Mapping Professional Practice by Solution Tree

How to Develop Instructional Frameworks to Support Teacher Growth “Teaching is both a science and an art. So, how do we teach those seemingly instinctive gifts great teachers appear to possess? This engaging, enlightening, and practical book demonstrates how applying systems thinking to the nuanced requirements of teaching and working with students allows leaders to ‘operationalize common sense’ and clearly define best practices.” —GREG AXELSON, Model PLC School Principal, Coppell Middle School North, Texas

“Heather Bell-Williams and Justin Baeder use their extensive knowledge and years of experience working with educational leaders, teachers, and support staff to offer detailed guidance, evidencedriven feedback, and tools for success to promote better judgment when working with students to bring about positive outcomes.” —MARIA G. DOVE, Professor of Education, Molloy College, Rockville Centre, New York

“In Mapping Professional Practice, Bell-Williams and Baeder put forward a guide to what great leaders do best: creating vision and implementing change. They introduce the concept of invisible practice and explain how to define and measure such practices—the keys to driving sustainable change in schools.” —EDDIE VELEZ, Educational Consultant and Principal, John F. Kennedy High School, Fremont, California

Instructional frameworks have the potential to provide excellent professional guidance and accelerate both teacher and student growth. But without a clear process in place, school leaders may encounter many pitfalls as they attempt to create these frameworks. In Mapping Professional Practice: How to Develop Instructional Frameworks to Support Teacher Growth, authors Heather Bell-Williams and Justin Baeder dive into the complexities and payoffs of implementing solid frameworks that establish shared expectations and capture the complex work of teaching. Using classroom anecdotes and data-backed tools, Mapping Professional Practice illustrates how teachers and administrators alike can foster best practice, good professional judgment, and school improvement through instructional frameworks. K–12 leaders and administrators will:

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

M AP P I NG PROF ESS IONAL P R ACT I C E

• Understand the importance of developing clear and practical instructional frameworks

• Discover how to utilize specificity in frameworks to broaden staff and student success • Get ideas for proactive and preventive techniques that guide student behavior • Learn how instructional frameworks can support improvement initiatives and other applications

ISBN 978-1-954631-11-3 90000

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/leadership to download the free reproducibles in this book.

SolutionTree.com 9 781954 631113

BELL-WILLIAMS BAEDER

• Access interactive activities for creating their own instructional framework

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE How to Develop Instructional Frameworks to Support Teacher Growth HEATHER BELL-WILLIAMS

JUSTIN BAEDER

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PR ACTICE

HEATHER BELL-WILLIAMS

JUSTIN BAEDER

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

How to Develop Instructional Frameworks to Support Teacher Growth

Copyright © 2022 by Solution Tree Press Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.” Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior written permission of the publisher. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790 email: info@SolutionTree.com SolutionTree.com Visit go.SolutionTree.com/leadership to download the free reproducibles in this book. Printed in the United States of America

Names: Bell-Williams, Heather, author. | Baeder, Justin, author. Title: Mapping professional practice : how to develop instructional frameworks to support teacher growth / Heather Bell-Williams, Justin Baeder. Description: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, [2022] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022000155 (print) | LCCN 2022000156 (ebook) | ISBN 9781954631113 (Paperback) | ISBN 9781954631120 (eBook) Subjects: LCSH: Effective teaching. | Observation (Educational method) | Teachers--Professional relationships | Teacher-administrator relationships. | Classroom environment. Classification: LCC LB1025.3 .B449 2022 (print) | LCC LB1025.3 (ebook) | DDC 371.102--dc23/eng/20220512 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022000155 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022000156 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO Edmund M. Ackerman, President Solution Tree Press President and Publisher: Douglas M. Rife Associate Publisher: Sarah Payne-Mills Managing Production Editor: Kendra Slayton Editorial Director: Todd Brakke Art Director: Rian Anderson Copy Chief: Jessi Finn Production Editor: Alissa Voss Content Development Specialist: Amy Rubenstein Proofreader: Elisabeth Abrams Text and Cover Designer: Rian Anderson Editorial Assistants: Charlotte Jones, Sarah Ludwig, and Elijah Oates

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Acknowledgments

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

hroughout my career, numerous individuals have mentored me and encouraged me to find my voice as an educational leader. Thank you to the Milltown Elementary School community of educators who have been supportive of many of my initiatives, when I’m sure you may have had misgivings from time to time! Derek O’Brien and Melissa Brown, thank you for journeying with me and always being willing to try something new. Here’s to bigger books! A special shout-out to Ryan Price, who introduced me to Justin’s work several years ago; my parents; Don; and my supper-club friends, who are always great listeners. Dave Connolly, you were my inspiration from day one in a portable classroom, doing fish facts for science with a group of fourth-grade students at TL JPS. Thank you for your continued friendship and mentoring. Thank you to Garth, for always being my biggest fan, bringing out the best in me, and offering love and patience. To Connor and Kenton—thank you for your patience with and ongoing support of my work. As per your wishes, I haven’t included too many personal stories in our book! I also wish to acknowledge Justin and thank him for nudging me to discover my voice through this collaborative writing project. What began as a colleague suggesting I watch a webinar of Justin’s has grown into a valued collegial dialogue and friendship, for which I am forever grateful. Finally, I dedicate my writing to my late brother-in-law, David Embley, who always cheered for me and championed my work. No one loved to plan a trip or learn something new more than David, and it seems fitting that a book on fostering growth should be dedicated to his memory. —Heather Bell-Williams

he ideas in this book build on the work of giants in our field, most notably Charlotte Danielson and Kim Marshall. I am indebted to Danielson not only for her groundbreaking framework for teaching but also for her vision of teaching as professional work. Her influence on my career and thinking—through her writing, her work-shaping policy, and her consulting work with Seattle Public Schools during my time as a principal—is immeasurable. I am also indebted to Marshall, whose vision for reshaping teacher evaluation and the practice of instructional leadership has profoundly informed my thinking. It iii

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

is one of the great honors of my career to consider him a colleague and friend. His feedback has been immensely valuable throughout my career as an author. However, Heather Bell-Williams deserves the lion’s share of credit for the ideas in this book. Without her big ideas and bias toward action—her willingness to implement, test, and refine the approaches we’ve been discussing since 2016—this book would not exist. While I never sought to coauthor a book, when we began working together, it quickly became clear that this writing partnership needed to happen, and I am profoundly grateful to work with Heather as a thinking partner and friend. I would like to dedicate this book to Dr. Amy Baeder, my partner in life, love, parenting, and work. Thank you for sharing an office, a home, our travels, and our two amazing kids with me. It is truly an unfair advantage to have such a brilliant partner to talk education and enjoy life with.

