| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Unit Two Readings

Page history last edited by Aimee Howley 10 years, 11 months ago

Module 3: Collaborative Teams and Organizational Structure:

 

Review the entire module, reading the materials and watching the videos. You can access the module here.

  

Module 6: Developing Shared Accountability-- the Why, Who, How, and What of Teams:

 

Read pages 3-10. You can access the readings here or read what appears below.

 

P. 3-- The Context for Shared Accountability

Over the past 25 years, education has undergone tremendous change in the United States that was stimulated by an intense examination of its very nature and quality. Educational reform efforts, begun in 1983 with the National Commission on Excellence in Education's (1983) A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform, have called into question the capacity of American education to prepare all students to be college or career ready upon graduation. In 2001, the pivotal No Child Left Behind Act increased the demand for the participation of all students in assessment and accountability and an increased demand for evidence of student learning.

 

In this complex and pressured environment of educational reform, one thing is clear - accountability for student learning must be shared. Districts and their schools that demonstrate sustained improvement in instructional practice and achievement for all students establish structures and provide the supports necessary to foster shared leadership and internal or authentic accountability (Elmore, 2006; Reeves, 2006; Schmoker, 2007). They facilitate professional collaboration and the effective use of relevant data at all levels of the system. An increasing number of authors and researchers (e.g., DuFour & Marzano, 2011; McNulty & Besser, 2011; Darling-Hammond, L., 2010; Wahlstrom, K. & Louis, K., 2008; Schmoker, M., 2006; David, 2008-09; Gallimore, et al., 2009; Seashore Louis, et al., 2010) advocate for the use of team structures to facilitate shared learning for instructional improvement. They note that no single person has all the necessary knowledge, skills, and talents to meet the needs of all children. This finding is reflective of the growing body of evidence in support of teachers working together to inform each other's instructional practice, as well as the importance of stable school-based settings and distributed leadership, using explicit protocols, and having coherent and aligned district policies and practices (Gallimore, et al., 2009).

 

Futurist Glen Hiemstra, author of Turning the Future Into Revenue (2006), tells a story of a train track in a rural area that is intersected by a road. At this intersection there are no crossing arms, no bells, no flashing lights to warn drivers of the approach of a speeding train. Instead, there is a sign posted at this intersection of tracks and road that reads, "This train takes exactly 21 second to pass this point whether you're on the tracks or not." Hiemstra draws an analogy between this speeding train and the future. Like the train, the rapid changes demanded by the 21st century have arrived abruptly, unannounced to many, and are demanding an immediate response. We can choose not to act and, consequently, be run over by this train of the future. We can become passengers on this train. Or, better yet, we can become engineers on the train of the future.

 

P. 4-- The Power of Teams

The Power of Teams: Distributed Leadership and Reciprocal Accountability

In a research review titled "How Leadership Influences Student Learning" Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) state, "Leadership is widely regarded as a key factor in accounting for differences in the success with which schools foster the learning of their students" (p.17). In fact, evidence suggests that the direct and indirect impact of leadership on student learning accounts for about a quarter of total school effects (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). To optimize a flourishing culture of learning,

 

"Successful educational leaders develop their districts and schools as effective organizations that support and sustain the performance of administrators and teachers, as well as students. Specific practices typically associated with this set of basics include strengthening district and school cultures, modifying organizational structures and building collaborative processes" (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 9).

 

The importance of these collaborative processes, delineated in Leaders Make it Happen! An Administrator's Guide to Data Teams (McNulty & Besser, 2011), underscore the critical importance of harnessing the collective power of educators to inform each other's practice and, thereby, increase the capacity of the school district to more effectively and efficiently identify and address the learning needs of adults and students across the system. The kind of collaborative processes described by McNulty and Besser (2011) are the foundation of the OIP. When used, they maximize the impact of leadership on improved student learning by expanding the definition of educational leadership beyond the sole domain of district and building administrators. Leaders who are highly successful develop and count on leadership contributions from many others in their organizations. This more inclusive paradigm of leadership encompasses a distributed leadership model.

