possible session outcomes · 2011. 6. 20. · purpose !!to change the relationship paradigm of...

© 2011 Palo Verde Associates and CMSi 1 No reproduction allowed without permission

Presenter

Dr. Carolyn J. Downey

Palo Verde Associates

7450 Olivetas Avenue, Unit 40

La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

[email protected]

NESA Fall Conference

October 2011

2011 PVA 2

POSSIBLE SESSION OUTCOMES

!! Discuss issues participants have regarding the walk-through and reflective conversation and respond to those issues.

Depending upon conversation of group---

!! Describe the need for a different supervisory process than most administrators use.

!! Specify how the Downey walk-through structure and reflective conversation fits into a different type of supervisory process.

!! Describe misconceptions and misapplication of the Downey approach.

!! Urge administrators to use a collaborative and reflective approach to supervision and the teacher appraisal process.

Outcome 1


INFORMAL

CONVERSATION

Let’s begin by discussing

issues/questions you

have regarding the walk-

through and reflective

conversation which I

suggest be used.

© 2011 PVA 4

Outcome 2

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 6

SUPERVISION? !!What your role as a supervisor

(whether school-based or district-

based)?

–!NOT JUST WALK-THROUGHS—

ENTIRE SUPERVISORY PROCESS

!!How important is this role

responsibility in relation to other

roles of administrators?

!!Discuss with learning partner or

table team.


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 7

PURPOSE OF

THREE-MINUTES WALK-

THROUGH TRAINING

APPROACH To provide principals, assistant principals, mentor teachers, and others who coach teachers strategies for using:

(1) a 5-step structured classroom observation informal walk through approach, and

(2) reflective inquiry in follow-up conversations

as a vehicle for maximizing student achievement.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 8

DOWNEY’S REAL

PURPOSE !! To change the relationship paradigm of

principal-teacher supervision and the teacher-appraisal process.

!! To move to collaborative interdependent reflective inquiry conversations between principal and teacher and teacher and teacher.

!! Help administrators have a set of beliefs that are built around how people grow/change in their practices and be willing to risk changing their own behavior to being capacity builders.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 9

.


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 10

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 11

Garmston (2000)

!! Defines feedback as “observations from

others about one’s performance,

particularly when the information is

judgmental, (‘You made a good synthesis

when…’) or comes with advice (‘Next time

you might…’).”

!! “When mentors, coaches, and supervisors

report their observations to teachers, they

build the teacher’s dependence on that

input and that actually robs the teacher of

working the internal muscles necessary to

improve their ability to self-reflect.”

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 12

Sanford (1995) Feedback

!! “External feedback actually reduces the capacity for accurate self-reflection.”

!! Continuing feedback reinforces the expectation that others will and should tell us how we are doing and reduces our capacity to be self-reflective and self-accountable….

!! Research suggests that externally-introduced feedback seems to interfere with learning to manage oneself


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 13

Garmston (2000)

Two Feedback Myths

(teachers and students)

!!Myth #1: Feedback causes people

to see themselves more accurately.

!!Myth #2: Feedback improves team

effectiveness.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 14

DuPont and Colgate-Palmolive

!! Team members listened to feedback about how to be better workers.

!! Feedback came from peers, supervisors, and/or subordinates.

!! Goals were to understand one’s impact on others and to improve one’s ability to work with others.

!! However, what occurred was that the feedback undermined these goals and was negative in some cases.

!! The feedback model was not found to effect the desired changes in employee growth.

© 2011 CMSi


SUPERVISION IS A

HUMAN

ENTERPRISE

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 17

.

Theory X versus Theory Y Drucker, 1974

Theory X

!! belief that people have to be coerced into doing a good job, do not want to work, and lack internal motivation to grow;

!! therefore, supervision is viewed as the means by which employees are forced to work.