Solution Tree Press would like to thank the following reviewers: Michele Cribb Instructional Coach Tiger Creek Elementary School Tunnel Hill, Georgia

Jennifer Steele Assistant Director, Athletics and Activities Northside High School Fort Smith, Arkansas

Jennifer LaBollita Director, English Learner and World Language Programs Revere Public Schools Revere, Massachusetts

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/leadership to download the free reproducibles in this book.

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

—Justin Baeder

Table of Contents Reproducibles are in italics. About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 1 2 4 5 6

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Rubrics to Operationalize Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aligning Expectations to Drive Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding the Need for Instructional Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Navigating This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part 1: What Are Instructional Frameworks? . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1

Defining and Developing Instructional Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Selecting a Professional Practice as the Focus of an Instructional Framework . . . . .12 Capturing the Key Components of Professional Judgment Within a Professional Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Articulating Levels of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Establishing a Collaborative Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Adopting an Insider’s Versus Observer’s View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Using the Framework to Provide Evidence-Driven Feedback on What People Are Doing, Not What They Aren’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Making Shared Expectations More Specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Buzzwords: Identifying a Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Definitions: Getting on the Same Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Checklists and Checklist Rubrics: Articulating Key Components . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Frequency-and-Extent Rubrics: Adding Nuance and Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Instructional Frameworks as Qualitative Rubrics: Arriving at the Gold Standard of Specificity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 Other Forms of Shared Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Drive-By Feedback Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Classroom Look-For Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Observation Scoring Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Handbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Step-by-Step Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 v

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Strategic Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Best-Practice Glossaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 38 38 39 40

Part 2: How to Develop Instructional Frameworks . . . . .59 4

Choosing a Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Look Upstream From Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Visit Classrooms and Hold Conversations to Discover Improvement Opportunities . . 62 Get Insider Input on Outside Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Invite Teachers to Share Their Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Identify High-Leverage Improvement Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Dig Deeper Into Root-Cause Analysis With the Five Whys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Make a Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Bounding Your Improvement Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Zoom In to the Right Level of Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Choose Your Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Focus on One Area of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Customize by Subject or Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 Be Concise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Choose Your Key Components Carefully . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Limit Total Length to One to Three Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Use Multiple Frameworks for Complex Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Examining Instructional Frameworks in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Kindergarten Explorations Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 The Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Elementary Guided Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 The Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 Middle School Science Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 The Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 Paraprofessional Behavior Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 The Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Zones of Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table of Contents

vii

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Identifying Key Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 Nonexamples of Key Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Examples of Key Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Third-Grade Classroom Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 High School Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 Middle School Fine Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 Solo First Draft of Key Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Instructional Framework Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Articulating Levels of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Behaviors and Activities Outside the Levels of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 General Characteristics of Levels 1–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Level 1: Beginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Feedback for Moving to Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 The Instructional Leader’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 What It’s Like to Move From Level 1 to Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Source of Professional Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Level 2: Developing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Feedback for Moving to Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 The Instructional Leader’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 What It’s Like to Move From Level 2 to Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Source of Professional Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Level 3: Fluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Feedback for Moving to Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 The Instructional Leader’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 What It’s Like to Move From Level 3 to Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Source of Professional Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Level 4: Exemplary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Feedback at Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 The Instructional Leader’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 What It’s Like to Practice at Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Source of Professional Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Common Problems With Level 4 Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 A Caution Against Modeling at Level 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Solo First Draft of Levels of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Instructional Framework Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

viii

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Getting Started and Getting Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Start With Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Move From Specific Examples to Characteristics of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Avoid Placing Specific Techniques at Specific Levels of Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Get Feedback From Individual Level 3 Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Test-Drive Your Draft Framework in Feedback Conversations . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Present Your Draft Framework to the Target Departments or Teams . . . . . . . . 130 Present Your Draft Schoolwide Framework to Your Leadership Team . . . . . . . . 130 Revise and Retry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Navigate False Starts and Dead Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Part 3: Instructional Frameworks in Action . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Using Instructional Frameworks for Teacher Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Creating a Neutral Third Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Using Consistent Professional Language to Help Teachers Improve . . . . . . . . . 140 Aligning Evidence With Framework Criteria Through Conversation . . . . . . . . 141 Replacing Flowery Language With Specific Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Understanding Thinking and Habits for Fluent and Prefluent Teachers . . . . . . . 143 Consider an Example: Debra—Prefluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Consider an Example: Jacklyn—Fluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Develop Habits, Patterns, and Muscle Memory by Fixing One Thing at a Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Solve Foundational Problems First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Don’t Worry About Level 4 With Struggling Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Using Frameworks as Peer-Observation Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Setting Clear Expectations for New Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Considering Broader Applications for Instructional Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . .153 Professionwide Sources of Shared Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Teacher Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Administrator Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Commercial-Program Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Self-Assessment and Professional-Growth Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 State and Provincial Strategic Plans and Improvement Initiatives . . . . . . . . 155 School, District, and Regional Shared Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 District Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Vague Staff-Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Mandates, Specific Challenges, and Difficult Circumstances . . . . . . . . . . 156 School-Improvement Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 No Resources for a Big Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Frameworks as Student or Staff Recruitment Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Frameworks as Site- or Classroom-Visit Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Table of Contents