 

P. 5-- Distributed Leadership

McNulty and Besser (2011) advocate for the district-wide development and distribution of leadership through the use of instructionally focused data teams, such as Ohio's teacher-based teams (TBTs). "To successfully improve instruction across the entire district, most districts need more instructional leaders with greater capacity to support instructional improvement work in every classroom." (McNulty & Besser, 2011, p. 72). Distributing key leadership functions shifts the focus of leadership from a single individual to a team of individuals that can function as purposeful communities, "enhancing the skills and knowledge of the peoples in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the various pieces of the organization together in a productive relationship with each other, and holding individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective result." Elmore, 2006, p. 59).

 

The practice of distributed leadership overlaps with those of shared, collaborative, democratic and participative leadership. All of these terms signal a model of leadership that assumes a set of practices that " are enacted by people at all levels rather than a set of personal characteristics and attributes located in people at the top" (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003, p. 22). This movement toward distributed leadership shifts attention to "what school personnel do, more than who is doing it, and challenges the conventional belief that leadership is associated with particular positions" (Scribner et al., 2007, p. 69). At the heart of distributed leadership is the "recognition that tapping into the ideas, creativity, skills and initiative of all or the majority of those in a group or organization unleashes a greater capacity for organizational change, responsiveness and improvement" (Woods, 2004, p. 5).

 

For additional information about how the OIP process and associated tools can be used to lead and manage change, go to the following OIP Modules:

 

For additional information about the role of the superintendent and principal in fostering shared leadership using the OIP as a foundation for improvement, view the 2012-2013 OIP Webinar series, presented by Dr. Brian McNulty, Vice President, The Leadership and Learning Center, in conjunction with representatives from OLAC and the OIP. Click here for webinars titled, Shared Leadership for Superintendents and Shared Leadership for Principals.

 

P. 6-- Reciprocal Leadership

Reciprocal accountability for improved student learning is a primary component embraced by systems that support distributed leadership. In Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement: The Imperative for Professional Development in Education, Richard Elmore (2002) explains the principle of reciprocal accountability:

 

For every increment of performance I demand from you, I have an equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet that expectation. Likewise, for every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I have a reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance. This is the principle of "reciprocity of accountability for capacity." It is the glue that, in the final analysis, will hold accountability systems together. (p. 5).

 

In districts and schools that subscribe to the premise that each stakeholder is accountable for increased learning, administrators, teachers, staff members, students, parents, and members of the larger community are responsible to one another to ensure successful learning through focused measurements, improved pedagogy, and structures of support. Reciprocal accountability is a system-wide commitment. In "A Balanced School Accountability Model: An Alternative to High-Stakes Testing" Ken Jones (2004) writes, "For a balanced model of school accountability to succeed, there must be a system in which states and districts are jointly responsible with schools and communities for student learning. Reciprocal accountability is needed: one level of the system is responsible to the others. . . ." (p. 598).

 

In adopting the practice of distributed leadership and the principle of reciprocal accountability, school districts make the commitment to recognize the worth of each person in the system as an active and vital member of a team charged with the responsibility for successful student learning. Fullan (2010) calls this intelligent accountability, asserting that "With focused collective capacity building, accountability to a large extent gets internalized in the group and its individuals" (p. 44).

 

For additional information about how the OIP process and associated tools can be used to support district-wide continuous improvement, go to the following OIP Modules:

 

P. 7-- The Ohio Context

With the realization that new paradigms of leadership are essential in ensuring rigorous and relevant learning in our schools, the State of Ohio has risen to the challenge. The Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) has devised a Leadership Development Framework in which, ". . . the term "leadership" is based on the belief that (1) all educators have the capacity to lead, and (2) essential leadership practices must be implemented by adults at all levels of the education system for improvement in student performance to be made" (OLAC, 2013, p. 3). To this end, OLAC (2008) has established a framework that guides leadership ". . . at all levels of the system from the State, to the district, to the school building, to the classroom" (p. 2). This framework presents "dynamic, organizational views of leadership . . . as a social influence process [that] permeates organizations rather than residing in particular people or formal positions of authority" (Smylie, Conley, & Marks, 2002, p.167). Ohio's Leadership Development Framework (2013) delineates essential leadership practices for superintendents, district leadership teams, building leadership teams, and teacher-based teams.