Theory Y

!! based on the belief that people want to do a good job, want to work, and have an internal motivation to grown and learn

!! Therefore, supervision is viewed as a. means by which we enhance an employee’s learning and growth in one’s practice (Downey)

© 2011 PVA & CMSi


EVALUATION

Formative vs. Summative

!!On-going

!!Fluid

!!Growth

!!Coach

!! Improvements

!!Advocate

!!Event

!!Static

!!Status

!!Judge

!!Contract

!!Neutral

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 21

Peterson 2000

!!Researchers and scholars are in

agreement that the evaluation

process as we know it is insufficient

and ineffective, and, unfortunately,

this practice has been quietly

accepted

!!Quotes from Peterson from noted

researchers


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 22

Medley & Coker, 1987

!! To this day, almost all educational personnel decisions are based on judgments which, according to the research, are only slightly more accurate than they would be if they were based on pure chance (p. 243)

!! [Twelve studies from 1921 to 1959] reached the same conclusion: that the correlation between the average principal’s ratings of teacher performance and direct measures of teacher effectiveness were near zero (p 242)

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 23

More Quotes

!!Scriven, 1981, pp. 244, 251

Teacher evaluation is a disaster. The practices are shoddy and the principles are unclear.…

!!Stodolsky, 1984, p. 17

Evaluators are mistaken if they assume they are observing the typical behavior of a…teacher with the usual [evaluation] procedure.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 24

Wise, Darling-Hammond,

McLaughlin, & Bernstein,

1984, p. 22

!!Almost all respondents [to a survey of 32 district central offices]…felt that principals lacked sufficient resolve and competence to evaluate accurately.


© 2011 PVA & CMSi

25

Johnson, 1990, P. 266 !! Teachers interviewed for this study

roundly criticized formal

supervision and evaluation practices…

[saying] that they are… not effective for

improvement.…

!! Administrators are rarely prepared to

offer…useful advice,…virtually never…

providing an opportunity for learning

!! ….Very good teachers…regard the

practice as an institutional obligation to

be endured rather than an opportunity to

be seized.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 26

Wolf, 1973, p. 160 !!Teachers mistrust evaluation. They

feel that current…techniques fall short of collecting information that accurately characterizes… performance.

!!They perceive…rating as depending more on the idiosyncrasies of the [evaluator] than on their own behavior in the classroom.

!!Teachers see nothing to be gained from evaluation.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 27

Frase 2004 Teacher evaluation systems are often

!!not sensitive to particular teaching settings,

!!are biased, superficial, and demoralizing,

!!are neither credible nor reliable,

!!are not focused on defensible criteria,

!!are not grounded in clear rationale and policy, and

!! most importantly, are not influential (Shinkfield & Stufflebeam, 1995).


© 2011 PVA & CMSi

28

YOUR THOUGHTS

!! What are your findings?

!! What are your staff thinking?

!! Do you think any changes need to be made in the processes of your appraisal systems? In carrying it out?

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 29

Effective Evaluation

Systems (Colby, Bradshaw,

& Joyner 2002)

!!District commitment to allocation of resources

!!District capacity for change

!!Teacher evaluation as it relates to the methods and procedures of process

!!How the evaluation environment supports professional development.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 30

CARL GLICKMAN

Shift away from conventional or

congenial supervision toward collegial

supervision !! Collegial rather than a hierarchical

relationship between teachers and

supervisors

!! Focus on teacher development rather than

teacher conformity

!! Facilitation of teachers collaborating with

each other in instructional improvement

efforts

!! Teacher involvement in on-going reflective

inquiry


Outcome 3

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 32

ULTIMATE GOAL: TO INFLUENCE...

!!Reflective, self-directed, self analytical, interdependent teachers who examine their own practices (even those who initially are at the dependent level).

!!Teachers continually willing to improve their teaching.

!!Teachers who are committed to teaching the district curriculum and working for ever higher student achievement.

DOWNEY HISTORY/RATIONALE

Walk-Throughs

!!Symbolic to Growth Focus

!!Hunter to Costa (Differentiation)

!!Direct to Indirect

Hunter Costa

Intervention Cognitive

!! Inspectional Reflective

Supervision Supervision

!! Then Glickman and Developmental

Supervision (Differentiation) © 2011 PVA & CMSi


Flow of Supervisor/Employee Relationships

Interdependent!

Independent!

Dependent"

Adult-Adult!

Adult- Adolescent!

Adult-Child!

Berne#s Trans-!

actional Analysis!

Covey#s Stages!

Of Dependency"

Collaborative!

(Downey)"

Indirect!

