.0: A Practical Guide to Improve Instruction. Jossey-Bass. Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2018). Leverage Leadership 2.0: A Practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. John Wiley & Sons. Desravines, J., Aquino, J., & Fenton, B. (2016). Breakthrough principals: A step-by-step guide to building stronger schools. John Wiley & Sons James-Ward, C., & Abuyen, J. (2015). McREL Leadership responsibilities through the lens of data: The critical nine. Global Education Review, 2(3), 82-93. Retrieved from https://libproxy.lamar.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1074111&site=eds-live The Leadership Reflection Tool (On-Line Survey Page/School Leader Self-Assessment Tool, n.d.) was an interesting and informative self-evaluation. My experience in taking this assessment was much different from the assessments I took in my last class. The experience was not better or worse. The questions gave me a lot to think about as I completed the assessment. For me, the items that stood out the most were related to my ability to delegate and manage my time wisely. Delegation is a current goal in my T-TESS appraisal for this year. I can see many of the other low areas as being influenced by my time management difficulties. Time management is not about scheduling to ensure that my work does not suffer. My issue is taking on too much, and it hurts things, such as work-life balance and following up on delegated tasks. In the article, Instructional Leadership, Suh (2021) states that one of the important traits an instructional leader must possess is the ability to teach other teachers how to lead. I have been aware of this deficiency in my growth for a while now. Allowing alternative priorities to interfere and giving other people the opportunity to add responsibilities to my schedule interferes with my ability to teach others to lead.
In my current position and program at school, I have created a type of “school within a school.” Our parents and community partners are very involved with the curriculum and the students. The self-assessment brought out several growth areas that I have been aware of but have not had the time to work on. One such area is in dealing with conflict and interpersonal disagreements. Dealing with conflict has always been difficult for me, and I found it no surprise when I looked deeper into the reflection tool. This issue is compounded by my tendency to take on problems myself or let others give them to me. All in all, there were no surprises. At the same time, it was good to take a good, quality look at my professional skills and needs. Reference On-Line Survey Page/School Leader Self-Assessment Tool. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/school-leadership-self-assessment-tool Suh, R. (2021). Instructional leadership. Salem Press Encyclopedia. The instructional core is described by City et al. (2009) as the interconnection between the teacher, the student, and the content in the classroom. An analogy to this relationship is a three-legged stool. Each part is unique and has its parameters and methods. At the same time, all three elements must be balanced for the whole process to work effectively. The instructional task can be thought of as the seat of the stool. All three legs support it. The stool can be used in several ways. It could be a seat, a table, a step, or other support. What makes the stool useful is not what the designer or seller says about how stool is intended to be used. The value is in how it is used. The instructional task is similar. The value of the instructional task is in what the student does and learns, which may vary from what the teacher or curriculum guide intends.
City et al. (2009) expand on the instructional core with seven principles that will lead to improved student learning. The first principle is that learning happens only due to the three elements of the instructional core. There must be changes and improvements within the teacher, the student, and the content for learning to improve. The second principle is that all three elements must be in balance. To continue with the stool analogy, if one leg is longer than the other three, the seat will be slanted, and the user will fall out. A change in one instructional core element must be met with similarly sized changes in the other two elements. The third principle builds upon the first in that the only thing that matters to learning is the elements of the instructional core. Changes that do not impact the core will not impact learning. Richard Elmore (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010) states that some methods of delivery do not actually impact the core. For example, a worksheet might be too simple for some students and too complicated for others. Only students who are in the middle of this group would be learning because the instructional core has been affected for them. The other students would not have improvements. The fourth principle is that the task students are currently doing will lead to their performance. Other factors play a role, but the students must actively work on the material to improve learning. The fifth principle is that the objective measure of accountability and change is within the activities the students are tasked with completing. The sixth principle is that teachers have to be involved in all aspects of the curriculum process, from writing to implementation and evaluation. Growth, understanding, and buy-in come from having the classroom teachers involved throughout the process. Elmore explains that accountability must start with the school before any external accountability measures can have a sustained impact. Finally, the seventh principle is that there must be a common understanding between all parties in the learning process. Everyone must agree on the exact definitions of what they are expecting. Some examples are what the teachers are looking for and what is the goal of the lesson or unit. A common understanding will build depth and continuity throughout the team. Reference City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education (p. 30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Leading the instructional core: An interview with Richard Elmore. In Conversations, 11(3). |
About 5352This is the second course in my administrative certification plan. It is a dive into techniques to improve instruction through research based methods. ArchivesCategories |