Collaboration and Evaluation Structures to Improve Teaching and Learning

Recommendations from the 2011-12 Seattle Teacher Advisory Council

How Do We Improve Teaching and Learning in Seattle?

That question was the one that opened the work of the Seattle Teacher Advisory Council (TAC) in fall 2011. In September, leadership of the Seattle Public Schools (SPS) and Seattle Education Association (SEA) jointly convened the TAC to explore this open-ended charge. It may go without saying, but groups like ours are rare in the education world, and in Seattle especially. Typically, conversations between district and union leadership happen primarily at the bargaining table, where there is little room for open dialogue that helps each party better understand the others perspectives and priorities. Whats more, unless theyre on the bargaining team for their local union, most teachers dont have the opportunity to enter into direct dialogue of any kind with these leaders. Our district and union decided they wanted something different. Seattle schools are going through major change now, particularly in the way that teachers and principals are evaluated. The Seattle TAC was created to be a safe space in which classroom experts could explore ideas that we thought would have the most impact district wide. Freed from the politics of elections and contracts, we have been able to explore the issues that matter most to teaching and learning. We met over eight months as a diverse group of 21 teachers, teacher librarians and coaches from every school level, serving every type of student population in every region of SPS. We have radically different personal backgrounds, ideologies, and analyses of what the real problem in education is. But we all share pride in our work as professionals, commitment to our students, and willingness to set aside our preferred silver bullets to enter into conversation about what might really work, practically and sustainably. Heres where we agree: reforms are just another set of passing changes unless we find ways to transform the culture of teaching and learning in our schools. Our conversations have revolved around three key issues:

Ensuring that implementation of our new Professional

Growth & Evaluation (PG&E) system represents a real shift from focusing on compliance with human resources policies to focusing on improving the practice of every Seattle teacher;

Building trust throughout the district to enable learning and

growth to thrive among teachers, other staff, and ultimately students and the wider community that supports our schools; and

Rethinking the way that teachers spend their time, to meet

both these needs.

This report captures our deliberations, and our solutions, from the past year. We offer these to SPS, SEA, and the Seattle community as starting points for conversations that we look forward to having in 2012-13 and beyond.

The 2011-12 TAC members meet in April 2012 with facilitators from the CTQ staff and members of the district administration

Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12 Bar Below

Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

Our Recommendations
Facilitate communication between teachers and evaluators under the Professional Growth and Evaluation (PG&E) system that shifts the culture of evaluation from gotcha to growth.
The challenge
The PG&E is designed to offer actionable feedback to teachers so that they can grow professionally and become effective teachers of every student they serve. However, Seattle teachers and evaluators are accustomed to shorter, less frequent, and less nuanced conversations about teacher observations. Whats more, while many schools evaluators and teachers share open lines of communication and high degrees of trust, its not true of every Seattle school. Research shows that such trust is critical to having the kinds of candid conference conversations that can add up to better classroom practice and improved schools. We need to find ways to structure more trusting communication between teachers and their evaluators if the PG&E is to work in the way that the union and district envision. We also believe that we cant stop there in our efforts to improve instruction and our profession. Transforming teacher and principal evaluation is about more than just coming to agreement on better mechanics to assess professional performance. As Jeff Ursino said, the conversation about evaluation in Seattle schools has to expand past the how do they judge us pieces, which is a defensive exercise at best to a new paradigm that makes the process an honest dialogue about what works? and that puts the onus for providing quality instruction on the teacher-administrator team as part of a system-wide educational environment. In other words, trust and better professional relationships arent just an input into a better evaluation system. They will also result from a renewed commitment to a school culture that values being effective Noah Zeichner, Jeff Ursino, and Gerardine Carroll over looking effectivefor every professional (foreground) flesh out recommendations from the TAC within the Seattle Public Schools.

