A Model of Supervision

A Community of Learners:
The traditional education environment has been modeled after a "factory" model of design. Bring in the raw material (the students), process this material throughout the machinery (classrooms and the school), by trained and skilled laborers (teachers), and output a completed product (the graduate). This model is further delineated by defining the supervisory role of management (the administrator), and the subjected role of the subordinate (the teacher). This is the traditional role of our education system. What is nonexistent in this equation is the role of the learner. I like to propose a logic argument that is similar in concept to the “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” This argument is a circular logic argument which incorporates scientific knowledge, philosophy, spirituality and critical thinking. I apply this same argument to the roles of the educator ‘Which came first? The teacher or the student?’ It is with the assumption of definition that there cannot exist a teacher without a student and again a student cannot exist without a teacher. The underlying belief is that we develop our schools as an establishment where learning takes place. But more so than not our educational institutions exist as a function of a super and subordinate caste system. This caste system exists in several tiers: student to teacher, teacher to principal, principal to a governing type of school board. And this seems to be where the problems lie.

It is understood that in order to teach or educate students that a sense of appropriateness in behavior on the students’ part must be in place and enforced. It also assumed that each student has differing needs and abilities and that the educator needs to reach out to these abilities in order fort he student to develop completely. But while new forms of educational deliver and procedures exist for our students the “factory” model of management still exists as we move up the caste tiers. An “ideal” classroom exists with several delivery methods incorporated into the lessons, it has authentic outcomes and assessment processes, the instruction is designed to incorporate several types of intelligences and has a standard by which it follows. We also encourage teachers to “model” or practice behaviors they wish to teach or instill into their students, and yet, these accepted and agreed upon practices do not exist in our “instruction” of our teachers.

Proactive vís a vís Reactive:






In order to head off the problems inherent within our system we need to be proactive instead of reacting to the problems. We need to move away from the “traditional” business or “factory” standards processes of supervision and evaluation and further develop our community of learners. We need to provide our teachers with educational development, personal and professional growth opportunities as well as a formalized understanding of authentic outcomes. It is strange that our current educational system pursues “specialization” in specific areas of education, and then does not allow for promotion or advancement. An English teacher for example will always be an English teacher perhaps they will be a “chair” of a department but nonetheless they will still be an “English Teacher”. If this teacher were to pursue a personal development in history our current educational system would frown upon this “new development” and discourage this teacher from changing roles. (This is demonstrated in the rigorous and repetitive processes which teachers need to become certified for each individual license. Some of these licenses require the same coursework but they cannot be shared between licenses.) We exist in a system which often frowns upon personal development and yet, we require this not only to become a teacher but to remain a teacher. A good and encouraging model of supervision needs then to encourage an authentic sense of personal and professional development – both success in the classroom and outside of it.




Owning our Classrooms:


To promote an authentic learning community for all teachers by providing direction and mentoring for the new service teacher through ownership and empowerment of their practices as well as the continuing growth of excellent teachers. There are many unique and diverse objectives concerning teaching. Often we can use the analogy of a triage when prioritizing these objectives. The maxim we encounter most however is that if we can influence the positive behavioral objectives the academics will follow. Are we suggesting one is more important than the other? No. We are suggesting that children who understand what is expected of them socially, will accept academic training more readily than a student who is oppositional.
With this philosophy in the forefront we educate our children through activity based instruction. The premise is simple: if the children are having fun being involved in the learning process they are less likely to act out. If the children do not perceive their academics in this light they tend to rebel, shut down or worse. We define activity based instruction as project based learning. At St. Aemilian's we follow a school wide behavioral theme or objective. This way we develop a sense of community within the school. As most of our children come from broken, adoptive or foster families it is imperative that we provide them with a safe structured environment: it is our mission to provide these children with a sense of belonging. We accomplish this partly through our united themes, our hands-on activities and projects. Through this we wish to provide experiential learning: making the experience meaningful and real. In order to do this the teacher needs to be involved in the learning activities rather than an authoritative observer. The teachers' roles are developed along with the class structure: a family within a larger education community. Building trust is the singular most difficult aspect of our work. Because of this we need to invest time, one-on-one instruction and collaboration. Once we develop that trust factor we need to nurture it throughout our daily lessons.

Working with children is often time consuming, energy consuming, and taxing on resources. As educators we strive to provide a social team atmosphere of education. Within our social community we have experienced teachers, specialists, therapists and more to assist in planning the students' daily activities. This “plan” is designed to facilitate our teacher’s in developing lessons that correspond to the pedagogy of education within that wonderful world of education we call home.

