Meaningfully Growing Teacher Practice and Student Learning:New Opportunity to Leverage the Potential of EE in 2016-17

by Joe Schroeder, PhDAssociate Executive Director, AWSA

AWSA Update Poll
In line with Joe Schroeder’s article in this edition of The Update, for the 2016-17 school year, my school / district is considering converting the traditional, four-hour summative evaluation process of low-impact supervision into a minimum of eight rapid cycles of 10-15 minute observations plus concise direct feedback, conversation, and coding.
In January, DPI shared what I described as “game-changing information” for Wisconsin school and district leaders in regard to Educator Effectiveness (EE).  In my subsequent Update article, I described some specific ways that these shifts would enable you, Wisconsin’s school and district leaders, to use your time ever more wisely so that you can significantly grow teacher practice and student learning.  This August article builds off of the important developments in EE from last winter and shares some additional opportunities that are now at hand, which collectively provide you significant local flexibility to have more leadership and supervisory impact in 2016-17 than ever before. Read on to learn how. 

As brief review, given these very notable EE announcements from DPI in January to “what we know is best practice, not federally required,” I engaged DPI’s Director of EE, Katie Rainey, in February about one of the original “requirements” of EE in the the original DPI Process Policy Manual.  Specifically, I revisited with Katie the original DPI expectation that there was to be a minimum of one announced summative evaluation (along with the accompanying pre- and post-observation conferences and the associated evaluation write-up and coding) that can typically eat up about four hours of an administrator’s week in each instance.  This is particularly concerning because this high investment of time in summative evaluations is repeatedly shown -- through both research and anecdotal feedback -- to have little impact on teacher growth, especially in contrast to other potential coaching/feedback approaches.

However, through the work of Kim Marshall and others, we know that one required, four-hour summative evaluation process of low-impact supervision can be converted into a minimum of eight rapid cycles of 10-15 minute observations plus concise direct feedback/dialogue and recording/coding in ways that can lead to regular teacher support, feedback, and impact in line with the larger EE goals and research on high-impact learning leadership.  My question to Katie last winter, then, was whether administrators in Wisconsin could convert the large amount of time currently devoted to these four-hour, low-impact summative evaluation processes into much more frequent, short-duration, high-impact rapid feedback cycles (as described above) knowing that, in doing so, leaders were not only in line with research-informed best practice but also assured that they also were in full compliance with emerging DPI policy.

In reply, Katie shared the following:

“Frequent, shorter observations as described above are allowable and encouraged if:
1)    Educators agree to the shift
2)    The total amount of time spent observing (when adding all the observations together)
is equivalent to or more than what is required
3)    The process still contains time for high-quality, reflective, formative, and coaching
conversations” 

Thrilled by this response, since last winter, I have repeatedly been trying to help school and district leaders understand these shifts and encourage them to use these options for more positive influence back home.

As various leaders attempt to put this shift in place, I occasionally receive questions, like this one from July from a thoughtful learning leader in the eastern part of our state:

“We understand the DPI statement about ensuring that an equitable amount of time must be spent on the EE process in order to use the series of walkthroughs rather than the whole formal summative evaluation process, but we aren't sure how that matches with the EE documentation system.  Do you have any guidance to offer us or direct us to?”

Here was my reply, in the four paragraphs that follow:

“I believe DPI leadership is trying to make the EE process helpful and not as overwhelming as it has been.  So with this in mind, I would suggest that leaders be smart and efficient about evidence collection (i.e., the dreaded "documentation process") 

So, specifically, from this point forward, I might advise you to focus evidence collection and most related 1-on-1 conversations in two areas:

1)    In specific parts of the framework where you are trying to grow relevant to EE goal-setting (e.g. Professional Practice Goals or PPGs)

2) In areas of the teacher's work where the supervisor and teacher currently disagree about levels of performance (which means teachers take on responsibility for their own ongoing professional reflection, evidence-gathering, and growth in preparation for the comprehensive professional evaluation work that occurs in the summative year).

I believe this guidance is in line with the following direct quote from DPI's Director of EE, Katie Rainey, that I included in my EE Update article last winter:

‘Our basic goal [at DPI] for moving forward is to get out of the way.  We want to do whatever we can to allow districts to focus on the meaningful processes and work of EE.  Actually, I want to allow districts to work on the meaningful work of teaching and learning – and we want to remove any requirements which keep EE feeling like a separate thing (e.g., primarily compliance or reporting aspects).  Instead, we want to allow EE to become actions and processes that are just part of good teaching and learning.’  

In conclusion, leverage the EE system to help you grow and develop your people and healthy two-way, collectively accountable relationships.  The DPI police are not coming. Make the system work for you.”  

Now all that said, I am aware that the “default” directions and formats of the EE process for those in either the DPI or CESA 6 models will still often identify “required components” such as the summative evaluation and related parts I described earlier in this letter.  But when this reality is posed to Katie, she maintains that this potentially confusing “default” language should not prevent local leaders from making the shifts that I just described above.  To this point, she asserts that “districts have the ability to revise and create forms” and DPI’s EE leadership is “fine with districts doing that with anything other than the EE rubrics/summary forms, so long as they are keeping to the same vision of the process” articulated earlier in this article.

So in conclusion, please know that, before putting this article to print, I checked in again with Katie Rainey to assure that the advice I was sharing (and quoted throughout this article) was (1) in line with the work the DPI is attempting to lead and (2) that it applies to Wisconsin educators, regardless if they are using the DPI or CESA 6 practice models for EE.  Katie assured me this was the case in full. 

So with this all in mind, let’s review some specific local moves you now can make that will be in full accord with the precepts of EE yet better position your school/district to impact teacher and student growth in 2016-17:

1)    You have the option to convert a summative evaluation process to an equivalent series of eight or more 10-15 minute walkthroughs plus direct feedback/dialogue (provided that the conversion to the multiple walkthroughs approach is in line with the points that I listed earlier in this article). 

2)    You have the local ability to set/reinforce the expectation that the educator him/herself takes responsibility for his/her own professional reflection, evidence-gathering, and ongoing growth.  (Note:  this applies to any educator roles evaluated within in the system, not just for teachers in the EE system.)  This expectation allows the supervisor to focus coaching conversations and ongoing support to specific areas aligned with student learning outcomes within the broader professional practice frameworks. 

3)    Supervisors have the option to focus frequent 1-on-1 conversations with educators on

  1. Aspects of the educator framework that are relevant to goal-setting
  2. Other areas of the educator’s work (within the EE framework but outside the targeted areas of goal-setting) where the supervisor and educator disagree as to the current level of practice

 

Such shifts should better allow educators across Wisconsin to get deeper into the coaching conversations about continuous improvement, which Katie and I agree ARE the work and real impact of EE and where efforts should rightfully be focused if we are to make significant impact on the students we serve. 

Therefore, as you ready for the coming school year, please be aware of these options you have and consider availing yourselves of some of these allowable local shifts in order to leverage the potential of the EE process to grow and develop your staff and students like never before.  In such a manner, you will be focusing your supervision efforts around those approaches with a high return.  Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions, and best wishes for the most high-impact school year yet!