(Costa)!

Direct!

(Hunter)"

Type of Dialogue !

Interaction!

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

PERCEPTION OF

PERSON’S CAPACITY !!Passive, capable, accepting, not initiate

–! TELL

!!Passive, have to be motivated, goal conflicts

–! SELL

!!Decision makers, problem solvers

–!FACILITATE, ENHANCE, COLLABORATE, ENCOURAGE REFLECTION

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

Paradigm Shift

CONVENTIONAL

!!Controlling environment

!!Hierarchical Structure

!!Rewards and punishments

!!Extrinsic motivation

!!Supervisor control

COLLEGIAL

!!Growth environment

!! Learning Community

!!Recognition for growth

!! Intrinsic motivation

!! Inner locus of control

© 2011 PVA & CMSi


Paradigm Continued CONVENTIONAL

!! Default mentality to others deciding and I follow

!! Origin of Behavior—Others

!! Boss-manager

!! Work as task

!! Approval

!! Others for efficacy

COLLEGIAL

!! Self Governing by increasing knowledge

!! Origin of Behavior—Self

!! Lead-manager

!! Work as joy

!! Increase capacity

!! Self efficacy

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF INTERACTION!

ON-GOING!

SELF-ANALYSIS!

PROFESSIONAL

GROWTH TARGETS !FOR IMPROVING

PRACTICE!

SEARCH FOR

RESEARCHED PRACTICES!

THE REFLECTIVE TEACHER!

Collaborative Interactions !

And Learning Together" © 2011 PVA & CMSi

Outcome 4


Walk-Throughs

and Follow-up Conversations

!! Short 2-4 minute informal observations

!! Data/Observation 1-2 minutes

–!Primary focus

•!Curriculum decisions

•! Instructional decisions

!! Consideration of possible follow-up

conversation 1-2 minutes

!! Follow-up conversations 5-10 minutes

–!short one-on-one ”reflective" opportunities

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

STEPS IN OBSERVATION #1. Management: Orientation of Student

to the Work

#2. Curriculum: Determine Curricular Objectives and Alignment to District Curriculum and Identify Possible Decision Points for Reflection

#3. Instruction: Note Instructional Practices Used and Identify Possible Decision Points for Reflection

#4. [IF TIME] “Walk-the-Walls:” for more Curricular and Instructional Decisions

#5. Safety and Facilities: Happens Naturally © 2011 PVA & CMSi

© 2011PVA & CMSi

Some Thoughts about the 5

Step Observation Structure

!!Step 1 and 5 are red flags--would be direct

!!Step 1 is not about engagement strategies a teacher uses. This would be noted in Step 3.

!!Step 1 has always been about attending behavior—classroom) –!Are the students doing what the

teacher has asked them to do.


© 2011 PVA & CMSi

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 44

KEY PROCESSES

!! INFORMAL INTERACTIONS

!!NO FORMS OR CHECKLISTS

!!JOYFUL INTERACTION

!!DIGNITY OF PROFESSIONAL

ADULTS

!!NOT ANSWERING TO THE

PRINCIPAL BUT FOCUS ON

REFLECTIVE THOUGHT AND

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE.

INTERDEPENDENT: THE Reflective

Question ATTRIBUTES !! Decision (teacher as a decision-maker)

!! Choice (no one right answer)

!! Criteria Used (analysis cognition minimally)

!! About One’s Practice Not About This Lesson Observed (use present tense)

!! Many Situations/Contexts (plural)

!! Analysis, Synthesis, or Evaluation Cognitive Thinking

!! Neutral/Non-judgmental (neither positive nor negative in tone)

!! Positive Presuppositions (assumes person is thinking about and doing what is presented in the question)

!! Honor What Was Observed (if possible)

!! Impact on Student Learning (cause and effect analysis) © 2011 PVA & CMSi


© 2011 PVA & CMSi

Pedagogical

Event Reflection-on-

Action

Reflection-for-

Action

Reflection-in-

Action

Both reflection-in and reflection-on-action are essentially

reactive in nature, being distinguished primarily by when

reflection takes place, with reflection-in-action referring to reflection in the midst of practice and reflection-on-action

referring to reflection that takes place after an event.

