Murphy Sean Murphy Northeast Leadership Academy: Special Topics Dr.

Riddick 26 April 2011 Clinical Supervision Assignment Observation One Sitting in the Subway booth, waiting for my colleague to come back with his BMT sandwich, I felt confident. As would come painfully obvious, too confident. Over

the previous summer I had observed over 50 new teacher classrooms as a Corps Member Advisor with Teach for America. Evaluating them on a select rubric of 3 standards, I believed my previous experience would make observing veteran teachers a breeze. As my colleague sat down, my questions were ready, but my mindset was in the wrong place. With a narrow frame of mind that would damper the whole observation cycle, it quickly became all too apparent that I would need to broaden my scope. A few minutes into the conversation, I realized the breadth of teaching was not captured in the rubric I used the previous summer. Compared to the abbreviated TFA rubric, the NC tool is much more nuanced and sophisticated. It's also a lot bigger. Even though I had been evaluated with the tool for nearly three years as a teacher, I never realized how detailed and holistic it was. Sadly, this was in contrast to the conversation. Though I was planning to evaluate the teacher on all the standards of this comprehensive tool, the pre-conference was narrow, filled with specific talk about a specific class. In fact, it was not until the last 5 minutes that we discussed his self-evaluation as a teacher or the class I would be observing. Leaving the Subway, I was left with little sense of this teacher as a teacher. Later that week I was sitting in his first block class, rubric in-hand and on-screen. Gleaning some key points from our conversation, I knew he was concerned about

Murphy handling tardy students, as well as meeting the needs of his lower-level learners. I stationed myself in the back of the room at a desk, deciding for no real reason to go down the tool," rating each row of each standard before moving on to the next.

As the class began, I realized the sequential rating was a bad plan, both inefficient and inconsistent with the true intent of the tool. Sadly, this shift ate up valuable time and I spent much of the observation playing catch-up. As he had predicted, many of the teacher's students moseyed in tardy. The teacher spent quite a bit of time dealing with these behaviors, leading me to believe it was a major issue in the classroom. Yet, all this served more as a distraction than a solution. This emphasis on fixing rather than observing the teacher's classroom impacted the entirety of my first observation cycle. In the pre-conference it led to an unfruitful conversation, now it was leading to a discombobulated observation. As a result of trying to find, in Teach for America lingo, the teacher's main lever I failed to make key observations. I never walked around the room, only briefly looked at student work and didnt seek out the lesson plan. Instead, I fumbled through the remainder of the observation, collecting spare notes at the corners of the PDF document, while trying to keep an eye on the classroom. In short, the actual observation was awkward. Collecting my notes and myself later that day, I realized an undue emphasis on my hunch about the teachers biggest area for growth dominated the tool. As a result of my solution seeking, finding solid artifacts about many of the other standards was difficult. Whereas Standard 4 was filled with notes, most of the other comment sections were sparse. Standard 5 had hardly any ratings at all. How could it, I thought, when I never asked him about reflection or looked for artifacts? Still, I was able to assemble some valid comments based on my previous experiences with him and comments of others from his department.

Murphy

As I later realized, focusing on one area is not only acceptable it's often advisable. Yet, as with the fallback option from FL, this must be discussed and decided upon before hand. Walking into the post-conference with the teacher, I had already decided the topic of conversation. About 3 minutes into the conversation, though, I realized the danger of pre-conceived notions. From the get go, my language was too decisive. As my critical friend noted, the focus on Standard 4 made the teacher feel uncomfortable. Instead of a conversation, the post conference came off like an imposition. Still, as we noticed when watching the video, the conversation was always safe and purposeful, something I credit to my Crucial Conversations training. The teacher agreed that certain rows of Standard 4 were a struggle and we brainstormed some ways to help improve the obstacles. However, the post conference became both more comfortable and productive when we turned to the other standards. Although the evidence was sparse, the comments section was clear and organized, explaining the reason behind the ratings. In fact, the comments section was an important leverage point in the post conference. It opened up the conversation for wider discussion, including areas of concern outside of the class I observed. In general, my first observation was too broad in scope and too narrow in implementation. By completing the entire observation tool I carved out an ambitious goal that was both formidable and unnecessary. This was compounded by my shortsighted solution seeking which flew in the face of my expressed intent. If the stated purpose of the evaluation was one specific standard, both the teacher and myself would have been more prepared. Yet, telling the teacher this evaluation involved the whole tool, then focusing on one standard, was a recipe for awkwardness. Had it not been for the solid

Murphy relationship I had with the teacher, as well as some structured and logical comments, the tenor of the observation would have been wildly different. Observation Two From the outset, my second observation was more focused and, as a result, more fruitful. Sitting down in the teachers classroom the day before, we discussed a selfevaluated rubric. Having this resource helped anchor the conversation. Moreover, it brought into stark relief what the teacher viewed as strength and growth areas. This specificity permitted a productive conversation about what standards I would be observing. As I had learned from my first observation cycle, excluding the teacher in any way is a terrible idea. This time around the teacher and I collaboratively decided on which standards would be observed. We discussed positive and negative student actions happening in the classroom, connecting them with teacher actions she believed were contributing to the results. Finally, we hashed out what outcomes she had been seeing in the classroom and what areas in her own practice she wanted to refine. Together we decided that Standard II was an area where some advice was needed.