St. Aemilian follows the “Pod” model of school wide management and design. These pods are aligned by similar academic abilities and ideally with a seasoned or master level teacher and a new service or novice teacher. Although this is not always the case. We further encourage this pod collaboration through the development of an “electronic lesson plan template”, (see Appendix A). The idea here is to develop a library of lessons, (see Appendix B). that all of us utilize here at St. Aemilian. At anytime if we find a lesson not working for us there will be many others at our fingertips. This also allows for other teachers who work with these students to understand what they are doing as a class as well as how, why, etc. This also allows for a substitute or administrator to load up the lesson and be able to teach in the case of a classroom emergency.


Collaborating in our Classrooms:


The most important and relevant method we utilize of insuring collaboration is through our weekly lesson plan meetings. These consists of the pod lead teachers, teaching assistants, our reading, art, physical education, therapy and technology specialists and our assistant principal. These meetings generally last between 5 to 10 minutes. The impetus is on the teacher to develop or introduce the other members of her team her idea for a lesson plan. It then becomes a collaborative effort as each team member discusses how they can assist the teacher in meeting these goals. Once this development is completed the information is then inputted into the electronic lesson plan template. This then provides a collaborative map, a sharing of ideas between all of our staff.

What is different and encouraging about these “lesson plan meetings” is that all levels of teaching and experience come together and design the lesson. It is no longer a solitary effort for a teacher to redefine a wheel in order to teach. This not only “forces” the reluctant teacher to participate but more importantly encourages them in a positive and open setting. (Our meetings are currently in the morning and someone usually brings donuts and coffee – the collaborative effort is a relaxing and charged atmosphere instead of the more usual groggy, punch the clock and begin concept.) Our teachers share ideas and not all ideas are brought forth to fruition. This is a positive development as teachers are engaged in positive and constructive feedback immediately as they design their lesson.

Specifically on a supervisory level, this peer coaching or conferencing also borrows from an action research design. While throughout the course of these “lesson plan” meetings the collaborative team involved discusses problem areas, themes or ideas that were well planned but were unsuccessful, it further promotes discussion on authentic assessment and how to do so, it provides input and experienced information from those educators who are experts in their field for those who are not. This design also allows for the new service teacher who happens to be a rather excellent teacher to impress his ideas onto more seasoned and sometimes reluctant teachers.


Supervising our Classrooms:


This model also allows for the assistant principal who has been delegated the supervisory position of all the educators to observe, interact, collaborate and otherwise direct their teachers in an informal setting. This encourages the supervisor to discuss that a particular lesson sounds exciting or interesting and then allows for that supervisor to observe that lesson. This incorporates the “pre-conference” design in a peer collaboration: which allows for the removal of the negative aspects of supervision: those beliefs of being singled out, or non-existent observations, of mystery evaluations.


This process or supervisory plan allows for:
· analysis of one’s own teaching and providing in-service for others
· identifying and articulating reasons for professional behaviors
· developing and demonstrating new curriculum
· supervising beginning teachers as well as encouraging more experienced teacher
· providing expertise and empowerment of the teacher
· collaboration and effective constructive critiques


PI-34, Authentic Assessment, FBAs and Evaluation:


The discussion then stems the tide from encouraging and assisting or facilitating the professional growth of our teachers to make them the most successful teacher that they desire to be to how do we authentically assess these teachers’ teaching abilities? What is foremost is the implementation of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s PI-34 which replaces the existing method for teacher certification. What this new law does in fact provide for the teacher is a strategic method for developing a “portfolio” of their professional development.

PI-34
The new rules give current educators two ways to renew their old license(s):

• Successful completion of 6 semester credits directly related to a license held or to the Wisconsin Standards from an accredited institution.
• OR, successful completion of a professional development plan.
  The option of earning clock hours will not be available after May 30, 2004. Educators who are not working but who currently hold licenses may continue to renew their licenses by giving evidence of six credits earned. Those who earn a Professional Educator license after 2004 and leave the profession can use the six-credit option to renew their licenses. Opting to complete a professional development plan means:
• A professional educator demonstrates increased proficiency in selected Wisconsin educator standards. Goals are identified as well as activities related to the goals with evidence of application to the classroom or learning community.
• A timeline for achieving the goals with evidence of annual review of goals and activities
• Evidence of collaboration with professional peers and others including the review panel required (peer selected by their peers).
• An assessment plan that specifies indicators of growth and how meeting the goals improved the educator’s professional knowledge and affected student learning.

Currently licensed educators are also impacted through the initial educator license process within the role of mentors. A mentor is an educator who is trained to provide support and assistance to initial educators and who has input into the confidential formative assessment of the initial educator but is not part of the formal employment evaluation process. The mentor must volunteer for the assignment and receive training for the role. Should the educator/mentor decide to renew his or her license by developing a professional development plan, the mentoring activities could be incorporated into this plan and support the license renewal effort.