Reflection-for-action is “the desired outcome of both

previous types of reflection.” We reflect not so much to

revisit the past or become aware of the meta-cognitive process of the moment, but to guide future action.

Schön (1983)

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 48

Reflective Model has

Five Levels of Questions !! Level 1: Criteria a teacher uses

!! Level 2: Fidelity of use--does the teacher

find that the criteria is used consistently

!! Level 3: Does using the criteria get the

desired results

!! Level 4: In using the criteria does one get

the desired student achievement

!! Level 5: Satisfied that the criteria is

institutionalized in one’s teaching, it is

working, and one doesn’t need to think

much more about it.


FORMING THE TEACHING

PRACTICE FROM THE TEACHER

DECISIONS

TEACHER

DECISION

Approach to

selecting and

ordering objectives

Call on

volunteers

Teaching: Multiple

two digit figures

Strategies for

calling on students

TEACHING

PRACTICE

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

HOW TO PREPARE IN YOUR MIND

LEVEL 1: CRITERIA

!! Teacher

Thinking and

Teaching Practice

!! Situation and

Condition—when does teacher

typically make this

decision?

!! And thinking about the many approaches you might have students to respond (such as volunteer or non-volunteer, all students, one student)

!! When you are planning lessons around the district curriculum and designing the questions you will ask and then posing those questions in your teaching © 2011 PVA & CMSi

HOW TO STATE: 5 POSITIVE PRESUPPOSITIONS !! Situation and

Condition

!! Teacher Thinking and Teaching Practice

!! Criteria

!! Decision Maker

!! Student Impact

!! “When you are planning lessons around the district curriculum and designing the questions you will ask and then posing those questions in your teaching

•! And thinking about the many approaches you might have students to respond (such as volunteer or non-volunteer, all students, one student)

!! what criteria do you use

!! to decide on those approaches

!! to influence each student’s accountability of the learning?”

© 2011 PVA & CMSi


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 52

THE REFLECTIVE

QUESTIONS !!First Component

!!Think after you have your teaching

practice clearly in mind

!!Situation--Mainly about planning

!!Focus on lessons or units of study

around the district curriculum

!!Add caveats--conditions

!!Phrase usually starts with the

word “when”

© 20011 PVA & CMSi 53

The Reflective Question

Second Component !! And thinking about

!! [ways, approaches, strategies, types of, methods, when to and when not to]

!! (teaching practice)

–!Usually in descriptive words rather than the label

–! If use label, add after saying in descriptive manner

!! And add examples for clarification

–!Honor that used as one of the examples

!! See additions to 4-29. Run these off for use during the training.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 54

Typical Curricular and

Instructional Practices

!!Let’s review the list.

!!Would we use and distribute this list?

!!How do we deal with district teacher proficiencies on the formal evaluation process?


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 55


!! Third Component

!! Level I is really about the criteria a teacher

uses in deciding about a teaching

practice.

!! Use the word criteria in all of your

examples orally

!! Encourage participants to use the this

phrase before moving to others as they

become more comfortable with the

question

!!

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 56


!! Third and Fourth component are stated in one phrase –! What criteria do you use in deciding

about [teaching practice generally)

!! Fourth component

–! Teaching practice comes back generally

–! No new ideas at this time

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 57

The Reflective Question !! 5th Component

!! First four phrases about teacher thinking and action

!! Last component about students

!! Cause (teacher action)

!! Effect (student learning)

!! As participants gain comfort here begin to have them link the student effect to the teaching practice when it makes sense.

–! E.g. and thinking about ways to differentiate the learning

–! E.g. so that each student moves forward in his/her learning

!! Watch out for judgment words here--ensure, maximize, best, better


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 58

REFLECTIVE QUESTION

!!Really a series of phrases

!!Phrases are positive presuppositions

!!Level I starts at the analytical level

!! Interview the phrases during the conversation

–!Then come back near the end of the conversation and pull phrases all together

!!Always part of a conversation

!!Never written--not the way we write

!!Set time frame (8-15 minutes)

!!Make positive statement about reflection

!! Focus on teaching practice

!! Indicate how classroom observation triggered this area for reflection

!!Pose Reflective Question

!!Allow time for clarification and interaction on question and begin criteria

!! Indicate choice to think about question

!! Invite reflection with you, if desired

!!Exit quickly

THE Reflective Conversation

INTERACTION

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 60

Reflective Conversation

!! Add near the beginning--alert to purpose

–! I have a reflective question you might be interested in thinking about

!! Add near the end--choice to think about question and invitation to collaboration

–! If you find the reflective question interesting an decide to think about it and would like to chat more with me about it, let me know.