Supporting Organization-Level Initiatives With Instructional Frameworks . . . . . . 169 Clarifying the Vision in Sufficient Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Checking Your Own Understanding of Improvement Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . 170 Finding Exemplars of Level 4 Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Maintaining Fidelity of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Comparing Bulk Change and Lean Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Diffusion of Innovations Explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Implications of Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations for School Leaders . . . . . 176 Recognize Who Should Go First When Implementing a New Initiative . . 176 Consider Lean Change With Two or More Waves of Implementation . . . 176 Expect Later Adopters to Need More Time and Support . . . . . . . . . 177 Recognize the Cost of Change for Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Appendix : Reproducibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Justin Baeder’s Ten Evidence-Driven Feedback Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Second Draft of Instructional Framework for Behavior Management for Paraprofessionals . . . . 185 Instructional Framework for High Expectations for Student Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 First Draft of Instructional Framework for Zones of Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Second Draft of Instructional Framework for Zones of Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Instructional Framework for Elementary Guided Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Evidence-Driven Instructional Leadership Road Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Instructional Framework for Hannah’s Classroom Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 First Draft of Instructional Framework for Balanced Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Team- and Department-Level Shared Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Grade-Level Team Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Discipline-Specific Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Interdisciplinary, Elective, and Specialist Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Preventing Grade Inflation on Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Managing Team Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Frameworks for Individual Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Handling Role Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Managing Student Teachers and Interns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Playing a Less Directive Role With Teachers at Higher Levels of Fluency . . . 163 Other Ways to Use Frameworks With Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Managing Teachers Who Resent Feedback, Argue, or Cry . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Treating All Teachers Fairly, Regardless of Personal Issues or Differences of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Frameworks for Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Supporting One Student and One Paraprofessional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Promoting Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Clarifying the Zones of Regulation in Student-Friendly Language . . . . . . . 164 Helping One Student Address a Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Questions and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Compare Your Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Second Draft of Instructional Framework for Balanced Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Draft Key Components for Instructional Framework on Scaffolding Strategies for Teachers of English Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 First Draft of Instructional Framework for SEL Interactions for Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Second Draft of Instructional Framework for SEL Interactions for Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Instructional Framework for Morning Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Instructional Framework for Vertical Team Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Instructional Framework for One Paraprofessional Working With One Student (Hope) . . . . . . 201 Instructional Framework for Student Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 First Draft of Instructional Framework for Zones of Regulation in Student-Friendly Language . . 203 Instructional Framework for One Fifth-Grade Student (Dan) Managing and Self-Regulating at Recess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

About the Authors

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Heather Bell-Williams is the principal of Milltown Elementary School in St. Stephen, New Brunswick, Canada. Her focus during her twenty years in the principalship has included academic, social, and community interventions to promote community growth and wellness. Heather has been in education since 1988 and has served as a classroom teacher, resource teacher, vice principal, district coordinator, and elementary school principal. Heather has facilitated leadership development modules; professional development at the district, provincial, and national levels; and professional development for not-for-profits. She is a member of the New Brunswick Teachers’ Association In-School Administrators Committee and a former member of the New Brunswick Provincial Principals’ Advisory Committee. In 2019, she won the Vince Sunderland Memorial Award for Outstanding Educational Leadership. Heather is a certified life coach and a trained Fierce Conversations facilitator and has completed numerous courses and programs to foster the integration of special needs students in the general classroom setting. Heather has contributed to her professional associations’ publications and has been a presenter at the Canadian Association of Principals Conference and at Learning Forward. Heather received a bachelor’s degree in psychology from York University; two bachelor of education degrees from York University, with specialties in primary-junior and reading education; and a master’s degree in educational administration and leadership from the University of New Brunswick. Heather resides in St. Stephen, New Brunswick, with her husband, Garth. They have two adult sons, Connor and Kenton. To learn more about Heather’s work, or to contact Heather, visit https://consultHBW.ca.

xii

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Justin Baeder, PhD, is director of the Principal Center, where he helps school and district administrators build capacity for instructional leadership. Driven by the belief that leaders belong in classrooms, he created the Instructional Leadership Association to help school leaders confidently get into classrooms every day, have feedback conversations that change teacher practice, and discover their best opportunities for school improvement. The Instructional Leadership Association now has thousands of members in more than forty countries. Prior to starting the Principal Center, Justin served as a teacher, head teacher, and principal in Seattle Public Schools, finishing his ten-year career in Seattle as principal of Olympic View Elementary.

Justin holds a PhD in educational leadership and policy from the University of Washington, where he is a graduate of the Danforth Educational Leadership Program. He holds a master of education degree in curriculum and instruction from Seattle University and a bachelor’s degree in science education from Harding University. He resides in Heber Springs, Arkansas, with his wife, Amy, and two daughters, Vivienne and Genevieve. To learn more about Justin’s work, or to contact Justin, visit www.PrincipalCenter.com or follow @eduleadership on Twitter. To book Heather Bell-Williams or Justin Baeder for professional development, contact pd@SolutionTree.com.

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

He has contributed to School Administrator, Principal, Principal News, Principal Navigator, and Education Week. Justin presents regularly at state and national conferences, including the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Learning Forward, and the National Association of Elementary School Principals, and has spoken at numerous in-person professional learning events in the United States, Canada, and El Salvador, as well as at countless virtual events.

Introduction Justin stopped me in my tracks with one sentence: “Heather, it seems like you’re trying to operationalize common sense.”

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

“That’s it exactly!” I replied. In one of our earliest conversations, I was telling Justin about my efforts to help a paraprofessional make better decisions in high-stakes situations with students with challenging behaviors. In contrast to other staff, who seemed to intuitively understand how to use behavior plans faithfully but flexibly to keep students on track in the classroom, this particular staff member seemed to be working from a completely different playbook. “I just wish she had more common sense!” I said in frustration. “I know good professional judgment when I see it, but I can’t hire all new people who have it—it has to be teachable.”

s we talked about the situation, we realized that professional judgment and commonsense decision making were at the heart of the problem—no matter how specific the behavior plan for a student, it still required in-the-moment decision making. And I was at a loss for how to teach this kind of judgment if a staff member didn’t seem to have it. In the months that followed, we forged a process for creating frameworks to help educators improve their professional judgment and decision making. What once had seemed like an innate ability soon emerged as a teachable set of competencies, and we discovered that our process for articulating these competencies could be applied to the work of any educator working in any specialty. To improve educator practice, we need not just a shared commitment to growth but also a shared language that describes, in great detail, the ways that practices change as improvement takes place. Improvement is not simply about using more “best practices” more of the time; it’s about engaging in qualitatively different practices and ultimately improving professional judgment. In this book, K–12 educators will discover how to create instructional frameworks— rubrics describing specific areas of professional practice in enough detail to serve as useful 1

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

guides to growth. We wrote this book because we have seen the power of clear expectations, yet we have also seen the many pitfalls of establishing the wrong kinds of expectations—for example, oversimplified checklists lacking in nuance. All too often, efforts to establish clear expectations for professional practice miss the point, squeezing the heart and soul out of teaching and learning. Reducing teaching to a series of steps or checklist characteristics seems both wrong and disrespectful to the deep work of teaching. It is essential that we get it right, to avoid insulting oversimplifications of the complex work teachers do and to capture the heart of practice—what we call the insider’s view—in ways that actually help teachers improve. The instructional frameworks you’ll learn how to create in this book have several notable features. They focus on a specific area of practice. While we draw inspiration from Charlotte Danielson’s (2007) broad and comprehensive Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, we believe there is power in narrowing our focus to a specific practice, perhaps even within a specific subject or grade level.