Finally, current educators will be needed and may volunteer to serve on an Initial Educator Team and on the teams of currently licensed educators who opt for the new system of re-licensure. Educators will design professional development goals and their successes on reaching these goals will be verified by a three-person team. Experienced educators will be needed to serve on the initial educator teams. Although it seems that the current rules are far off in the future, their impact will be felt throughout our systems, as we become "performance based:”

• Understand. Familiarize themselves with the 10 Wisconsin Teacher Standards and the 7 Pupil Services Standards and the 7 Administrator Standards.
• Reflect on their own professional practice in regard to these standards.
• Plan. Plan professional development experiences, choose those that will offer training toward these standards as they fulfill local district requirements.
• Document. Keep records of their professional development experiences in a portfolio that is organized according to the 10 Wisconsin teacher standards. Keep documents that provide evidence of professional growth.
• Mentor. Think about mentoring as a positive professional experience.
• Seek Mentor training through your local district.
• Serve. Serve on local district’s professional development committee and assist them in aligning their process to the new standards.
• Stay Informed. Log on to the DPI licensure Website: http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsis/tel/newrules.html

Functional Behavior Assessment

• Is an assessment tool which allows educators to develop a “plan of attack” this is known as an action research.
• Is proactive in that it show educators where problem areas are allowing them to predict or head off future problems.
• Is simple, easy to do, and more importantly we are already doing it!

School by Time of Day (YTD)



This graph shows us the positive behavior scores for the entire school by Time of Day. We can see how the school functions as a whole per time of day. We can see a “trend” line that shows that we are experiencing our worst behaviors during our 3rd period. 1st period starts well, overall, and then positive behaviors decline through 3rd period. Our 3rd period also falls below the “error bars” suggesting that this is a significant “difference” in positive behaviors and we should look into other avenues of positive behavior incentives.

Positive Behaviors by (TOD) - School


Positive Behaviors by (DOW) - School


This graph shows us the positive behavior scores for the entire school by Day of Week. We can see how the school functions as a whole per day of week. We can see a “trend” line that shows that we are experiencing our worst behaviors Mondays. With a trend that levels out during the middle of the week and a significant increase in positive behaviors by Friday.


Positive Behaviors (YTD) - Classrooms

This next graph shows us the positive behavior scores for the entire school by Classrooms. We can then compare different classrooms to see how effective their therapeutic/academic interventions are over time (YTD).

While all classrooms fall within the “error bars” what is significant to note is that those classrooms who have embraced the “activity based” instruction model have higher positive behavior scores. (Classrooms 6, & 10 are the classrooms we utilize for all of our pilot projects as the teaching staff are more experienced and are agents of change.)


Positive Behaviors School - Average (YTD)






Positive Behaviors (DOW) - Classrooms


This graph shows us the positive behavior scores for the individual classrooms by Day of Week. We can then compare different classrooms to see how effective their therapeutic academic interventions are throughout the week.
With this information we can pinpoint trouble areas, times and days for the individual classrooms. We can predict with a degree of validity how each classroom will “behave” for any given day. This then allows us to implement different intervention strategies.

By utilizing a Functional Behavior Assessment tool not only can we observe and evaluate how well our students are progressing but it also allows us to see what areas teachers may need assistance in. This tool is not an end all and should only be used to assist in the development of needs assessment as presented by the individual teacher and their lesson planning teams with the assistance of the principal.

Evaluation:
Re-reinventing the Wheel


Currently we have evaluation tools for our educational staff. These tools are again based on a “factory” or business mentality that do not allow for the differentiational needs of our teachers’ abilities, strengths, weaknesses, nor growth, (see Appendices C, D, and E). Because of the encroaching developments of PI-34 teachers will have a “built in” evaluation process ready to implement. A process based on peer coaching, mentoring, action research, and professional observation. The problem lies in having the school district re-align themselves from the checklist concept to the more authentic assessment through portfolio construction. To further encourage this growth and development we have implemented our Functional Behavior Assessment tool which allows us to review the entire school, the classroom, time of day, day of week, and how the individual students are progressing. The evaluation process should emulate our current supervisory model of the peer coaching and lesson plan teams. The needs assessment would be developed by the teacher with the input and assistance of their mentor and administrator. This process would then exist as a more formalized observation based on the needs presented during a team meeting. This process can also be formulated individually with the teacher in order for the teacher to further develop their own personal growth.

The question lies in what outcomes are we looking for? Since this question is partially answered by both the Wisconsin Teacher Standards and PI-34 we need to reinvent our evaluation process to match these: this can be done through our existing lesson plan teams which we can refer to as our peer coaching process. We need to look beyond the standardized test scores and integrate the effective learning principles in order too make our teaching, our development, our learning constructive and authentic.