Interactions among Teachers & Administrators
There are three Indicators with this theme.
2.1 Shared Decisions: In a Climate of Non-threatening, Two-way Communication, School Administrators and Staff Collaborate in Problem Solving
This indicator, perhaps more than any other, provides insight to the extent to which the culture of the school supports collaborative action focused on improving student learning. Recent research indicates that such a culture is critical to a school’s capacity for continuous improvement. Most of the items that make up this indicator focus on the character of the interaction between teachers and the school administration in making decisions. The indicator documents the level of communication and encouragement to participate in creating a climate of openness that addresses concerns related to instructional practices, curriculum, discipline, and decisions for school improvement. While the term “trust” does not appear explicitly in the questions that comprise the indicator, it seems clear that teachers and administrators in schools that score high on this indicator would have to trust and respect one another.
Two items in this indicator deal directly with student discipline (5G & 7A). Analyses of survey data from several schools suggest that response to these questions are correlated with school effectiveness. That is not to say that schools that focus on maintaining discipline are necessarily effective but that social consensus about the definition and administration of strategies to maintain discipline is related to a focus on student learning. Separate analyses of these questions may be productive.
2.6 Involved Learning: Teachers are Involved in Decisions about Student Learning
This indicator measures the extent to which teachers participate in making decisions about instructional materials, books and the curricula. The indicator also looks into whether teachers have influence on how student progress is measured and if teachers shape the content for their own professional development activities. While engaging teachers in the design of professional development activities is important, the focus of professional development should be based on analyses of student learning and what teachers need to know and be able to do to strengthen student opportunities to learn (see discussion of Key Four). Some items in Indicator 2.1 also deal directly with teachers’ involvement in school-wide decision making so one would expect a school’s response to these two Indicators to be similar.
The issue addressed by this Indicator (and the related items in Indicator 2.1) is not whether a few teachers usefully serve on school improvement teams or are otherwise represented formally in decision making. The payoff for school improvement comes from a ubiquitous engagement of teachers, administrators and other staff in on-going, every-day, problem solving focused on the analysis of ways to improve student learning.
2.7 Involved Operations: Teachers are Involved in Decisions about School Operations
This indicator measures the extent to which teachers have influence in hiring school administrators. While such involvement is arguably desirable, there is no research on whether this affects school effectiveness. The indicator also looks at whether teachers have influence over hiring other teachers, professional staff and how discretionary funds could be used. Thus, these indicators deal with some of the most important decisions made in the school. Involving teachers in routine administrative and “operational” decisions is probably not productive and can divert teacher time and interest away from more important matters.
Research
• K. D. Peterson (2002). Culture: Positive or Negative. Journal of Staff Development 23(3), 10-13. Available at http://www.nsdc.org.
• K. Leithwood, et al., (2004) (PDF) How Leadership Influences Student Learning, Leithwood and his colleagues summarize the basics of successful leadership including the sharing of responsibilities forleadership.
• M. Knapp, et al., (2003) (PDF) Leading for Learning: Reflective Tools for School and District Leaders. This report identifies several things that school leaders, principals or teachers, can do to foster the development of shared responsibility for student learning
• North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Finding Time for Professional Development. Available at http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd300.htm. This website provides several examples of ways to restructure time in schools. Note that many of these reports were prepared in the 1990's. These are, in other words, not new ideas. Why are so few of these proposals put into practice?
• J. Richardson, Shared Culture. Available at http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/peterson233.cfm. This article discusses the role of principals in developing shared understandings.
Video Commentary
• Pedro Reyes: Professor of Education, University of Texas, Austin. Pedro Reyes discusses how KEYS contributes to common efforts that lead to high performance in a high poverty school.
• Kenneth Leithwood University of Toronto. Kenneth Leithwood defines "collaborative culture".
• Sam Stringfield, Professor of Education, University of Louisville. Sam Stringfield discusses obstacles to collaborative problem solving identified in case studies of KEYS schools. He points out that KEYS can foster communication across “silos” of isolated groups and make people aware the usefulness of school-wide communication.
• Mark Smylie, Professor of Education, University of Illinois, Chicago, talks about the importance of shared responsibility and how KEYS facilitates collaborative improvement.