They are organized into key components, each capturing an essential dimension of the practice in question.

They are organized into rubrics describing levels of fluency in rich detail so that it’s easy to see where a teacher’s current practice falls and what the next level of practice would be like.

Before we dig into the process of creating instructional frameworks, the following sections will outline several important aspects underlying the frameworks themselves. We will discuss why we should use rubrics to operationalize improvement and how to align expectations to drive instructional growth before delving into the need for instructional frameworks. This introduction will conclude with a description of how the book is organized, for easy reference as you begin your journey using instructional frameworks to map improvement.

Using Rubrics to Operationalize Improvement After our initial conversation about operationalizing common sense, I (Heather) spent a few weeks observing and taking notes. I began contrasting good and bad judgment as I observed different support staff (sometimes referred to as paraprofessionals, educational assistants, teaching assistants, or instructional aides) implementing individual student behavior plans (ISBPs). I took notes on what worked and what didn’t and started to organize my notes into a rough rubric to see whether I could identify transferrable principles—which wasn’t a given, since each student had a unique ISBP and each paraprofessional had a unique approach to working with students. Fortunately, patterns started to emerge—for example, I noticed that some staff would make comments that would confuse, upset, or trigger power struggles with students. In contrast, others would

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Introduction

Key Component

Level 1 Beginning

Level 2 Developing

Level 3 Fluent

Level 4 Exemplary

Reinforces expectations for student behavior

Struggles to follow the behavior plan the teacher or team has constructed. Needs frequent reminders to follow the plan.

Changes the plan periodically without consultation or discernment.

Understands the reasons for specific elements of the behavior plan and knows why the teacher or team has picked specific strategies for an individual student. Follows the plan and allows for some deviation based on common sense.

Guides student in self-assessing success relative to ISBP. Works with student and teacher to follow the plan and asks supervisor for ways to make the plan even stronger. Contributes relevant information around constructing the ISBP in the case conference setting.

Effectively de-escalates student behavior and seeks to correct versus punish misbehavior.

De-escalates student behavior and recognizes the need to de-escalate his or her own behavior and to stay calm.

Appropriately responds to student misbehavior

Does not engage with students who are misbehaving. Ignores misbehavior or engages another staff member to respond to the misbehavior.

Focuses on fair

being equal.

Takes misbehavior personally. Does not connect adult behavior to student misbehavior. Believes there is “no reason” for the misbehavior. May unknowingly trigger a student to misbehave.

Figure I.1: Instructional framework for behavior management for paraprofessionals.

Maintains a focus on teaching replacement behaviors when the student is calm. continued

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

deftly avoid these types of comments. As I took more and more detailed notes about the differences in how different paraprofessionals spoke to students, I began to identify the specific components of what I had been thinking of as “common sense.” As Justin and I had more conversations, it became clear to us that a single point like “appropriately responds to student misbehavior” left too much open to individual interpretation. We unearthed a range of definitions of what various folks felt was “appropriate,” and I started to organize these ideas on a continuum. Justin had been teaching a course on creating instructional frameworks for teachers, and I started to wonder whether the idea of identifying key components and levels of fluency could transfer to a rubric for support staff work. Ultimately, I arranged these components into a framework and began using it to help paraprofessional staff improve their professional judgment when working with student behaviors—and it worked! (See figure I.1.) I did not need to hire new people with more common sense. Rather, I needed a clearer vision of good practice, operationalized in a framework.

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Level 1 Beginning

Level 2 Developing

Level 3 Fluent

Level 4 Exemplary

Uses proactive and prevention techniques with students

Presents with a rigid mindset and can become insistent around a specific issue, resulting in escalation of student behavior.

Makes judgment errors in terms of the need around prevention. Stays in one place (either too close or too far away) while on duty—unable to intervene and prevent misbehavior.

Is flexible and relies on a variety of prevention techniques that can be used interchangeably with different students in different contexts. Is seen to be in a reinforcing state of mind.

Utilizes subtle and proactive techniques to manage student behavior before it becomes negative. Takes extra time to develop one-on-one relationships with many students to prevent misbehavior.

Engages in respectful interactions with students

Is unaware of tone of voice and its impact.

Is not fully aware of his or her own triggers and can become loud and sound annoyed— unable to transfer feedback to new situations.

Knows when to speak to a student and when to be quiet and wait. Can recall the need for a particular stance or tone of voice after receiving feedback and can apply the feedback in new and different situations.

Can interact and intervene in a calm and supportive tone of voice and always takes a supportive stance in a variety of situations with students and their parents and with other staff.

Properly applies nonviolent crisis intervention (NCI) theory and practice

Either has not yet been trained, and so does not feel comfortable engaging in the NCI anxietyreduction process, or, although trained, is unwilling to make attempts at de-escalating student behavior.

Wants to help and use NCI theory. Willingly jumps into escalated situations, frequently misapplies NCI theory, and misattributes the cause of the misbehavior.

Understands the progression of misbehavior and makes sound decisions that keep students and staff safe from injury or self-harm. Is willing and able to re-establish therapeutic rapport with students.

Knows the triggers and signs of each stage of NCI for many of the students in the school and can jump into a situation, supporting other staff and students, to safely de-escalate student behavior. Coaches other staff to re-establish therapeutic rapport.