!! What makes it collaborative is when the teacher chooses to come back and talk with you about it.

!! We don’t force collaboration.


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 61

Enhancements to


!! Add ideas of bringing a reflective question for consideration (early)

!! Near end, invite collaboration… “If you decide to reflect on this question and would like to come and chat with me about your learnings, I would love to chat with you.”

–! It only become collaborative when the teacher chooses to make it collaborative

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

62

YOUR THOUGHTS

!! What are your thoughts about using walk-throughs and follow-up conversations with reflective questions as one tool in the role of supervision and the appraisal process?

Outcome 5


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 64

How does the Downey

Approach to Walk-

Throughs and


DIFFER

from other types of

walk-through

approaches?

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 65

Underlying Philosophy

!! Rogerian--person in process of becoming

!! Constructivist--Existing knowledge is used to build new knowledge

!! Motivational Theory Y-belief that people want to do a good job, want to work, and have an internal motivation to grown and learn (Drucker, 1974)

!! Choice Theory and Lead Manager-Glasser

!! Focus on self-analysis and sense of power and self-efficacy

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 66

SELF-DIRECTED GROWTH

BASED ON ANALYSIS OF

ONE'S WORK IS AN

ATTRIBUTE OF

PROFESSIONALISM


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 67

More Beliefs

!! Monitoring and inspecting in a fear-compliance environment will not produce growth.

!! Higher student achievement is a product of cultivating a new culture focused on growth and an inner locus of control.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 68

More Beliefs

!! People seek ways to grow and develop over time.

!! People benefit from engaging in reflective dialogue.

!! The most productive relationship is one of interdependence and collaborative and comprises adult-to-adult conversations.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 69

More Beliefs

!! Supervisors play a key role

in facilitating staff growth

and reflection.

!! The culture of the district

and a school is greatly

influenced by supervisor

and principal behavior.


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 70

Reflection and Renewal:

The Mechanism of Growth

(Steffy, 2000) Reflective discourse

"! Can happen with self and others.

"! Involves assessing reasons and examining alternatives.

"! Involves a critical assessment of assumptions.

"! Becomes the means by which practitioners can develop a greater level of self-awareness about the nature and impact of their performance.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 71

Judith Irwin (1987)

“A reflective/analytical teacher is one who makes teaching decision on the basis of conscious awareness and careful consideration of (1) the assumptions on which the decisions are based and (2) the technical, educational, and ethical consequences of those decisions.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 72

REFLECTIVE THINKING

!!The process of making informed and logical decisions, then assessing the consequences of those decisions

!! Taggert and Wilson,1998

!! Promoting Reflective Thinking in Teachers, Corwin Press


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 73

Reagan (2000)

Gains from Reflective

Practice !!Helps free teachers from impulsive

behavior.

!!Allows teachers to act in a deliberate, intentional manner.

!!Distinguishes teachers as educated human beings because it is one hallmark of intelligent action.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

74

YOUR THOUGHTS

!! What beliefs to you have that influence your supervisory role?

Creating a Culture of Learning

Using the

Appraisal

Process to

Influence

Learning—a

Human

Development

Enterprise

© 2011 PVA & CMSi


Peter Senge (1990)

A Learning Organization

(Community) is… !! “A place where people continually expand their

capacity to create the results they truly desire,

!! where new and expansive patterns of thinking are

nurtured,

!! where collective aspiration is set free, and

!! where people are continually learning how to learn

together.”

!! We think of this capacity for collective actions and

attitudes as leadership.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

!! “An ecosystem; that is, its participants are interdependent and connected in their learning and work.

!! When some participants learn, others also learn and benefit.

!! When problems stay unresolved, the whole community suffers.

!! The whole of the community is greater than the sum of its parts.

!! What we accomplish as a group exceeds the sum of our individual efforts.

