These last few days I've been immersed in a professional experience that has shifted my direction as a teacher: how to use video as a means for facilitating my own and my colleagues' professional growth.
To use video observation successfully, one key is to look objectively at a video of classroom practice and identify critical teacher actions and student actions that are observable–and to note or record these observable actions without evaluation or judgment. Instead of watching teachers and thinking "I like how they did that" or "that is not a good assignment," my attention shifted to noticing the actions without judgment: "The teacher waited while the student revised his own incorrect verbal answer" or "The student recorded her thoughts on a continuum to self-assess."
Judgment is not forbidden, it just isn't first. By identifying the "observables"–the objective concrete details of teaching and learning–I can build a better foundation for evaluating what I can use to improve my own practice and what specific actions can do this. This all got me thinking.
As I was making the three-hour-drive home, I was thinking about how cool it will be to have great conversations with my colleagues about what we observe about effective teaching on video. I thought about what a worthwhile challenge it will be for some to have to reserve judgment and focus on observable teacher and student actions. I thought about how it would be amazing to eventually get my colleagues to be willing to videotape themselves to share with colleagues for close team observation and conversation.
But then I thought about what a culture of safety and trust must need to be in place for this to occur…and we're not quite there yet.
I'm deeply invovled in our building's shift toward the new evaluation system, and again and again I hear that in order for evaluations to actually precipitate opportunities for professional growth, there needs to be a culture of trust between teachers and their peers, and even more so between teachers and their supervisors. Some teachers harbor fears of being targeted by administrators–they worry that any shortcoming or flaw will be used against the teacher if such vulnerabilities are revealed. A teacher in my building even said that asking for help means you are an ineffective teacher because seeking help "proves" you don't know what you are doing.
Whether founded or unfounded, these perceptions shape the "culture" in which the staff operates.
When I watched those videos, I practiced recording the observables in order to use these to ground my evaluation and reflection about that practitioner as well as myself. I am wondering: what observables correspond to the successful building of trust within a school?
To observe the development of a classroom environment that facilitated student learning, I could observe the teacher stating and reinforcing routines, offering succinct directions and stated expectations, and I could observe how students are organized and indicators of engagement. The words the teachers used to frame questions, the wait time, the statements made to students: these were all observable indicators of the teacher's skill. The result of all these observables (and others too countless to list) was a classroom where students were able to demonstrate progress toward a skill…and the string of cause to effect was clear and convincing.
On those videos, the "teacher moves" were observable actions that were discrete causes whose effect was increased student learning.
In the professional culture, what kinds of "leadership moves" represent observable actions will produce the effect of increased staff trust?
@Janette…I think teachers evaluating teachers is actually a solid answer AND would be a good investment. There are a ton of ways it could be implemented, but contract/bargaining language would be an issue. (Not to blame the unions, I think it is justifiable to have some apprehension about a peer-evaluation model.) I know that with evaluation of one’s peers will come difficult conversations, but then it’s about getting the right person in the job.
Someone asked me recently if I would ever consider becoming an administrator, and my gut reaction was this: 1. No, I don’t want to EVER have to go to prom, and 2. I don’t multitask well, so the clincher would be if I could focus on just one of the myriad duties heaped upon an administrator… if I could ONLY focus on student discipline and nothing else, great. More appealing to me, though, would be to ONLY work on staff development, coaching and evaluation (and nothing else…no master schedule, no parent conflicts, no chaperoning Sadie Hawkins, etc.). If someone could promise me a job like that (on an admin pay scale) then I’d jump at it. I think that’s the kind of specialization some buildings/districts need, but unfortunately, not what we’ll ever get–there is simply too much on the administrators’ plates.
I know there is a conflict about teachers evaluating each other, but honestly, I think it’s a great idea. My colleagues who are in the classroom all day have a much better grasp of classroom management and grade-appropriate instructional strategies than anyone outside of the classroom.
I don’t expect my admins to have taught first grade since the time of chalkboards before I will trust them. It isn’t possible to expect that my principals always have the same background and experience that I do. That doesn’t mean there can’t be respect. I think a lot of it has to do with some of those “intangibles” though. Is the admin working from a teacher-is-expert model, or a teacher-deficit model? That comes across in the way they talk to their staff, and in the way they talk about their staff. If a principal takes the posture that they are there to “fix” us, it erodes trust. If they listen to our expertise and work to support the good work we are doing, it builds trust.
Building on Tom’s third person idea, I think a system of checks and balances makes teachers feel more secure with evaluations.
If only one person evaluates you, and there’s a personality conflict, some bad history, or totally different styles of teaching, there can be problems. There are lots of options for triangulating evaluations. For example, I could be responsible for observing two randomly chosen colleagues twice a year, using the same rubric I’m evaluated with. If I was trained to look for observables instead of judging worth, that data could be set beside the administrator’s evaluation in the event of a discrepancy.
I know there’s always push back about teachers evaluating other teachers, but really, I don’t know anyone better qualified to assess my instruction than my colleagues.
Good point, Tom. I actually recommended the case study idea to my principal yesterday… It takes the “problem” and puts it in someone else’s yard, so we can talk more openly.