 

In Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future, Margaret Wheatley (2002) sagely remarks,

 

We have to be willing to admit that we're not capable of figuring things out alone. If our solutions don't work as well as we want them to, if our explanations of why something happened don't feel sufficient, it's time to begin asking others about what they see and think (p. 35).

 

Wheatley's work emphasizes conversations that generate deep insights, foster a strong sense of community, and generate action. Ohio's statewide approach supports sustainable district-wide improvement through the use of the OIP and OLAC resources. OLAC has identified the essential leadership practices needed to improve adult and student learning, while the OIP and its embedded tools offers a structured way to operationalize those practices through collaborative and aligned teams at the district, school, and teacher-team levels.

For additional information about how the OIP process and associated tools can be used to support district-wide continuous improvement, go to the following OIP Modules:

 

For information about how teacher-based teams (TBTs) work as part of the OIP, go to the Online Learning Dashboard, and click on the module titled, Teacher-based Teams (TBTs): What Districts Need to Know. Once in the module, go to the video under the section titled, Setting the Stage -The What and Why of TBTs.

 

P. 8-- Essential Practices of District Leadership Teams

In Ohio's Leadership Development Framework (2013), the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) notes, "Distributing key leadership functions - all centered on improving practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment - through the development and use of leadership teams shifts the focus of leadership from a single individual to a team of individuals that can function as purposeful communities" (p. 18). One such team serving as a purposeful community is the district leadership team (DLT). The primary purpose of the DLT is to promote " a culture of common expectations or commitment to district and school improvement by maintaining a district-wide focus on high achievement for all students" (OLAC, 2013, p. 18). In order to promote this vision that is " student-focused and geared toward increasing principal and teacher effectiveness in improving outcomes and results for all children," it is necessary for the central office to transition to a new role (OLAC, 2013, p. 18).

(Throughout this module, when leadership teams are referenced, the content applies equally to CSLTs.)

 

This new role is led by the DLT. In the past, districts and schools have been loosely coupled, and as a result, districts have had limited influence on classroom instruction and student achievement. In the formation of DLTs, Ohio is shifting this paradigm. To ensure a deeper, district-wide focus on adult implementation of research-based strategies and on student results indicators, membership on the DLT is comprised of members from various stakeholder groups from throughout the district including administrators, teachers, parents, community representatives, and school board members.

 

In Ohio's Leadership Development Framework, the DLT has been charged with a deliberate and frequent focus on the collection of data regarding student learning at the district, school, and classroom levels. This team is accountable for implementing the following practices under Area 1 of Ohio's Leadership Development Framework (OLAC, 2008), Data and the Decision-Making Process:

 

Ohio's Leadership Development Framework

  • Establish and implement procedures and norms requiring the effective use of data at all levels of the system to drive improvement in instructional practice, to assess the impact on student achievement, and to make decisions about teaching and learning.
  • Model the effective use of data as an ongoing strategy to improve student performance.
  • Require the use of current aggregated and disaggregated student achievement data to establish district goals and measurable strategies for instruction and achievement.
  • Based on data analysis and interpretation, set performance targets for each building and grade level, planning for the success of all children and designed to close achievement and expectation gaps for every subgroup of the population.
  • Assist administrators in monitoring staff use of data to inform instructional decisions.
  • Provide training, support, and guidance in the effective use of data for building-level teams (p. 20).

 

The Ohio 5-step process developed as part of Ohio's OIP-OLAC is used as a protocol for anchoring the work of Ohio teacher-based teams (TBTs). However, the steps, which are repeated on an ongoing basis, can be used by DLTs as a vehicle for monitoring the work of BLTs and TBTs. Use of the Ohio 5-step process across each level increases the consistency and coherence of information and data shared across the system. The five steps, listed below, can be used to structure DLT/CSLT and BLT meeting agendas.