Proposed solutions
Teachers need to be able to count on getting specific recommendations on how to grow and improve instructionand to ensure that evaluation is about growth rather than just a summative ratingin alignment with the goals of the PG&E. Evaluations ultimately arent about accountability; theyre about helping teachers change how they teach for the better. TAC members noted that especially at the secondary level, it is rare that an evaluator has expertise in the content area and grade level taught by all the faculty they evaluate. Since evaluators may not have mastered the content
Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

and/or the pedagogical strategies needed to teach students in those classes, they simply may not be able to carry on pre- and post-conferences that offer the specific, growth-driving suggestions and questions that teachers need. For instance, its a rarity to get feedback that is content-specific on math instruction because that expertise doesnt exist among evaluators in every building. TAC members arent in complete agreement about the value of peer evaluators per se. However, we do think that the district and union might explore ways to leverage peer expertise so that every teachers practice can groweven if his or her evaluators dont share a background in teaching the same content area or grade level. We think that coteaching is one promising model for helping early-career teachers in Seattle schools develop their classroom practice, and helping the most effective teachers to spread their expertise to colleagues. However, it might be an idea to explore for any teacher whose evaluator doesnt share a similar teaching background. PLCs are being used in these ways in some TAC members schoolsanother promising practice to explore. Dedyan elementary ELL coach herselfhas noted that coaches already play these kinds of non-evaluative support roles. While they may also share information with administrators who are teachers formal evaluators, she says, the non-evaluative component, in my opinion, is the key in cementing trust with teachers. With that in mind, coaches (and other teacher leaders) roles should be protected against being made into para-adminstrator positions. That way, these professionals can support teaching colleagues on a peer-to-peer basis as critical but helpful friends who facilitate growth, rather than just reporting on it. Content knowledge counts, though John and others noted that having knowledge about pedagogical strategy matters just as much: Teachers can know their stuff and still be struggling with how to pass that stuff on to their students successfully. John Affolter, Dedy Fauntleroy, and Janet Bogle in discussion at a TAC meeting. Dedy presented to the SPS School Board on the TACs behalf in March 2012.

Similarly, teachers need continuous access to evaluators or others who can help them reflect and improve, so that the concept of evaluation has to do with an ongoing professional growth process, not just a summative rating. For instance, TAC members suggested having a short mid-year check-in that documents how you are doing in relation to the goals you set for the year. That way, youd know how on track you were to meet goals and could adjust your practice to benefit students now rather than waiting for an end-of-year evaluation. However, evaluators have limited time already, so adding more to their plates doesnt seem practical. This may be another opportunity to access peer feedback through PLCs, co-teaching, or coaches who are not part of formal evaluation processes to just-in-time assistance to teachers who need help, or want to refine what already works well.

The TACs process for developing these recommendations modeled a balance of individual reflection and team collaboration. In foreground, Ami Pendley, Mary Sue Walker, and Gina Hamilton
Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

Teachers and evaluators need to be helped to understand the purpose of evaluation as going beyond compliance with accountability rules. Evaluation isnt just what happens when someone visits your classroom. Rather, its about the ongoing work that we do as professionals to reflect on and improve our practice continuously. The reflection that teachers are expected to do before a preconference under the PG&E is a good attempt to structure that kind of reflection, but may need even more emphasis. Self-reflection shouldnt be just an activity before a pre-conference, but integrated into teachers daily work. Most effective teachers already do this to some extent, but building in more time for teachers to reflectby protecting planning time against other demands, for instancemay be helpful in facilitating regular reflection. It would also communicate how important the district and union think reflective, responsive teaching practice is. More and deeper trainings on the PG&E for teachers and administrators are important to us. For teachers, these sessions might offer strategies on how to reflect effectively about whats working in ones classroom and whats not, using a variety of data sources (e.g., student or parent surveys, classroom assessment data, standardized test data). While reflection seems obvious and easy, its a skill set that hasnt been taught to all teachers, and will be a special challenge to new teachers or those moving into teaching a new content area or grade level.

Increase collaboration among district staffboth job-alikes and those who are not job-alikesto promote understanding of how different roles serve students, and to seek comprehensive solutions to districtwide challenges.
First, who are job-alikes? Primarily, we think of all teachers, all principals, all assistant principals, etc. as job-alikes. But we need to remember that not all positions with similar titles are exactly the same! For instance, teachers who work with students in different grades and subject areas may have such different professional realities that they too are job not-alikes. Our goal is promote collaborative structures within schools and across the district to bring diverse perspectives to bear on challenges from teachers, district administrators, our union leaders (who are former teachers, but often have been out of the classroom for some time); specialists (librarians, counselors, social workers), coaches, and community organizations or funders that fill roles related to or have influence on teaching and learning in Seattle.

