and provide rich fodder for discussion. It’s critical, though, that this discussion occur as a conversation and not as a cross-examination. The goal is not to point out flaws and make suggestions for improvement; it’s to enhance both participants’ understanding of the teacher’s current practice as well as the ideal of the instructional framework. This understanding can, in turn, lead to better decisions by both the instructional leader and the teacher.
It’s not unusual for even the most experienced instructional leaders to walk away from these conversations having learned a great deal and having made few or no suggestions. The teacher learns and improves his or her practice not by accepting suggestions, but by developing a deeper understanding of professional practice through evidence-rich, criterion-referenced conversation.
The high-performance instructional leadership model—centered on classroom visits that are frequent, brief, substantive, open ended, evidence based, criterion referenced, and conversation oriented—leads to stronger collegial relationships, better decision making by both parties, and a culture of continual learning.
Day 2 Action Challenge: Find Your Framework
Make a list of documents that comprise your overall instructional framework. The following questions may help you as you compile your list.
Compile a list of these sources, and as soon as possible, gather the actual documents. This will aid you in having framework-linked conversations about classroom practice in the coming weeks. I will elaborate on developing a shared instructional framework with teachers in chapter 13 (page 115).
3
Acknowledging Related Instructional Leadership, Supervision, and Walkthrough Models
In your school, you likely exercise instructional leadership in the context of a multitude of district, state, and professional expectations and policies, which may make it difficult to develop a well-aligned, coherent approach. In this chapter, we explore how the high-performance instructional leadership model compares to other models for instructional supervision and leadership that you may have previously experienced—and may currently be using. Specifically, I compare the high-performance instructional leadership model to formal teacher observations, annual formal evaluations, learning walks and instructional rounds, instructional coaching, and hybrid models of instructional supervision. The reality is that in most schools, several of these models operate at once, perhaps without anyone ever explicitly comparing them. By the end of this chapter, you’ll be clear on how you can achieve your instructional leadership goals in classrooms, without pursuing conflicting aims.
Formal Teacher Observations
The most familiar instructional supervision model is the formal teacher observation process, which most public schools and many private schools require.
While the details vary, typically:
These features may be obvious, but they will serve as important points of contrast as we explore other models in this chapter.
In many schools, individual teachers and administrators do not have the discretion to modify or opt out of the formal observation and evaluation process, which may be governed by board policies, collective bargaining agreements, and even state law. For this reason, if you are responsible for evaluating teachers, you’ll want to conduct your high-performance instructional leadership visits in addition to, rather than instead of, formal observations.
Assuming you’re required to conduct formal observations, how can the high-performance instructional leadership model fit into your overall instructional leadership plan? Perhaps the greatest benefit is context: because these visits are unannounced and much more frequent, they provide a far better indication of teachers’ typical practice than formal observations, which both teachers and administrators understand are often dog-and-pony shows that vary markedly from typical practice (Marshall, 2013). Depending on your teacher contract, you may or may not be able to use written evidence from unannounced visits in the formal evaluation process. However, you can have a much better sense of each teacher’s areas of strength and weakness if you’ve made a habit of visiting classrooms daily, and you can differentiate your approach to collecting evidence as needed.
Annual Formal Evaluations
Most teachers receive a formal year-end evaluation, but in too many schools, administrators base their evaluations on little—or even no—direct observation of classroom practice. It’s no wonder that so many educators regard the evaluation process as a waste of time (Danielson, 2015). Even so, it has the potential to be an essential part of our quality assurance efforts as instructional leaders. We owe our students the guarantee that all teachers are meeting certain standards, and we owe our teachers a fair shake in that process; we can fulfill both of these obligations only if we have firsthand evidence of teacher practice. You may find that your notes from informal classroom visits are among your best sources of evidence and insight as you prepare final evaluations for each teacher.
Regardless of whether formal observations are required, instructional leaders belong in 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.
