While I have not done any real, substantive research into this etymology, I understand that the term “principal” comes from “principal teacher.” Like a principal violinist or principal trumpet in a symphonic orchestra. I am a principal. I consider myself to be a part of the body of players with instruments. Yet, I am often likened to the conductor or director. Such is why I strongly prefer the title of principal – it reminds me everyday that I am amongst the musicians with instruments in hand. While I see the conductor or director of an orchestra as an accomplished musician, there is something different about standing up front, facing a different direction, and waving a wand rather than a wielding a stringed instrument, a woodwind, or piece of brass. Yes, I am a principal…teacher. A principal…learner. A principal…educator.

Consequently, I feel a visceral reaction rising from within me when I hear things that imply or directly name “us” and “them” thinking. Recently, a colleague of mine sent me a tweet (with no intent to incite, I am certain) that made reference to “admin” and “faculty” participating in something together, and I responded with this…

However, at the same time, I empathetically understand the thinking that “my principal evaluates me, so he/she is not really ‘one of us.'” I will not give up the career objective, though, to “be one of us”…co-teacher, co-learner, co-educator. I want to be in the band with the faculty. I am a (principal) teacher, a (principal) learner, a (principal) educator.

In my efforts to break down this industrial, hierarchical, twentieth-century, mental model of “us” and “them,” I believe that the way principals conduct (ironic, I realize) observations is critical. The shortest, most concise summary of my thinking on this issue comes from Kim Marshall’s extraordinary article, It’s Time to Rethink Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. If you have not read the article, I encourage you to do so. I think it is profoundly powerful. Here’s a hook that I hope grabs you: 

The theory of action behind supervision and evaluation is that they will improve teachers’ effectiveness and therefore boost student achievement.1 This assumption seems logical. But the vignettes above raise a troubling question: what if the theory is wrong? This article takes a close look at this possibility and explores an alternative theory of action.

Marshall listed and explained 10 reasons why the traditional model of supervision and evaluation is ineffective:
1. Principals evaluate only a tiny amount of teaching.
2. Microevaluations of individual lessons don’t carry much weight.
3. The lessons that principals evaluate are often atypical.
4. Isolated lessons give an incomplete picture of instruction.
5. Evaluation almost never focuses on student learning.
6. High-stakes evaluation tends to shut down adult learning.
7. Supervision and evaluation reinforce teacher isolation.
8. Evaluation instruments often get in the way.
9. Evaluations often fail to give teachers “judgmental” feedback.
10. Most principals are too busy to do a good job on supervision and evaluation.

As Marshall transitioned from describing the problems and shortcomings to detailing the practices that can actually improve instruction and learning, he wrote:  

I’ve argued that the theory of action behind supervision and evaluation is flawed and that the conventional process rarely changes what teachers do in their classrooms. Here is an alternative theory: The engine that drives high student achievement is teacher teams working collaboratively toward common curriculum expectations and using interim assessments to continuously improve teaching and attend to students who are not successful. Richard DuFour, Mike Schmoker, Robert Marzano, Douglas Reeves, Jeffrey Howard, Grant Wiggins, Jay McTighe, and others believe that this approach is a critical element in high achievement. I agree, but with a proviso: if a school adopts this theory, it must change the way teachers are supervised and evaluated. If it doesn’t, the principal won’t have the time, energy, and insight to get the engine started and monitor it during each school year. 

Then, Marshall provided a set of bullet-points, on page 732 of the Phi Delta Kappan article, that significantly define what I strive to accomplish in my principalship – a philosophy in short order, rather than a checklist. Moreover, he created 12 steps to linking supervision and evaluation to high school achievement:
1. Make sure the basics are in place.
2. Decide on the irreducible elements of good teaching.
3. Systematically visit all classrooms on a regular basis.
4. Give teachers prompt, face-to-face feedback after every classroom visit.
5. Require teacher teams to develop common unit plans and assessments.
6. Require teams to give common interim assessments.
7. Have teams report on student learning after each unit or quarter.
8. Arrange for high-quality feedback on lessons for teachers.
9. Create a professional learning culture in the school.
10. Use short observation visits to write teachers’ final evaluations.
11. Include measures of student learning gains in teachers’ evaluations.
12. Use a rubric to evaluate teachers.