In 2012-13, we look forward to being part of solutions in these ways: TAC members want to explore how we can ensure strong teacher/evaluator matches as the PG&E rolls out to all Seattle teachers. Moreover, we want to work with these leaders, the PG&E Task Force, and the 2013 contract negotiation teams to consider specific ways in which formal administrative evaluators as well as peers can be utilized to offer comprehensive, content-specific feedback and support to every teacher.

The challenge
It can be easy for teachers or other educators to fall into the trap of being isolated. Teaching can be an egg crate profession that keeps everyone separate from others in the education space, and unaware of challenges specific to particular roles beyond their own. When we have difficulty in seeing situations from

Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

others viewpoints, conflict often results. But all our roles serve students in some way, so we have to work together if we want to reach comprehensive, longterm solutions to the challenges in our schools. Finding ways to explore our different perspectives is a critical first step towards creating a culture of trust in the Seattle Public Schools (SPS). Doing so also honors the diverse views that can fuel innovative solutions. We need flexibility of time to bring people in diverse positions together in different formats. However, the flexibility needs be balanced against being organized and methodical enough to identify common solutions to challenges for students and schools.

Proposed solutions

Bruno Cross (center) describes challenges of increasing collaboration within SPS. Also shown: John Affolter (lower left), Stacia Hawkinson and Ami Pendley (at right)

Create opportunities for teachers,

other staff, and district and union leadership to interact less formally and more openly to build relationships and trust at a human level. Former Interim Superintendent Susan Enfields Soup with the Supe lunch meetings were one recent example of how district leaders might show interest and willingness to listen to teachers and other staff. SEA listening sessions offered similar opportunities to engage with union leadership. We are encouraged by what we have heard from incoming Superintendent Jose Banda about his eagerness to begin his relationship with the district and community by spending his first year in a listening mode, as well.

The TAC met regularly with SEA and SPS leadership during 2011-12. Here, Board Member Sharon Peaslee (standing) engages with TAC members to learn about their suggestions for improving teaching and learning.

Continue the TAC as a venue for

discussing key issues among diverse members of the SPS community. This year, the TACs mission was left deliberately broad so that we could formulate an independent agenda and suggest any idea to improve teaching and learning in Seattle schools. However, were open to having discussion questions brought to us by district or union leadership. Were eager to engage on whats important to them, so that they can see district challenges through teachers eyesand to build relationships where the professional trust and respect are mutual. Use webinars or other virtual collaboration tools to make it easier to bring people together. The TAC has used these strategies successfully this year in our own work, so that we can sustain conversations and community even when we cant gather face-to-face. For instance, webinar sessions were used in the initial information sessions for the TAC, which helped prospective members
Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