Aligning Expectations to Drive Growth Around the same time, I ( Justin) was working to help school and district leaders articulate shared expectations for teacher practice to drive instructional improvement. I was struck by the importance of professional judgment in Heather’s situation—she was working with paraprofessionals as well as classroom teachers, and the need for clarity about complex aspects of decision making was just as urgent with both groups. We discovered together

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Key Component

Introduction

over the following months and years that clear, shared expectations can make an enormous difference in practice—and indeed can actually improve professional judgment—if they’re articulated in the right way. Too often, though, we try to oversimplify our shared expectations, creating checklists that describe “what we want to see” in a reductive way that misses the point and drives educators to frustration instead of helping them grow. For example, while it’s essential for lessons to have a well-chosen objective aligned to content standards, this often gets reduced to checklist-style expectations like “The objective and standard are written on the board.” Teachers know there is a difference between compliance and strong professional practice, and they particularly resent being dinged for failing to comply with simplistic expectations when they’re getting what really matters right.

Understanding the Need for Instructional Frameworks We began working together on instructional frameworks at just the right time to address three specific issues Heather’s school was facing. First, as an experienced principal, Heather had developed habits and office routines to get into classrooms regularly—visiting at least three classrooms per day—and was developing processes for checking in with individual teachers by engaging in short conversations about their work. Heather used the ten questions from Justin’s first book, Now We’re Talking! 21 Days to High-Performance Instructional Leadership (Baeder, 2017; see the reproducible “Justin Baeder’s Ten Evidence-Driven Feedback Questions,” page 184, in the appendix), but after a few rounds of observations, the conversations started to feel a bit forced, especially with teachers who were already proficient and doing well. Second, Heather’s school had an improvement plan that included verbs like implement and demonstrate but lacked a way to measure improvement around abstract ideas like “implements the Zones of Regulation program.” There was no tangible way to demonstrate improvement or growth. Finally, Heather had an interaction with a paraprofessional who showed misalignments of understanding about the evaluation criteria (which consisted of only one sentence). It became evident very quickly that staff needed a common language for improvement. In Now We’re Talking!, Justin outlined a path for leaders to get into classrooms regularly, engage in powerful feedback conversations with staff, and use the language of shared instructional frameworks in feedback conversations (Baeder, 2017). One major source of such language may be your organization’s official teacher-evaluation criteria. While some criteria may be too vague to be helpful, those based on high-quality rubrics like Charlotte

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

In this book, you’ll learn how to articulate shared expectations that create a road map for growth while capturing the insider’s view. Rather than emphasizing what a practice looks like to an observer visiting the classroom, we’ll help you articulate what a practice is like—and especially what it feels like for the professional enacting it—so you can help teachers and other staff move to higher levels of fluency in specific dimensions of practice.

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Danielson’s (2007) or Kim Marshall’s (2013) have ample language for discussing professional practice with specificity and nuance. If you are using language from your evaluation criteria in conversations about practice, you have likely found that it helps to get everyone on the same page, makes it easier to discuss areas for growth, and reduces disagreements over formal evaluations.

It was clear to both of us that the concept of creating an instructional framework for staff improvement and growth around very specific aspects of practice held great promise for not only supporting good teachers to become even better but also giving leaders and administrators a mechanism for quantifying more abstract school-improvement initiatives and for reaching agreement on what was expected for staff. We believe that instructional frameworks are one of the most powerful tools that you can have in your toolbox to support staff growth and improvement at all levels of performance.

Navigating This Book In this book, you’ll learn how to identify opportunities for improvement through classroom observations and conversations with teachers, how to draft an instructional framework by listing key components of the practice and articulating levels of fluency for each component, and how to use the resulting framework to drive improvement in a variety of professional learning contexts. In part 1, you’ll learn about the key features of instructional frameworks. Chapter 1 introduces readers to the key elements and purposes of instructional frameworks, including key components, levels of fluency, and the insider’s view of professional practice. It also explains how to use instructional frameworks to provide evidence-driven feedback and create growth pathways for teachers and other education professionals. Chapter 2 focuses on making shared expectations more specific, exploring different approaches to outlining shared expectations, and examining the unique set of features that make instructional frameworks so powerful. Chapter 3 examines instructional frameworks in action, providing several in-depth case studies to illustrate the range of practices that frameworks can describe.

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

However, formal evaluation rubrics are often too broad to provide the detailed guidance teachers need to grow in grade- and subject-specific areas of practice. For example, what about a new teacher who needs to learn what it’s like to teach vocabulary in tenthgrade English classes? Overall evaluation criteria will be of little help. Or consider an experienced middle school science teacher who is now teaching high school chemistry and needs to shift his or her thinking around how to structure lab experiments. Where can that teacher look for guidance? What about the second-grade teacher who moves to kindergarten and needs a new language for thinking about mathematics instruction? Broad teacher-evaluation rubrics are unlikely to address these questions in enough detail. Experienced teachers will find most of the opportunity for growth in the specifics of the grade and subject, not the broad criteria used to evaluate all teachers.

Introduction

In part 2, you’ll learn how to create instructional frameworks. Chapter 4 shows you how to prioritize your improvement efforts and determine a specific focus for your framework that will lead to the greatest improvement in the shortest amount of time. In chapter 5, you’ll learn how to bound the scope of your improvement focus so the framework remains manageable and useful. Next, chapter 6 begins the work of identifying key components, or the specific dimensions of professional judgment within your chosen focus that will form the rows in your instructional framework. Chapter 7 discusses how you should articulate levels of fluency, helping you describe specific features of professional practice at each level, from beginning to exemplary. Finally, chapter 8 explores the rest of the process of bringing your framework to life, including the crucial step of engaging your collaborative team in the remaining development and revision work.

At the end of each chapter, you’ll find a summary describing where we are in the process of creating instructional frameworks and clarifying how the current focus contributes to the overall process. Items in the Questions and Activities sections are for you to initially consider on your own. Then, in the Compare Your Notes activity, you’ll be guided through how you might collaborate with your team at each step of the process. While we believe that school leaders have a bird’s-eye view of the entire organization that provides a unique perspective on the best opportunities for improvement, it’s important to recognize that this process involves everyone on the team. It is our hope for you that this book will provide you with the road map that you need to foster staff growth and improvement, through the creation and application of instructional frameworks.