While I do not believe in or adhere to a rigid, all-points adoption of Marshall’s 12 step plan, I have tried to serve in my role as principal teacher by doing the following as overarching goals and action steps:

1. Create a culture of collaboration.

Since the 2007-08 academic year, the Westminster Junior High School has embarked on a journey to provide job-embedded, collaborative teaming for 100% of the faculty. Over this multi-year process, we are currently providing formalized teaming opportunities for 42 of the 74 teaching faculty. I hope to provide such for everyone in the Junior High, but it just takes time. Each year, we try to increase the number, the percentage, and the opportunity. And our model is agressive – a built-in period for teaming that mimics the student schedule for learning. Because student classes meet for 55-minutes a day, 4-days a week, so do the “teacher classes.”

When we only had one formalized PLC, I attended everyday as a co-learner, a co-participant. Now that we have five formalized PLCs in the Junior High, I am unable to attend every meeting, everyday. So, I schedule a minimumof one team meeting per PLC per week. Consequently, I am able to hear the planning and strategizing of the teams. I am able to participate in their discussions of the 4 Big Questions (1. What should students learn?, 2. How will we know if students have learned?, 3. What will we do if students already know it?, and 4. What will we do if students are not learning it?). I wish I could fill my schedule with ALL of the team meetings! Participating with my orchestra is the richest time of my week. These teachers are extraordinary, and I learn more about teaching and learning from these team meetings than from any other professional development in which I facilitate or participate. Collaboration is essential, and it enables me to know what people are thinking and learning. And it allows others to know about what I am thinking and learning. We develop relationships with those with whom we spend time talking. And at its core, teaching and learning are relational. First and foremost – RELATIONAL. Building relationships demands collaboration. An administrator worth his or her salt will work tirelessly to make such collaboration the norm rather than the exception.

2. Create more opportunity for conversations about teaching and learning.

On this front, the Junior High School has undertaken a multi-pronged re-envisioning as part of the developing Faculty Assessment and Annual Review Plan. To increase opportunites to talk about our teaching and learning, we have engaged in peer visits for more than six years now. [There is an interesting story here for another blog post.] Systemically, we have opened our doors in order to break down the isolating nature of teaching in an “egg crate culture.” Peer visits can occur between two faculty members, but we have also provided for instructional rounds, so that teams of teachers can enlist multiple lenses for feedback and discussion about teaching and learning practices. Additionally, we begin each year setting goals and engaging in self-assessment. With these reflections, we talk together about our aspirations and plans to reach them. I always send out my reflections to faculty, and I enjoy conferences with each and every faculty about their reflections. Until this year, all of these conferences occurred with individual faculty members. Now, teams can conference together with me about their team and individual goals. Faculty also collect student-course feedback. A faculty committee designed a process that has guided our programmatic inquiry of students’ perceptions about what and how they are learning. As principal, I use a similar model for my own evaluation, and I always share the results of this annual collection of feedback with the faculty.

Ideally, all of these pieces should work together as a whole system to enhance the conversations we are having about our teaching and learning. And our plan is a formative assessment plan for growth and development more than for purposes of evaluation. If engaged in the spirit with which this system is designed, the Faculty Assessment and Annual Review Plan is meant to work as an ongoing system of practicing and scrimmaging. For such is the universal method of learning and growing.

3. Create an understanding that the administrators are learning, too!

 As learners, don’t we prefer to have things done with us, instead of having things done to us? In the old model of teacher supervision and evaluation that Marshall wrote about, administrators were failing in large part because they were doing supervision and evaluation TO teachers instead of WITH teachers.

On Wednesday of this past week, I was given a rare gift. Two sets of regular weekly meetings were canceled, and I found myself with four hours of windfall-profit time. What did I do with this time? I learned. I tried to practice some of the observational tactics suggested by Marshall, and I tried to get wrapped up even further with being the principal teacher, the principal learner, the principal educator.