In contrast with my first observation, the pre-conference was more purposeful and direct. At the same time, it was also more clinical. Watching the video later, it was obvious to both a critical friend and myself that my tone was heavy and more processed than usual. While this wasnt a huge issue at the time, I believe it affected the post observation. Still, armed with an abbreviated slice of the rubric, the actual observation was a different beast entirely. Instead of feeling swallowed by a sea of standards, there was purposefulness in my examination and clarity in my notes. This time I decided to bring in

Murphy

a printed copy of Standard II and used it to make preliminary ratings, while the computer captured my thoughts. It was logical and efficient. I had time to examine student work, peruse the lesson plan and collect artifacts. Informed by our conversation, the tool became a user-friendly document, full of proactive advice. In short, it became a tool instead of an impediment. What was a sea of verbiage in my first observation became specific indicators. Those indicators, in turn, became objective pieces of advice that could lead to observable actions. Seeing not only where the teachers strengths and areas for growth were but also what she had to do to improve, the incremental growth model finally made sense to me. Whereas I came out of the first observation disoriented and a little exhausted, when leaving this second observation I was invigorated and excited to refine my comments. With the added artifacts, the process of compiling solid ratings was easier and quicker, allowing me to focus on potential strategies to use in the classroom. Arriving for the post observation I, once again, felt confident. And once again, a little too confident. The conversation began great. We discussed how the teacher felt about the class period, what she believed worked well and what needed some work. Looking at the evaluation, she agreed with my assessments and found the comments helpful and direct. The real issue came with implementation. While discussing potential strategies for improvement, my suggestions seemed more like an action plan. Watching the video, my enthusiasm came off as overt assertiveness. I believe part of this was because I didnt take the time to build a relationship with the teacher during the preconference. Although I had known the person for over a year, the observer/observed relationship is unique. In my first observation the preconference was scattered, but we spent some time

Murphy discussing my role as a fellow, the training I had and what we both hoped to get out of the observation. In a word, we built trust in this new relationship. As a result, the teacher knew my suggestions in the post conference were coming from the best possible place.

Whats more, he felt comfortable adding his input. Unfortunately, during the second preconference the conversation had a laser-like focus, with little discussion of my role or our goals for the observation. While this was expeditious in process, it was sorely detrimental to the relationship. As a result of the relatively brusque pre-conference, the postconference recommendations seemed like directives. There was hardly any discussion and the entire post-conference lasted around 10 minutes. In the end, I was left wondering if the strategies we talked about would ever be implemented. Reflecting on the second observation cycle, I realized the importance of both skill and personality. Indeed, a master evaluator is not simply someone who strategically and accurately evaluates a room, but someone promotes better teaching. This requires both a keen focus and a keen sensibility. All the research in the world is not as powerful as a personal recommendation from a trusted colleague. However, that trust is not a given and must come from dedicated relationship-building. General Reflection Many of my realizations and improvements came through an unlikely source. As a fairly new teacher, I've been uncomfortable finding critical friends to rely on. I have collaborated, consulted and been counseled, but never truly talked about my practice. Yet, during my own post conference, this finally changed. Striking up a conversation with my principal about the difficulty of evaluating teachers, he started giving me some pointers. His helpful and immediately useful advice turned the topic of the conversation away from my own observation cycle and on to, well, my own observation cycle. In a

Murphy short time, I was sharing with him the post observation I facilitated and receiving advice from a new critical friend. Mr. Rountree gave me numerous pointers during our conversation. Having over

80 observations under his belt, a number of actionable recommendations vastly improved my second observation. For instance, Mr. Rountree makes a list of standards that can be viewed in an observation and those that cant. When he observed me, for instance, Standard 4 was up and ready for note taking. He suggested that I might have been overwhelmed because I was grasping for straws that didnt exist. If I had evaluated observable items while in the classroom, it would have freed me up to seek out artifacts for the other standards after the observation. More generally, two main themes arose during both my observations: strategy and relationships. Concerning the former, there is a lot that goes into teaching. Moreover, there is a lot that goes into evaluating a teacher. As the colossal teacher evaluation tool shows, there are in-and-out of class activities and competencies that must be identified and refined. As such, the tool can either be unwieldy or revealing. In my first observation, the post conference was scattered and, most likely, unproductive. In my second observation, everything had a more defined scope, giving every conversation an intentionality and purpose. At one point I was skeptical about the ability of an evaluation tool to be a growth tool. However, I realize now that gradual growth can be a reality if the tool is implemented effectively and tracked consistently. However, this type of growth can only come in an environment where teachers are encouraged and secure. As Mr. Rountree eloquently conveyed to me: were in the business of growing people. Whether it is students, teachers or community members, we must constantly encourage and nurture the growth of others. This simply will not happen

Murphy without intentional growth and genuine relationships both are necessary to help teachers go from good to great. As I found out in my first observation, without strategy evaluations can turn out flaccid. Conversely, as became clear during the second

observations post-conference, even the most strategic and purposeful evaluations can be feckless if the environment for growth is not nurtured. After my second observation was complete, I had one idea running through my head: giving feedback is hard. Although improvement in my own competencies was marked and the evaluation more successful, it was still really tough conveying my point. Just as teachers must continually improve their practice, leaders must constantly improve theirs. Whats more, they cannot do this in a silo. In fact, one of the main lessons I learned from forging a relationship with Mr. Rountree was the importance of the relationship itself. It takes a village to raise a child and it probably takes a village to grow a teacher. Regardless, though, taking teachers from good to great is not impossible. The evaluation tool is a robust and useful tool. However, it must be thoroughly understood and strategically implemented, otherwise it can be unwieldy. In the future, I look forward to finding my own style of implementation so that I can use the tool for its intended purpose: making great teachers.