 

Ohio 5-Step Process:

  1. Collecting and charting relevant data;
  2. Analyzing student work specific to the data;
  3. Establishing shared expectations for implementing specific effective changes in the classroom;
  4. Implementing changes consistently across all classrooms; and
  5. Collecting, charting, and analyzing post data.

 

Resource 21A: DLT/CSLT 5-Step Process Meeting Agenda and Minutes Template can be used to help teams work through the process.

 

Resource 21B: BLT 5-Step Process Meeting Agenda and Minutes Template can be of assistance to BLTs.

 

A major Wallace Foundation-commissioned study conducted by Karen Seashore Louis, Kenneth Leithwood, Kyla Wahlstrom, Stephen Anderson, and colleagues (2010) found that "district policies and practices focused on instruction are sufficiently powerful that they can be felt by teachers as an animating force behind strong, focused leadership by principals" (p. 203). "Simply increasing pressure on principals is unlikely to bring about real improvements..." (p. 52). Instead, the report suggests that a better strategy would be to develop the capacity for instructional leadership through the development of instructional teams, lending further support for a collective, collaborative approach to improving professional practice. A summary of findings as well as the full report, Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning, can be downloaded from The Wallace Foundation at www.wallacefoundation.org.

 

Collegial work groups (e.g., grade-level teams, school improvement teams), sharing of expertise, networking of teachers and principals across schools, cross-role leadership and school improvement teams at school and district levels -all these and many other configurations of professional educators collaborating with one another on student achievement-focused district reform initiatives are indicative of a common emphasis on teamwork and professional community as one of the keys to continuous improvement. (p. 41)

 

In Ohio's Leadership Development Framework, essential and aligned practices for DLTs, BLTs, and TBTs provide a vehicle for DLTs to use in supporting the work of BLTs and TBTs, and for ensuring shared accountability across the district for student learning. See OIP Resource 12A: Implementation Effectiveness Survey: Conditions to Support Successful Collaborative Teams: DLT/CSLT for additional information about the role of the DLT. Please visit the OIP Stage 0 Module: Roles and Responsibilities of the DLT/CSLT and the BLT for additional information.

 

P. 9-- Alignment with Building Leadership Teams

As with district leadership teams (DLT), Ohio also recognizes the need for building leadership teams (BLT) at the school level. Just as DLTs provide support and guidance for all schools in a district by examining data about program efficacy and district-wide student achievement, BLTs concentrate on school-wide performance by focusing on the connection between adult implementation and student performance data. In addition, the creation of BLTs recognizes that although schools' alignment with district goals and strategies is imperative, each school needs to focus on school-specific data, as well as district data, to determine important actions steps toward school improvement.

 

In Area 1: Data and the Decision Making Process of Ohio's Leadership Development Framework (OLAC, 2008), BLTs are charged with the following essential practices:

 

Ohio's Leadership Development Framework.

  • Establish data teams (including course, grade level, grade band or vertical team, department) and implement procedures for the effective use of data to assess the impact on student learning, and to make decisions about teaching and learning.
  • Create a school culture that supports the effective use of data to improve student performance by organizing and presenting data in ways that identify gaps and trends in student performance and requiring intentional decisions regarding curriculum and instruction, interventions, and professional development.
  • Support the use of current aggregated and disaggregated student achievement data to establish measurable strategies aligned with district goals for instruction and achievement.
  • Ensure data teams use building, course, and classroom data to constantly monitor progress in meeting performance targets for the building and at each grade level, planning for the success of all children and designed to close achievement and expectation gaps.
  • Ensure the skillful and accurate use of data by providing ongoing training and support throughout the building.
  • Monitor staff use of data to inform instructional decisions and organization for learning (e.g., schedules, grading, grade level configurations, interventions, etc.).
  • Provide support to all building-level data teams and regularly review and analyze building-level data to provide guidance for classroom-level actions. (p. 28)

 

In "Aligning Mental Models of District and School Leadership Teams for Reform Coherence," Chrispeels. Burke, Johnson, and Daly (2008) note " a growing recognition that principals cannot lead alone and that school leadership teams are essential to the improvement process" (p.730). In Ohio, BLTs shift the focus from an individual, usually the principal, to a team that can function as a purposeful community. Membership of the BLT often includes individuals from the following positions who are at the various levels of the organization:

  1. Principal/building level administrator(s);
  2. Teachers who represent all grade levels or grade spans, early childhood, general education, special education, and English Language Learners, including all subgroups;
  3. Non-administrative staff that serve in a leadership position, (e.g., literacy coach, math coach, after school coordinator, parent liaison);
  4. Non-certified staff, (e.g., secretaries, custodial and maintenance staff, food services staff);
  5. Stakeholders representing parents, local businesses, and/or community organizations, such as a program that serves children and families who will transition into the elementary building;
  6. Teacher union/association representation; and
  7. Central office/DLT liaison or ad hoc members.

 

Additional resources to assist with these discussions include:

 

Although the people on the BLT may rotate, there should be representatives from the aforementioned groups. It is suggested that individuals be asked to serve staggered terms of at least two years but no more than four years in order to have a balance of new and experienced members. In some cases, a rotation may not be required, particularly in small districts.

 

The size and composition of the BLT is important to the success of the process. BLTs should be small enough to enable efficient communication and coordination but large enough to represent all aspects of the building. In a large building, the team may include up to twenty people, whereas in a small building, the team may be as small as seven people. The principal/building administrator can use the Ohio 5-Step Process as the structure for the BLT meeting agenda, facilitating instructional data-based decision-making for the team.

 

A resource to assist with these discussions:

 

The Ohio Improvement Process (OIP), which is grounded in reciprocal accountability, establishes and aligns the work of DLTs and BLTs and builds the capacity for system-wide improvement in instructional practice and student performance. Ohio's process relies on the use of aligned leadership team structures at the district, school, and teacher-team levels. The district must define what and how often adult implementation and student performance data will be collected from and provided to teams, specifying what the BLT needs to provide to and receive from TBTs, and what the DLT needs to provide to and receive from BLTs. Monitoring implementation and providing feedback on what does and doesn't work in improving student learning are essential activities of teams at each level of the system. To facilitate this work, districts must also establish the appropriate communication and feedback loops needed for effective decision making over time. Identifying the data and information needed to ensure that the DLT, BLTs, and TBTs are working together, determining how those data and information are shared and used between and among teams, and taking necessary action to address performance problems and replicate successes are critical steps in supporting system learning.

 

OIP Resource 12B: Implementation Effectiveness Survey: Conditions to Support Successful Collaborative Teams: BLTs can be helpful in these conversations.

 

P. 10-- Teacher-Based Teams

Reciprocal accountability and distributed leadership also extend to the work of teacher-based teams at the school level. In Ohio's Leadership Development Framework, the Ohio Leadership Advisory Council references data teams, teacher-based grade level/content area teams, as a natural extension of the work of the district leadership team (DLT) and building leadership teams (BLT). The figure illustrates the Ohio 5-Step Process (see Resource 14:TBT 5-Step Process Visual) that is used by teacher-based teams to support the implementation of the OIP at the classroom level. Resource 21C: TBT 5-Step Process Meeting Agenda and Minutes Template, provides a protocol that can be used by teams to support more consistent analysis of student formative data among teachers and the development of instructional plans for team member implementation.

Additional information can be found within the OIP Stage 0 Module: Teacher Based Teams.

 

In most schools, the practice of teachers working in isolation has been the norm. One of the drawbacks of this practice is that teachers have not had the structure and support necessary to challenge their own thinking about effective teaching practices or to learn new approaches to teaching and learning from one another. In Ohio's model, teacher-based teams - working in alignment with BLTs and the DLT - break this cycle of isolation by involving educators within schools in critical conversations focused on student learning results and effective instructional practices. Through this collaborative process, teacher-based teams build strong professional communities in schools. Whether referred to as professional learning communities, data teams, or teacher-based teams, these collaborative learning teams promote shared accountability for student learning and establish norms of collegiality among teachers that are associated with higher levels of student achievement (McNulty & Besser, 2011).