From 8:15 a.m. until about 11:30 a.m., I practiced some mini-observations. Here was my process:
1. Take my iPad and my Flip camera and find a classroom. Prioritize classrooms of teachers who sit in formalized PLCs.
2. Spend 10-15 minutes observing in the classroom, take some notes using Quick Office on the iPad, and record a 30-90 second video.
3. Go to the next classroom.
4. After three mini-observations, use Box to transfer iPad notes to the “cloud” so I could pick them up from my office PC. Return to my office for a “download” and sharing of feedback. Copy and paste my notes into an email, transfer the video to my PC, and attach the video to the email. Send the three emails to the individual teachers and copy the department chair and the dean of faculty.
5. Start the next round of three mini-observations.

During the morning, I observed 11 teachers in 10 classes. More than anything, I practiced a new method of observation that I think complements Marshall’s article and our developing Junior High culture better than my previous methodology. When the morning concluded, I had provided immediate feedback to 11 teachers…teachers with whom I regularly sit in team meetings. There was past context and collaboration for the observations. They were part of the system. Also, I had a master document of all the observation notes, and I produced a Camtasia video of all the observations together.

I sent the following request to the observed teachers:

Dear All:

 

THANK YOU! This morning I was able to visit 10 classes and 11 faculty in three class periods. I appreciate you letting me come in quietly and stay for about 10-15 minutes. You had no idea I was coming, and I used a Flip video camera without prior explanation, and you seemed nonplused. By now, you should have received my brief notes and any video I shot in your room (BC and AG are exceptions because of our decision for me to return later when the sun would cooperate).

 

I want to make sure that you know these types of visits are NON-EVALUATIVE. They are as much about my learning as anything, as we continue to develop our Faculty Assessment Plan, which is intended to be formative assessment. I try to offer observations, not judgements, as I attempt to provide another set of eyes and ears for you so that YOU can reflect on your practice with more data and feedback. I welcome any questions/feedback from you about the helpfulness (or lack thereof) of the notes and the video.

 

NOW THE REQUEST: I hope you will consider letting me share the observation video, at the least. I have compiled the smaller videos into an unedited, complete video of my morning. Also, I hope you will consider an additional request of allowing me to share the observation notes as a one-document transcript. Of course, from the earlier emails, you know I have shared already with [the Dean of Faculty] and your Dept Chair. However, I would like to share the video, and perhaps the notes, with the full ALT (Academic Leadership Team) and FAAR (Faculty Assessment and Annual Review task force). We have studied Kim Marshall’s article about rethinking classroom observation (attached if you get interested), and I am trying to learn more about how this type of observation practice could work. I read a lot about various observation methods, and I think we can learn so much from each other by sharing our practices and ideas.

 

Also, I would like to blog about the morning, but I would not use your real names in any post that I blog.

 

So, can you let me know:

* Bo can/cannot use my video.

* Bo can/cannot use my portion of the observation-notes transcript.

* Bo can blog about his learning from the morning.

 

Feel free to talk with others from this group, and take your time (a few days) if you want to think about it. I really appreciate your time and consideration!

 

Bo

Two things I wish I had done differently:
1. Use some PLC meeting time to have teacher teams establish what they would like for me to concentrate on during my visits – ask the teachers to own the process by giving me my “marching orders.”
2. Set a debrief meeting in which all of the teachers and I watched the collective video together to look for “whole-morning” trends that become apparent when we see all of the sections as one video voyeuristic.

My learning was further enhanced when I read this article, My Students Help Assess My Teaching. Threads of the same tapestry seemed to come together. Can we eventually use the excellent “look fors” in the article as a way to study such mini-observations together? There is real possibility here, I believe.

If you have read this far, bless you. This post is concluding in a place that I did not anticipate when I started. Probably, I would be better off to press “Save Draft” and to return later to polish the writing as a coherent, cohesive whole. But I am ready to push “Publish.” Writing is thinking, and I am ready to think out loud so that, hopefully, others will think with me. I hope that my own faculty might read this “thinking out loud post” and offer comment. I hope that other teachers and principal teachers will survive the 2600+ words and offer comment. For I am a principal teacher, a principal learner, a principal educator. And I don’t have all the answers. But I am interested in playing with my orchestra of fellow teachers, learners, and educators.

Together, we can make beautiful music.