By Tracey

A couple of weeks ago, I got an email from one of the instructional coaches saying that the 5th grade team has been invited to participate in a "data snap" on math instruction at our school.  I tried to remember if I had heard this term before, data snap.  I guess I knew what she was talking about:  My morning would begin with a meeting around a large table with my principal, assistant principal, instructional coaches, and the other 5th grade teachers on my team.  We would all be issued clipboards and a checklist.  We would plan which classrooms we would barge into for five, maybe eight minutes each.  And while I was there, I would be checking items off the checklist, or worse, not checking off items, while thinking about strategic questions I should be asking.  Then, after the debrief, I would look forward to a giant email filled with graphs and charts of data detailing what instructional strategies were highly evident, somewhat evident, and not evident in our short intrusive visits, tripping the automatic "your inbox is too full" message.

Does that sound cynical?  Sorry, that was my first reaction.  I've done a "walk-through" once before, back when the teachers who participated voluntarily wrote a "thank you so much for letting me come into your classroom" email that complimented everyone on the unique and wonderful things we saw.  We haven't received those emails for a while.  I think this is because the walk-throughs haven't been done by teachers lately.  This was before the graphs and data filled our inbox.  I began to wonder, what is the true benefit of these walk throughs?  I remember seeing the data presented, showing an increase in the number of teachers sharing the lesson objectives, language objectives, and increasing student talk-time.  But isn't this data skewed?  A five to eight minute visit doesn't indicate whether to teacher is employing these strategies or not.  The data only shows whether it was evident during the short visit.  Is the purpose to raise awareness for and promote certain teaching strategies, because I guess it does.  But it does so in a rush-to-comply, inauthentic sort of way.  When I know a walk-through is scheduled for a particular day, I might drag out things I wouldn't ordinarily, just so more boxes get checked.  Is that really what we want?  

Here's another example of a fad brought to us by education reform.  Someone tried this on and found real benefits – transformation.  I would have loved to see it work the way it was originally intended.  But somewhere along the way, the true benefits were lost in translation.  The instructor of one of my favorite professional development experiences used to say, There is no limit to how badly a good idea can be implemented.  Curious about the original intent of a "data snap" or "walk-through", I got online to do some research and found some interesting articles.  

All of them say that they are not supposed to evaluate teachers.  Even this one did, if you don't pay attention to its fancy animated graphic. Instead of evaluating teachers, walk-throughs are supposed to open up dialogue about teaching practices.  The articles also say that walk-throughs should be frequent, and that the data you gain from it is meaningless if it there isn't a culture of having frequent walk-throughs. (See what Howard Pitler and Brian Goodwin say about the "mosaic".) Most say that walk-throughs are a way for Professional Learning Communities to learn about what members in the PLC are doing.  With professional relations built on trust, teachers can reflect on what was learned and challenge each other to make improvements to student learning.  I liked this article:  Classroom Visits Done Well, by Gary Bloom.  He says in the opening line, "Walk-throughs can result in thoughtful discussions about teaching practice, or – if a school isn't clear about the purpose or process – in mountains of unused data."  In his list of suggestions, he says to keep the process simple. "Avoid detailed checklists, which are usually blunt instruments that produce superficial data and convey a compliance-oriented rather than collaborative message." 

I suppose I should be grateful to have been invited to participate.  Maybe I can open the dialogue about walk-throughs and steer it more in the direction of their original purpose.  Maybe I can start a PLC at my school.  My experience, however, gives me pause.  On Friday, just days before the scheduled "data snap", the teachers in my school received this:

On Tuesday the fifth grade team will be visiting classrooms during your math block to look at school wide trends in math instruction.  We will be specifically looking for evidence around student dialogue, student engagement, and purpose.  We used our SIP and 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning to create the tool.  One of the implementation measures we identified on our SIP is the “data snaps”. We do these at least 5 times a year, this is our first visit.

We will use the attached tool when going to classes. The team will be looking for evidence of any of the listed instructional strategies. 

Before Tuesday you may want to reflect on the strategies you have in place and strategies you may want to implement. 

We look forward to seeing everyone on Tue. J  (The "J" is the smiley face that for whatever technical reason I'm not geeky enough to understand, becomes a J in some emails.  That's nice.  A smiley face helps.)

Attached to the email was the checklist of the three areas, including 18 bullet points, where I will be one among a team of educators asked to make snap judgements about whether the instructional strategies were highly evident, somewhat evident, or not evident in the classrooms of my colleagues.  While I want my school to be one that offers strong, effective, and engaging instruction, I'm not convinced this will help us get there.  Unfortunately, the video Mark shared recently about collaboration comes to mind.  They made another one called Focus Walk.  I shudder to think how closely this parody will resemble my experience on Tuesday.   Even though elements of good teaching are mentioned in the checklist, (presence of a word wall, etc.) by focusing on the items only in the checklist, I'm sure to miss good teaching.  Teaching isn't a science, it's an art.  The more we isolate each individual feature we may see in quality instruction and insist that every teacher demonstrate it, the further we move away from it.