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

In part 3, you’ll learn how to use instructional frameworks to drive improvement in a variety of different situations. Chapter 9 discusses using instructional frameworks as road maps for teacher growth and performance regardless of a teacher’s current level of performance. While teacher improvement is the primary goal of this book, instructional frameworks can also be used for broader purposes, and chapters 10 and 11 go into greater detail regarding these broader applications—from using frameworks with individual students to establishing organizational-level shared expectations and even supporting organizational change initiatives.

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Chapter 4

Choosing a Focus

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

ow that you’ve seen several examples of instructional frameworks and understand how they can support professional growth, you’re ready to begin working on your own framework—but what should it be about? How can you and your team choose a focus?

While you may envision developing a comprehensive, handbook-style framework covering every area of practice, we encourage you to start small and keep your efforts tightly focused. Developing one focused framework at a time will allow you to see the impact of your efforts and to gain experience that will inform future frameworks. The broader your focus, the harder it will be for staff to prioritize their improvement efforts, and the longer it’ll take to develop a useful, high-quality framework. The tighter your focus, the faster you can take advantage of specific improvement opportunities. In this chapter, we’ll explore the following approaches to choosing a focus that will have the greatest impact in the shortest amount of time. z

Look upstream from data.

Visit classrooms and hold conversations to discover improvement opportunities.

Get insider input on outside ideas.

Invite teachers to share their thinking.

Identify high-leverage improvement opportunities.

Dig deeper into root-cause analysis with the five whys.

Make a hypothesis.

Look Upstream From Data As educators, we’ve been trained and conditioned to use data to drive improvement. We want to know our current reality in quantitative terms so we can decide what actions to 61

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

take and then monitor the impact of those actions. For example, you might have fall assessment data showing that 67 percent of students are reading at grade level. You might then set a goal to get a larger percentage of students—say, 88 percent—reading on grade level by the midyear assessment. But how will you accomplish that goal?

Visit Classrooms and Hold Conversations to Discover Improvement Opportunities We believe that getting into classrooms on a daily basis is the absolute best way for leaders to identify the best opportunities for improvement. In Now We’re Talking!, Justin gives school leaders a system for getting into classrooms every day, with a goal of three classrooms per day and a yearly total of more than five hundred classroom visits (Baeder, 2017). These visits—and, more specifically, the ensuing conversations with staff, which help you learn the context behind the practice and avoid observability bias—create a context for growth by strengthening professional relationships and providing rich firsthand information about teacher practice, including the thinking behind the observable aspects of teaching. In chapter 1 (page 11), we discussed the idea of observability bias, the misconception that we’re able to directly observe everything a teacher is doing. In fact, because teaching involves numerous behind-the-scenes and in-the-moment decisions, what we see teachers doing is only a fraction of their overall thinking and decision making. To make this cognitive work visible, and to make collective meaning of it, we must engage in conversation about practice. As leaders, we have a tendency to think that observation alone can tell us precisely what each teacher needs to do differently. In some instances, that might be true, but more often, we’ll gain critical insight from talking with the teacher before drawing conclusions. Imagine observing a teacher who has students clean out their desks every Friday during language arts, taking up substantial instructional time. This would certainly justify a conversation with the teacher. However, before you jump to the conclusion that the

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Analyzing data can tell us whether what a teacher is doing is working, but it doesn’t address what the teacher is doing or how the teacher might improve it. If we don’t identify a strategy to spur improvement, goals for teacher growth are little more than wishful thinking. To make the leap from data to a focused instructional framework, we must look upstream from the data, at practice—what people are actually doing. In his book Upstream: The Quest to Solve Problems Before They Happen, business author Dan Heath (2020) highlights the importance of looking beyond symptoms to the root causes producing them. If we want to improve teaching and learning, data—a downstream consequence of practice— won’t contain enough information about the source and nature of the problem. Our knowing that 67 percent of students are reading at grade level doesn’t give us direct insight into teacher practice. In the following sections, we’ll explore a range of strategies for investigating the practices that are contributing to the results you’re getting so that you can choose the most promising focus for your instructional framework.

Choosing a Focus

teacher is wasting time on purpose, or that the teacher doesn’t understand the importance of teaching content during that time, it’s essential to talk with the teacher to uncover the thinking behind the observed practice. Use of instructional time during language arts instruction could become the focus of an instructional framework, but without your starting a conversation, it’s impossible for you to know what kinds of shared expectations or support the teacher might need. Looking at practice but not talking about it enables leaders to jump to the wrong conclusions. As with assessment data, we must look upstream of observed practice to examine the thinking behind it and pinpoint the specific opportunities for growth. Recalling the iceberg metaphor from chapter 1 (page 20), we might think of observed practice as the visible 10 percent of the iceberg and the teacher thinking and decision making as the submerged 90 percent.

Developing clarity takes time and consistency; a one-off effort to visit classrooms and identify an improvement focus is not enough. In your initial visits, rather than normal teacher practice, you are more likely to see practice that teachers tailor for your presence. As teachers grow more accustomed to your visits, you’ll start to see their more typical day-today approaches, and you’ll get a better sense of the true opportunities for improvement.

In Focus: A Practical Example Visiting classrooms regularly has been on my (Heather’s) to-do list for all my years as a school principal. During much of my time in the role, I went through various iterations of checklists, sticky notes, carbonless forms, Google Forms, tallies on the office wall, and countless other tricks only to lose traction by Halloween, when the tyranny of the urgent overcame my best intentions. Then a colleague prompted me to watch one of Justin’s webinars on classroom walkthroughs. I recall vividly the first time that I heard Justin say that school leaders needed to be in classrooms every school day, with the goal of five hundred classroom visits per year. At the time, I felt he was being completely unrealistic and thought he’d been away from the reality of school life for far too long! Our schedules were full, and this seemed like just another item to add to a series of impossible demands on our time. However, when you take away the fancy forms and the slick-looking paper checklists, getting into classrooms every single day is at the heart of instructional leadership. It’s the only way to identify the areas that need attention and ultimately our biggest opportunities for improvement. If nothing else resonates in this chapter continued

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Visiting classrooms every day is no easy feat—it demands strategies, tools, and habits that take time to implement and refine (see Baeder, 2017, for specifics about how to do this). But by working with front-office staff to minimize interruptions, keeping each visit short, and spreading visits throughout the day, leaders can get into classrooms on a consistent basis and have rich conversations with staff, gaining a unique bird’s-eye view of teaching and learning. This perspective gives instructional leaders exceptional insight into the most productive areas of focus for instructional frameworks.