 

Teacher-based teams are most often comprised of groups of educators who teach the same grade or the same content area. For example, an elementary school may have teacher-based teams at each grade level. Intervention specialists supporting the needs of students with disabilities are regular members of these teams. In middle schools and high schools, teacher-based teams may center around specific content areas within existing department structures. Teacher-based teams may also be arranged vertically across grade levels or across disciplines to provide continuity of focus in instruction, curriculum, and assessment. In the following link providing additional team structures, teacher-based teams are referred to as data teams.

Ohio teacher-based teams use the 5-Step Process to teachers generate standards-based common formative assessments, analyze their students' results, and determine and implement effective instructional strategies based on students' learning needs.

 

At Step 1, TBT members collect and chart data using common reporting forms to gather the formative assessment data to be reviewed by the team. Team members must agree on the specific data (e.g., results of teacher-created assessments, end-of-unit assessment results, etc.) that should be brought in a common format to the TBT meetings. Following the administration of common formative assessment, the team compiles the data, paying particular attention to the performance of all students and subgroups of students, as well as to adult implementation data provided by the BLT.

 

At Step 2, the team analyzes questions from common assessment by identifying strengths and obstacles, and prioritizing student needs across four levels: advanced, benchmarked, targeted, intensive. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses includes identifying patterns related to common errors, misconceptions about concepts/skills, urgent needs, and trends in student responses, including patterns related to subgroups of students. Following this review, team members prioritize needs that must be addressed at Steps 3 and 4.

 

Team members establish shared expectations for implementing specific effective changes in the classroom at Step 3 by identifying learner-centered problems of understanding that appear to be common to many students. A pre-requisite to this step is having a good understanding of what the target skill or behavior looks like when demonstrated by the student. Team members should be able to articulate what they want each student to learn and how they want each student to behave, and be able to describe how they will respond when students experience difficulty in learning the target skill/behavior. This step involves determining the appropriate instructional strategies shown to be most effective in addressing student needs, and making decisions about such things as delivery methods, differentiated instructional strategies to be used, intervention and/or enrichment strategies, duration and frequency of the instruction to be provided, and more.

 

At Step 4, team members follow through on the consistent implementation of instructional strategies that have been prioritized and learned by the team. They might visit each other's classrooms and, at the same time, BLT members might visit classrooms to identify exemplars that can be used to support ongoing and targeted professional development (PD) to all team members.

 

The final step - Step 5 - involves team members administering a post-assessment to determine student progress following team implementation of the agreed-on strategies. The team honestly considers the level of implementation of such strategies to determine whether strategies were fully or partially implemented, or not implemented at all, understanding that a high level of implementation (i.e., about 90%) is needed for improvements to be made. The needs of individual students are discussed and their level of progress determined using pre- and post-test data. In analyzing post data, team members also identify classrooms where there was greater student progress, investigating potential causes for such differences, as well as implications for the continuing work of the team.

 

Establishing teacher-based teams builds "the kind of relational trust in schools that helps teachers set aside the structures that protect their autonomy and relax the cultural barriers to collaborative action" (Halverson, 2006, p. 4). This teacher-based team process builds a culture of inquiry where teachers are challenged to engage in reflection and analysis that leads to more effective practice and, as a result, to greater student achievement. Aligning the work of teacher-based teams with the work of the district's DLT and BLTs provides a basis for the development of a system committed to reciprocal and shared accountability for the success of all students.

 

In order for teacher-based teams to be successful, districts and schools must establish a culture where these teams or professional communities can flourish. In "Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform," Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) point out that

 

"Habits and cultures inside schools must foster critical inquiry into teaching practices and student outcomes. They must be conducive to the formation of communities of practice that enable teachers to meet together to solve problems, consider new ideas, [and] evaluate alternatives . . . ." (p. 6)

 

Resources, including time and targeted high quality professional development (HQPD), are essential in ensuring the efficacy of teacher-based teams, and are the responsibility of the district/DLT to provide. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the BLT to provide differentiated HQPD to the teacher-based teams that need such support.

 

Resource to assist with this work:

Resource 22: Coaching TBTs: Prompts, Log

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.