!! Interdependent communities tend to organize themselves around key ideas and issues.”

Peter Senge (1990)


(Community) is…

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

!! “Involves a continual ‘wave’ of conversation

characterized by exploration, inquiry, construction

of meaning, and action.

!! Embedded in these processes is the development

of relationships that grow in density as educators

work collegially to unfold the learning cycle.

!! This is the process of “co-evolution in schools.”

!! It is constructivist learning.

Peter Senge (1990)


(Community) …

© 2011 PVA & CMSi


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 79

School as a Learning

Organization !! The traditional approach to helping

educators learn has been to develop the skills of individuals to do their work better.

!! I’m talking about enhancing the collective capacity of people to create and pursue overall visions…

!! Learning occurs “at home,” so to speak, in the sense that it must be integrated into our lives, and it always takes time and effort.

Source: John O’Neil, “On Schools as Learning Organizations: A Conversation with Peter Senge,” Educational Leadership, vol. 52, no. 7, April 1995, pp. 20-23

© 2011 PVA & CMSi

REMEMBER !!We are not looking for strengths and

weakness.

!!We are not looking for areas to reinforce or refine.

!!We are looking for DECISION POINTS of the teacher and selecting possible follow-up conversations areas that might stretch the teacher—are growth producing.

!!Purpose—to start them on a journey, to plant a seed.

© 2005 CMSi

ANALYSIS !!HOW WAS YOUR PREVIOUS

UNDERSTANDING OF THE 5-STEP WALK-THROUGH STRUCTURE THE SAME OR DIFFERENT?

!!HOW WAS YOUR PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE REFLECTIVE CONVERSATION THE SAME OR DIFFERENT?

!!WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE?


© 2011 PVA & CMSi 82

MENTORING THE

REFLECTIVE PRINCIPAL !!Four 2 day seminars over several

months

!!Focus on supervision of principals

and other administrators by

superintendents/assistant

superintendents

!! Includes trainer of trainers session

for university professors and

system administrators.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 83

SERIES GOALS

1. To mentor/coach school-based administrators toward reflective practice and establishing a culture of reflective practice with and among staff.

2. To enhance the collaborative interaction and learning relationship of the supervisor/ mentor and principal/assistant principal.

3. To perpetuate groups of principals (especially feeder school principals) to work together in their interventions for higher student achievement.

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 84

SERIES GOALS Cont.

4. To move administrators toward greater self-reflective practice in their decision-making.

5. To rethink the supervisor-principal role from a hierarchical structure to a collaborative. interaction and with a focus on continuous growth.

6. To consider protocols which supervisors/mentors can use with school-based administrators as they coach, mentor, and collaborate for higher student achievement.


SIX Coaching Protocols in this Program

!! Monthly Supervisor’s Principal School and

Classroom Visitations Protocol

!! Feeder Team Principals SchoolView: Gathering

Trend Data on Curricular and Instructional

Practices Protocol

!! Feeder School Principals' Joint Academic Goals

and Interventions Protocol

!! Superintendent’s Mid-Year and Annual Feeder

School Principals Dialogue

!! Team Approach for Working with Low Performing

Schools Administrative Staff Protocol

!! Listening to the Voice of Your Principals Protocol © 2011 PVA & CMSi

CONTACT INFORMATION

!! Texas Association for School Administrators

–! Contact: Susan Holly, Assistant Executive Director, Instructional Support and Leadership Development

–! 406 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701

–! Phone: (512) 477-6361 ext. 115 Fax: (512) 482-8658

!! Curriculum Management Systems, Inc.

–! Contact: Holly Kaptain, Executive Director

–! 5415 NW 88th Street, Suite #300

–! Johnston, IA 50131

–! Email: [email protected]

–! Phone (515) 276-8911 Fax (515) 276-8912

© 2011 PVA & CMSi 87

CLOSURE

!! Share ONE idea that has been significant to

you during our time together.

!! One thing that has been significant to me:

–! learned

–! relearned

–! validated

–! want to learn more about

–! etc.

!! Share in one sentence your idea round robin

in your group.

possible session outcomes · 2011. 6. 20. · purpose !!to change the relationship paradigm of...

Documents