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

about how to choose the focus of an instructional framework, hang on to this one key idea of regular, intentional, daily visits to classrooms. By the time I’d been doing walkthroughs for several months, staff and students were very comfortable having me in the classroom. I knew the majority of staff and students had adjusted to having me visit regularly when a third-grade teacher and her students cooked up a plan to mimic the animated toys from the Toy Story movies. The teacher would say, “Andy’s coming!” when she saw me approaching the room, and the students would drop automatically to the floor! It was fair to say that we had reached a good comfort level, and I was gleaning a lot of great information schoolwide from my visits.

As our administration team did regular classroom observations, we noted that the teachers in grades 3–5 were particularly focused on improving mathematics instruction and achievement, especially in number and operations. The story of this team is described in Elementary Guided Mathematics, one of the case studies in chapter 3 (page 41), which details the two-year process that led to our instructional framework. If I were leading that team today, we would explore more quickly how to articulate growth in an instructional framework.

Get Insider Input on Outside Ideas Senior leaders often encounter improvement ideas outside the organization—including at conferences, in articles and books, and in marketing materials from vendors—and may become convinced that teachers should use a new program, technique, or approach. However, it’s best to avoid the urge to push new ideas or techniques on teachers without deep, sustained discussion of the practice in question and the opportunity for improvement. Data showing positive effects of these new techniques in other contexts are no substitute for actual staff buy-in; while it may be tempting to look at assessment results and jump straight to a decision, without deep and sustained conversations with teachers and school leaders, there remains a high risk that the chosen solutions will fail to address the root issues. Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan (2012) indicate that: The basis of any successful . . . reform . . . is going to be built on shared experiences, trusting relationships, and personal and social responsibility, as well as transparency. What pulls people in, teachers all the more so, is doing important work with committed and excited colleagues and leaders engaged in activities that require creativity to solve complex problems and that make a real difference. (p. 151)

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Our school-improvement plan included the target of improving mathematics achievement, and teams were responsible for identifying specific goals for improvement. In my travels throughout the school, a couple of themes started to emerge—themes and ideas that would become obvious only to someone who was visiting all the classrooms and talking to all the teachers on a regular basis.

Choosing a Focus

This kind of mutual engagement and shared commitment to solving problems stands in stark contrast to top-down mandates imposing outside ideas on teachers without their involvement or consent. In Nuance: Why Some Leaders Succeed and Others Fail, Michael Fullan (2019) highlights the qualities of leaders who aren’t in a hurry to make changes to bolster their own image but rather “can work with individuals and groups in a manner that develops personal meaning and collective identity to learn about and transform the landscape at this particular moment in history” (p. 13). Fullan (2019) asserts that lasting change involves at least the following pieces, all of which speak to the need for ongoing collaborative interaction. • Jointly determined change involves developing unity of purpose and action with those in the organization, pursuing and staying the course through continuous interaction.

adjust or pivot, to use a modern language equivalent, according to what is being learned. • Culture-based accountability establishes strong mutual commitment and responsibility through trust and interaction. (p. 13)

Further, school leadership expert Todd Whitaker (2010) asks: • Who among us hasn’t returned from a professional conference or workshop all fired up about a new idea or program introduced by an excellent speaker? Our first exposure was great, and we’re excited to have our colleagues and organization adopt, say, project-based learning. . . . Some colleagues respond with indifference, others with negativity. . . . What on earth happened? (p. 21)

Whitaker (2010) goes on to present nine steps for introducing lasting, positive change, all of which involve building relationships and having conversations with individuals and groups on staff. In Leading Change in Your School, author Douglas B. Reeves (2009) spends the entire book outlining the need for a well-thought-through process for change in school: the conditions for change, planning for change, essentials of change implementation, and sustaining change. Clearly, change requires a degree of planning and an understanding of the process of change, not merely a return from a conference with new ideas and an edict to implement right away. While vendors pitch many products and programs as one-size-fits-all solutions, it’s worth taking the time to ensure the right fit with regard to the specific challenges your organization faces. Take the time to get to the root issue together by making collective sense of the problem, the opportunity for improvement, and the proposed solution. Rushing into

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

• Effective focus means that adaptability enables the organization to

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

a solution without enough discussion will result in more resistance—or, worse, a solution to the wrong problem.

Invite Teachers to Share Their Thinking When I (Heather) first started doing classroom observations and engaging in conversations about teaching, it was difficult to think of what to say or how to ask questions that got to the issues beneath the surface. Figure 4.1 builds on ten questions Justin introduced in Now We’re Talking!, and we recommend using these questions to initiate conversations with teachers (Baeder, 2017). Note how these questions identify a specific piece of evidence—the visible tip of the iceberg—and invite teachers to elaborate, providing their interpretation of the evidence, their thinking and reasoning, and additional context from the classroom and curriculum.

. Could you talk to me about how

2. Perception: Here’s what I saw: what you thought was happening at the time?

. How does that compare with

3. Interpretation: At one point in the lesson, it seemed like What was your take?

4. Decision: Tell me about when you response?

. What went into that

5. Comparison: I noticed that students with what you had expected to happen when you planned the lesson? 6. Antecedent: I noticed that up to that, perhaps in an earlier lesson?

. How did that compare

. Could you tell me about what led

7. A djustment: I saw that do you plan to do tomorrow?

. What did you think of that, and what

8. Intuition: I noticed that

. How do you feel about how that went?

9. A lignment: I noticed that instructional framework? 10. I mpact: What effect do you think it had when you

. What links do you see to our ?

Source: Adapted from Baeder, 2017, pp. 105–106. Figure 4.1: Questions to initiate conversations with teachers.

These questions can lead to insights about the teacher’s thinking and professional judgment and identify what types of feedback, support, or professional development might create the most direct path to improvement. This approach goes beyond providing feedback on what you actually observed and how the teacher might do it more effectively; since a great deal of teacher practice isn’t directly observable, getting the teacher talking is essential for identifying opportunities to improve aspects of practice other than the specific actions that were observed.

