during formal observations—practices such as planning, collaborating, reviewing assessment results, and contacting families—yet are critical to the final evaluation. Some of the best evidence and insight into these non-observable aspects of teaching will come from the conversations you have with teachers after visiting their classrooms.
Only with the sense of context you gain from regular classroom visits can you collect the right evidence and draw valid conclusions about teacher performance.
Mini-Observations
Kim Marshall (2013), in his book Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation, argues that the formal dog-and-pony show observation process is deeply flawed, and that with modest changes, instructional leaders can modify it into a highly effective system of mini-observations. In Marshall’s (2013) approach, mini-observations are:
Because formal observations are time consuming, Marshall (2013) advocates wholly replacing the typical system of prearranged formal observations with unannounced, shorter observations. If you’re able to secure approval to switch from preannounced formal observations to unscheduled mini-observations, you will likely find that Marshall’s (2013) approach provides much richer evidence and much more thorough documentation of teacher practice, which can result in much more substantive annual evaluations. However, you may find that this system is difficult to sustain due to the time commitment required to conduct, discuss, and write about ten observations for each teacher, which will take at least thirty to sixty minutes each.
Data-Collection Walkthroughs
What about walkthrough models that bear more similarity to the high-performance instructional leadership model I describe in this book? There are many approaches to brief classroom visits, but perhaps the most common—and the most problematic—is the data-collection walkthrough. Though the professional literature supporting data-collection walkthroughs is sparse (Kachur, Stout, & Edwards, 2010), I have found this model to be widespread and persistent—perhaps because central office leaders, such as superintendents, often mandate it. In data- collection walkthroughs, an administrator visits classrooms to collect evidence about specific practices or learning conditions—for example, to determine whether teachers are using a questioning strategy the district is promoting, or to collect data to determine what percentage of students is actively engaged. These look-fors may focus instructional leaders’ attention on certain issues, but at the expense of making the process less beneficial overall.
Data-collection walkthroughs are problematic for several reasons. First, the focus of the data collection may not be relevant to the current activities taking place in the classroom; this wastes significant time. Second, it typically has no value for the teachers being observed, who have no choice in what they want feedback on and instead receive feedback on look-fors that may have little relevance to the lesson. Third, while the school or district may put the data to good use, they’re of limited value to the instructional leader, who lacks the discretion to focus on the most relevant issues that emerge in the moment, or the school’s current instructional priorities, when collecting mandated forms of data.
Are data-collection walkthroughs even effective ways to obtain reliable data about classroom practice? On a practical level, administrators are among the highest-paid educators in most school systems and have many other pressing priorities that interfere with their ability to adhere to a data-collection protocol. From a scientific perspective, it’s worth asking whether educators can draw any reliable conclusions from the data that walkthroughs generate. Schools too often sweep questions about sampling under the rug: How many unannounced walkthroughs are necessary for generating trustworthy data about an individual teacher’s practice? How should we distribute walkthroughs throughout the school day? How consistent is the observer from one walkthrough to the next, and what degree of inter-rater reliability has been established? Without solid answers to these questions, districts should treat walkthrough data as anecdotal rather than scientific.
Data-collection walkthroughs can also have unintended consequences that undermine their viability; for example, if teachers know that administrators expect to see a certain strategy when they visit, they will quickly learn to use that strategy any time administrators are in the room. During my tenure as a principal, we taught teachers to use a strategy known as turn and talk to increase student engagement, so—no surprise—teachers would often say “Now, turn and talk to your neighbor …” as soon as I walked into the room, regardless of whether it was appropriate at that point in the lesson.
Of course, focused data collection can be of some value in specific situations—for example, identifying patterns of teacher behavior that could inform professional development decisions, or shadowing English learner students to identify ways to serve them more effectively (Ginsberg, 2012). Occasional student shadowing can be a valuable learning experience for leaders, but large-scale data collection conflicts with the goals of the high-performance instructional leadership model, which seeks to provide leaders with information that can lead to better discussions and better decisions.
Feedback-Focused Walkthroughs
Another popular model—perhaps the most widespread model in voluntary use—is the feedback-focused walkthrough, in which teachers receive brief suggestions for improvement based on a short observation. This model offers the strongest intuitive appeal and the most immediate payoff because the feedback teachers receive is the low-hanging fruit of improvement (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). Given suggestions and a modest degree of accountability, most teachers can make some improvements to their practice. This model is neither unreasonable nor wrongheaded; however, when taken to extremes, it can place needless strain on your time and your relationships with teachers.
Giving and receiving feedback is helpful for both of the individuals involved, and a high-feedback culture is good for everyone.
Under the best of circumstances, feedback-focused walkthroughs can lead to modest but continual improvements, as well as valuable professional learning for the instructional leader. Teacher coaching, in particular, is associated with student learning gains (Grissom et al., 2013). Giving and receiving feedback is helpful for both of the individuals involved, and a high-feedback culture is good for everyone. For new teachers, who may have multiple areas in which they can make rapid improvements, intensive feedback cycles can produce more substantial gains (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2012). The problem arises when educators push feedback-focused walkthroughs beyond the bounds of what they can reasonably accomplish; a law of diminishing returns applies to feedback. As teachers’ experience and expertise grow, less and less low-hanging fruit remains, and the instructional leader faces the unenviable challenge of needing to become increasingly critical in order to provide feedback for improvement. The situation worsens when instructional leaders see their role as one of catching and correcting all of the mistakes teachers are making in their typical teaching practice—taking on too much of the responsibility