know more about the work theyd do, and whether and how they could get involvedeven without committing to being part of an ongoing virtual community. To make this successful, we need: Training for moderators of webinars (which could be similar to the virtual community organizer trainings CTQ offers, and in which a few of us have or will be participating). A webinar system that allows teachers to engage in meetings in real time or to listen to webinar sessions after the fact. While not always appropriate to meeting needs, webinars can be a way to include wider audiences in conversations and make it easier to increase participation by not requiring people to travel physically in order to join in. Message boards for teachers across the whole district, so more teachers can have discussions like the TAC teachers are having this year, access up to the minute information, get or manage invitations to events, hold structured chats on different topics (instructional or policy-related), etc. Gerardine notes that Fusion is one existing online collaboration tool in the district that might be utilized strategically for this purpose. The TAC, SEA leaders, and SPS leaders could begin by setting up a PLC online for their work together next year. If desired, this group could be expanded to include more teachers and staff over time. Structure more face-to-face collaborative time at the building or district level: Into the school day. Individual buildings might have more flexibility in designing schedules to accommodate this collaborative time across subject areas or grade levels without disrupting instruction. Teachers might work with building administrators to set this up. But its important to note that this may not mean MORE time just time used differently. For instance, we can restructure sacred cows of time use in schools like faculty meetings, instructional Ed Roos (center) served as a virtual council meetings, or department or grade-level meetings community organizer within the TAC, to accomplish these goals facilitating online conversations more effectively. Time throughout the year. Pat Sander, SPS might be used to meet Executive Director of Leadership school improvement goals Development, is at left. (academic or otherwise), focus on at-risk students, accomplish job-embedded professional development. In some schools, building leadership teams (BLTs) are already accomplishing this work. For instance, in Eds elementary school, the BLT and grade-level band leadership has been integrated, with good results. He says, This way the decisions are more spread out, we're hearing from a broader teaching community and Anne Sesnak led the everyone in the building, groups thinking about theoretically, has the how existing teacher opportunity to be leadership structures represented in building-level within SPS schools decisions. But the TAC might be sharpened to suggests that not every BLT serve student and functions so well. Anne suggests building needs more Rebecca Wynkoop blogged about that if BLTs all were to have fully. the TACs work in March 2012
Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

better defined roles and responsibilities, they could be a very viable vehicle for teacher leadership. Rebecca and others see a need to study what works in the schools where BLTs are advancing schoolwide improvements, so that these promising practices can be spread to every building in SPS.

Outside of school days. The district or union might offer stipends, professional development
clock hours, graduate credit hours, or other benefits to compensate teachers for participating in collaboration efforts beyond the contractual day. Doing so acknowledges how this leadership grows professional knowledge and spreads it within the district, incentivizes the participation of the busiest and most expert teachers, and keeps related costs to a minimum by finding compensation strategies beyond salaries and stipends.

In 2012-13, the TAC looks forward to the following action steps: We are eager to meet with Superintendent Jose Banda and SEA President Jonathan Knapp to talk about the work we may be able to do together to facilitate more trusting relationships, and better and more frequent communication among all members of the Seattle schools community. In upcoming meetings with SPS and SEA leadership, we want to clarify whether and how the TACs work will continue into 2012-13 and beyond. As we do so, its important to define the TACs role in a way that compliments rather than competes with existing leadership structures in the district and union. For instance, Kent noted, We need to be clear in defining our role because buildings already have their ARs who are supposed to represent the staff of the building. We also want our work to be transparent and invitational to all. We especially want to explore with SEA and SPS leadership how we might play a role in expanding the conversation to include more Seattle teachersincluding through use of virtual tools like Fusion. TAC members stand ready to facilitate these online connections for district and union leadership and school staff. A few of us have already undergone training as virtual community organizers (or VCOs) with CTQ in 2011-12 to help us lead exactly these kinds of efforts. Also, TAC members might lead a study of what works in Seattle schools in supporting collaborative structures for school improvement, and could identify promising practices for more effective BLTs upon which SEA and SPS could take action. We are also eager to explore options with the district and union for partially released roles for teacher leaders in order to support school improvement efforts in focused ways.

Likewise, those who are supporting teachersevaluators, coaches, department or grade chairsin improving their practice may need training to help them reframe their roles from offering an assessment of pedagogy to sparking changes in that pedagogy. These professionals, along with PLC facilitators or the building ARs who sometimes sit in on post-observations conferences under the PG&E, might receive additional professional development in this area. That way, they can all be effective guides on the side, coaching teachers towards improvement rather than just giving a summative statement about what is going well or badly for a teacher. Ultimately, Jeff Ursino said, Administrative evaluations should mainly be an assessment of the efficacy of the teachers ongoing self-evaluation process, providing course corrections as needed to ensure effective and growing classroom practice.
Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