One way to avoid the problem of trust is to use video or case studies that involve a third person. It makes it much easier to focus on the specific teaching strategies without anyone feeling defensive.
I agree with you Tamara, but the hard part is pinning down where respect comes from. That’s what I’m struggling with–it seems to be about habits and dispositions moreso than discrete actions or “leadership moves.”
Sal’s point is good… identify the “trust breakers” and look for the opposite. That might be a good place to start in looking for the “moves” or observable actions of how trust is built.
I think Krisitn hit a key observable to building trust: Respect. Does the the administrator’s teaching background and current role as instructional leader instill trust? I think another would be has your administrator or administrative team offered consistent support to all staff over time? That support could take a variety of shapes: from coming in to give feedback on an instructional strategy you are experimenting or struggling with, to the team teaching mentioned above, or insisting an irate parent schedule a meeting after they have cooled off.
I have had the privilege of working with a couple of administrators (both building and district level) who demonstrated at least a few if not all of those variables. I would welcome their feedback any time no matter how hard it might be to hear in some cases. They remind me of that tough and demanding teacher you never wanted to disappoint. But in the case you did disappoint them, they always showed you the way back.
I think a big observable for trust between administration and teachers is respect. Did the administrator teach for one year, then pursue principal certification? Did the administrator teach something like P.E., and now expects her 7th grade LA teachers to get top marks on state assessments without any understanding of how that’s done?
An administrator who is constantly learning about instruction, who takes the time to observe, question, and examine the results of great classroom instruction or an administrator who taught (and was a great teacher) for many years are all observable qualities.
As Sarah said, someone who steps into your room once or twice a year isn’t really someone whose critique you’d value or whose evaluation is accurate. I’d rather have my students evaluate me.
I think another observable is how the administrator talks about instruction. Tom said in some comment last year that it doesn’t work to expect principals to teach, because their role encompasses totally different things, but principals should be able to define great instruction for each content area, each grade, and each student population. They should be able to define what makes an effective teacher.
I can see where this would be a struggle. Not to mention there are levels of trust…This trust you speak of appears to be elusive because it would require a fair amount of vulnerablity (at least perceived). What does it look like when you take your list of observable “trust breakers” and look at their opposite attributes?
I’m having a really hard time pinning down observables for “leadership actions” that build trust. I can think of lots of things that are observables that erode trust. Maybe that’s why it is so hard to shift a building’s culture: people cannot identify the steps to do this.
…Or (along the same lines as the learning labs) another thought might be to team teach something…so maybe it becomes collaborative in some way…Video the lesson and then take a look at the various aspects together. I know the time thing becomes a serious issue, but this may actually get administration involved in student learning in a hands on way…And it might acutally be fun. Again, I relate this model back to coaching with respect to the relationship between head coaches and their assistants. They plan and coach TOGETHER. Anyways, just some thoughts, I know there are other dynamics and/or constraints at play that make the process more complex.
What about learning labs where an admin/evaluator takes over a lesson and you watch…videotape and discuss? Certainly, I would not expect the admin to be a “model of perfection,” but perhaps such a setup, with meaningful conversation afterward, might lay the groundwork for a more trusting relationship. The key there is that the conversation cannot be about “what I did is right” or “my way is better,” but to really take the time to think critically about practice and the cause-effect involved.
The elephant in the room is TIME, but rather than exclaim “when will we ever find time to do this!?” and give up, I am going to pretend for now that if I can come up with an idea valid enough, people will want to make time for it.
And one more thought…maybe the trust is linked to respect. Maybe teachers don’t trust admin because we have a hard time respecting their roles in relation to our work. And maybe as their roles in relation to our work become more valid through this eval system, that trust will be built. It’s hard to respect “advice” from someone who comes into your room twice a year and makes a few fluffy comments or asks some superficial questions, but when that person takes the time to get to know your style, purpose and goals, that trust should come as you learn to respect the person for the time they’ve invested in your work.
Great thought provoking comments to go with my lunch today! Wondering if this “trust” issue is also an ego issue? And what’s wrong w/ a little criticism in addition to attempted objective observation?
That’s exactly the goal: make those observables second nature.
The hard part for me is to think about what it will take (what actions, causes) will lead to better trust between teachers and admin. As the new eval system rolls out, that will be key. We hear all the time about the need for that trust, and it is obvious when that trust is not there…but it what isn’t clear to me, at all, is what the building of trust looks like. I know what it looks like when trust exists…those observables I can cite. How to get there… I don’t know what “leadership moves/practices” would precipitate greater trust the way that good teacher moves/practices in the classroom precipitate student learning…the latter I can wrap my head around, the former, not so much.
This is interesting because video analysis is the backbone for pretty much every serious athlete and sports organization. I couldn’t imagine coaching without it…I see trust as being a major issue for some…I also (for myself) would have
to get used to seeing and hearing myself on video. So off the top of my head I agreed with the ego piece as a limiter with respect to teaching ability (for some), but then I started to think about the self conscious aspect.
…But like anything else, I would get used to it…So then my next thought (back to the trust factor) is feeling like you have to be on your “A game” all the time. As I thought some more if the implementation was gradual, but consistent enough to allow for the goal of making best practices (all the observables you were talking about in your blog) more second nature then I started to see what you were thinking.