2.1 Shared Decisions: In a Climate of Non-threatening, Two-way Communication, School Administrators and Staff Collaborate in Problem Solving
This indicator, perhaps more than any other, provides insight to the extent to which the culture of the school supports collaborative action focused on improving student learning. Recent research indicates that such a culture is critical to a school’s capacity for continuous improvement. Most of the items that make up this indicator focus on the character of the interaction between teachers and the school administration in making decisions. The indicator documents the level of communication and encouragement to participate in creating a climate of openness that addresses concerns related to instructional practices, curriculum, discipline, and decisions for school improvement. While the term “trust” does not appear explicitly in the questions that comprise the indicator, it seems clear that teachers and administrators in schools that score high on this indicator would have to trust and respect one another.
Two items in this indicator deal directly with student discipline (5G & 7A). Analyses of survey data from several schools suggest that response to these questions are correlated with school effectiveness. That is not to say that schools that focus on maintaining discipline are necessarily effective but that social consensus about the definition and administration of strategies to maintain discipline is related to a focus on student learning. Separate analyses of these questions may be productive.
2.6 Involved Learning: Teachers are Involved in Decisions about Student Learning
This indicator measures the extent to which teachers participate in making decisions about instructional materials, books and the curricula. The indicator also looks into whether teachers have influence on how student progress is measured and if teachers shape the content for their own professional development activities. While engaging teachers in the design of professional development activities is important, the focus of professional development should be based on analyses of student learning and what teachers need to know and be able to do to strengthen student opportunities to learn (see discussion of Key Four). Some items in Indicator 2.1 also deal directly with teachers’ involvement in school-wide decision making so one would expect a school’s response to these two Indicators to be similar.
The issue addressed by this Indicator (and the related items in Indicator 2.1) is not whether a few teachers usefully serve on school improvement teams or are otherwise represented formally in decision making. The payoff for school improvement comes from a ubiquitous engagement of teachers, administrators and other staff in on-going, every-day, problem solving focused on the analysis of ways to improve student learning.
2.7 Involved Operations: Teachers are Involved in Decisions about School Operations
This indicator measures the extent to which teachers have influence in hiring school administrators. While such involvement is arguably desirable, there is no research on whether this affects school effectiveness. The indicator also looks at whether teachers have influence over hiring other teachers, professional staff and how discretionary funds could be used. Thus, these indicators deal with some of the most important decisions made in the school. Involving teachers in routine administrative and “operational” decisions is probably not productive and can divert teacher time and interest away from more important matters.
Research
• K. D. Peterson (2002). Culture: Positive or Negative. Journal of Staff Development 23(3), 10-13. Available at http://www.nsdc.org.
• K. Leithwood, et al., (2004) (PDF) How Leadership Influences Student Learning, Leithwood and his colleagues summarize the basics of successful leadership including the sharing of responsibilities forleadership.
• M. Knapp, et al., (2003) (PDF) Leading for Learning: Reflective Tools for School and District Leaders. This report identifies several things that school leaders, principals or teachers, can do to foster the development of shared responsibility for student learning
• North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Finding Time for Professional Development. Available at http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd300.htm. This website provides several examples of ways to restructure time in schools. Note that many of these reports were prepared in the 1990's. These are, in other words, not new ideas. Why are so few of these proposals put into practice?
• J. Richardson, Shared Culture. Available at http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/peterson233.cfm. This article discusses the role of principals in developing shared understandings.
Video Commentary
• Pedro Reyes: Professor of Education, University of Texas, Austin. Pedro Reyes discusses how KEYS contributes to common efforts that lead to high performance in a high poverty school.
• Kenneth Leithwood University of Toronto. Kenneth Leithwood defines "collaborative culture".
• Sam Stringfield, Professor of Education, University of Louisville. Sam Stringfield discusses obstacles to collaborative problem solving identified in case studies of KEYS schools. He points out that KEYS can foster communication across “silos” of isolated groups and make people aware the usefulness of school-wide communication.
• Mark Smylie, Professor of Education, University of Illinois, Chicago, talks about the importance of shared responsibility and how KEYS facilitates collaborative improvement.