Redefine the line between teaching time and time beyond teaching.
Recreate roles of SPS teachers to allow more space for professional learning and leadership. Nations that lead in educational excellence actually have systems that put teachers in front of students for much less time each day than is the norm here in the U.S. Teachers in Singapore, Finland, Germany and Japan spend only about a third to a half as much time with students, should be an emphasis on giving professionals choices and flexibility in how their time is used. The graphic in the final pages of this report suggest our vision for how time could be used most strategically by teachersand how it differs from our days as they are organized now. Exploring new roles for teachers that keep one foot in the classroom and one foot just beyond its door might be one way to apply teachers practical knowledge to the challenges that face every school. Wendy and others have suggested that if department heads, team leaders or other teacher leaders could be released from regular duties for 0.2 FTE [essentially an extra planning period] or more to tacklesome pieces on budget or scheduling or community relationships, the administrators might actually have the time to meet with staff around evaluative pieces. The released time would offer many benefits: opening new opportunities for effective teacher leaders, broadening collaboration around building level challenges, and answering challenges related to implementing the PG&E. Providing additional released time for PLC facilitators or career ladder teachers identified through the PG&E might be one helpful approach for providing more teachers with time to offer support to peers. Alternatively, growing the number of teacher leadership roles in other areas of school support would mean that administrators, department chairs and others would have fewer demands competing for the time they need to devote to this kind of instructional leadership. Either way, it results in schools that are better able to meet teachers needs for professional growth supports, and thus better able to improve the teaching experienced by students in every classroom. It also creates a firewall against having a new evaluation system that is seen as being just more of the same old practices of checklists and drive-by classroom visits.

Wendy Miller (center)

In 2012-13, Noah Zeichner (center) will be released from teaching half time for a second year. He will work with SPS and CTQ to develop an network of teachers in seven cities around the worldand bring that expertise home to global education programs within Chief Sealth International High School.
Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

Our goal in 2012-13 is to explore these issues: We are eager to see whether SPS or SEAor the district and union in partnership might offer released positions to certain teacher leaders in the near future. The PG&E implementation is one key area where this might be helpful, but we also imagine its benefit in schools that serve high-needs populations. Could federal Teacher Incentive Fund, Title I, or i3 dollars be used to offset any costs? We also hope those discussions will open the door to broader questions about how teachers time is spent. Our salaries are a major SPS expense, so our time is literally money. We want to be sure its used to serve our students well, and would welcome opportunities to examine how time could be allocated creatively to do what competitor nations do: collaborate, expand our knowledge and skills, and help our colleagues to do the same.

Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

10

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510

Acknowledgements
The 2011-12 Seattle Teacher Advisory Council gratefully acknowledges the support and collaboration of district administrators and their association throughout this process. In particular, we wish to recognize SEA President Jonathan Knapp and former Interim Superintendent Susan Enfield for their vision and leadership in sparking this work. Pat Sander, SPS Executive Director of Leadership Development, gave generously of her time and served as a key liaison with district decision-makers and the PG&E Task Force. Noah Zeichner, our teaching colleague at Chief Sealth International High School, worked closely with Jonathan and Pat to launch the TAC in October 2011 and then continued to assist us as a facilitator for our work. We wish to thank them, and the many others who have engaged with us over the past year, for making teacher leadership a visible priority in our shared efforts to make every Seattle school a great place to teach and learn.

THIS YEARS TAC WAS COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING EDUCATORS:

John Affolter, Garfield High School Janet Bogle, Salmon Bay School Gerardine Carroll, The Center School Bruno Cross, Denny International Middle School Kent Daniels, Orca K-8 Dedy Fauntleroy, Southeast Region elementary schools Noam Gundle, Ballard High School Gina Hamilton, Hawthorne Elementary School Stacia Hawkinson, Whitman Middle School Nicole Johnson, Madrona K-8 Wendy Miller, Washington Middle School Ami Pendley, Pathfinder K-8 Martin Piccoli, Asa Mercer Middle School Marquita Prinzing, Sanislo Elementary School Jeff Proctor, Cleveland High School Ed Roos, Daniel Bagley Elementary School Anne Sesnak, Catherine Blaine K-8 Teresa Swanson, Thornton Creek Elementary School Jeff Ursino, West Seattle High School Mary Sue Walker, Nathan Hale High School Rebecca Wynkoop, Eckstein Middle School

Seattle TAC Recommendations 2011-12

11

Bar Below Center for Teaching Quality | 605 W. Main St. | Suite 207 | Carrboro, NC | 27510