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

1. Context: I noticed that you that fits within this lesson or unit?

Choosing a Focus

In some feedback conversations, where more obvious issues present themselves, you may find these questions to be too indirect. If you clearly saw a problem or other major opportunity for improvement, it’s best to say so directly and provide the specific guidance the teacher needs to improve. For example, if you observe a lesson in which students at the back of the room talk disruptively while the teacher gives directions, and the teacher notices but ignores this behavior, you may want to state your concerns and expectations more directly rather than trying to help the teacher arrive at the right conclusion through indirect questioning. In most cases, though, it’s helpful to give teachers the opportunity to provide more context and their own perceptions of the lesson by asking a few open-ended questions using the stems in figure 4.1. Then you can decide whether to continue asking open-ended questions or to take a more directive stance.

As you search for a focus for your instructional framework, it’s essential to pursue the most worthwhile opportunities. There simply isn’t time to address every minor annoyance or pet peeve you have. And since there will never be enough time to develop frameworks for every area of practice, you must prioritize. To be worth the investment of time and effort that will go into developing and using a framework, a potential focus should meet the following four criteria. 1. High frequency: Instructional frameworks are most helpful for practices that teachers use frequently, or areas of practice that are relevant nearly all the time. For example, if your primary teachers do a morning message every day as part of their reading and writing instruction but spend only a few weeks a year on poetry instruction, it’s probably not worth focusing your framework development efforts on poetry instruction. However, if a group of teachers is looking to improve its approach to morning messages, it’s high frequency enough to be a good focus for an instructional framework. For the same reason, you may want to focus on practices relevant to the largest-possible number of teachers, though it can also be valuable to focus very narrowly to help specific teachers, teams, or departments improve. 2. High variability: Frameworks should address practices that have a high degree of variability in the level of performance from teacher to teacher. If your primary teachers are spending a great deal of time on morning messages and their practice exhibits a wide range of effectiveness (or if all have substantial room for improvement), morning messages may be a useful focus. However, if everyone on the team is already a superstar at morning messages, the practice probably doesn’t warrant attention. Look for variability across the profession too—if you know teachers in other schools are using far more effective practices, it’s worth learning from this school-to-school variability to bring your school up to par. A team of teachers who

©️2022 by Solution Tree Press

Identify High-Leverage Improvement Opportunities

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

are equally, consistently poor at morning messages will benefit greatly from an instructional framework. 3. High impact: A worthwhile focus will have a major impact on student learning. If teachers have significant room for improvement with a given practice, but it’s somewhat tangential to major student outcomes, it may not be worth your time. For example, teachers may have room for improvement in how they take attendance or pass out papers, but unless they are wasting significant time with inefficient procedures, it’s probably best to focus on something more central to teaching and learning.

If a practice meets these four criteria, then you’re ready to develop a hypothesis and investigate whether focusing on this practice as you develop an instructional framework would solve the right problem.

Dig Deeper Into Root-Cause Analysis With the Five Whys To ensure that you’re looking far enough upstream and addressing the right opportunity for improvement, ask the five whys. As author Jeffrey K. Liker (2021) explains in The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles From the World’s Greatest Manufacturer, the automotive company developed the five-whys process to assist people in identifying and addressing problems’ root causes, rather than proximate causes. By asking why five times in succession, leaders and teachers can use this quality-improvement technique to get to the heart of professional practice. For example, a teacher who is struggling with classroom management may benefit from training and coaching on behavior-management techniques, but if the ultimate problem is the teacher’s inability to plan engaging lessons, it’s essential to address that upstream problem, not just the downstream symptoms. Keep asking, “Why?” in an attempt to get to the root of the problem of practice or the opportunity for improvement.

4. High leverage: A practice needs to be something you have the leverage to change— something you can realistically impact. For example, an approach that would require an entirely different curriculum that you aren’t at liberty to use, a level of training that won’t fit the budget or calendar, or equipment or materials you can’t currently afford may not be the best focus. Focus on practices that you can influence in the short to medium term with available resources and viable levels of professional development and support.

Choosing a Focus

In Focus: A Practical Example Cindy is an experienced principal newly appointed to a large high school serving a high-needs population, including many students reading below grade level. As she observes in classrooms and talks with teachers, she notes an absence of rigor in the texts that students are reading in English classes; juniors and seniors are reading texts typically used in sixth or seventh grade.

Imagine being in Cindy’s situation (see the “In Focus: A Practical Example” text box). What possible root causes might she inquire about and discover as she observes in classrooms, examines student work, and talks with teachers? As she talks with teachers about their practice, she might go through the following series of questions and answers. z

Eleventh-grade students are reading novels and completing assignments more appropriate for sixth grade. Why?

Because many students are reading below grade level and teachers are giving them below-grade texts and work they can succeed with. Why?

Because teachers do not know how to scaffold and differentiate for students who read and write below grade level to help them access on-grade content and standards. Why?

Because they haven’t been trained how to scaffold and differentiate. Why?

Because we haven’t held teachers accountable for teaching grade-level standards and have allowed them to teach below grade level. Why?

Note that the root cause, after asking “Why?” four times, turns out to be not just a problem of instructional practice but a problem of leadership. The answer to the final “Why?” is, in effect, “Because I haven’t addressed this yet.” While an instructional framework cannot remedy a long-standing failure of leadership, it’s important to identify and correct the root issue in addition to getting clear about shared instructional expectations. As the newly appointed principal, Cindy can identify and take responsibility for addressing the root issue by providing professional development, support, and accountability for teachers to start addressing grade-level standards.

Cindy meets with her team to try to determine what’s at the root of this problem— why are teachers not using grade-level texts? She has numerous conversations with staff to try to understand this apparent lack of rigor. As she looks at student work, she notices that students are working on tasks aligned with standards far below grade level; for example, eleventh graders are reading a novel appropriate for sixth graders and receiving no opportunities to engage with text as outlined in the eleventh-grade standards. One obvious solution would be to insist that teachers assign tasks and novels appropriate for their grade levels, but this might not address the underlying issue. What else might Cindy discover as she digs deeper into the causes of the current practice she’s seeing?

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

With this leadership commitment in place, Cindy is ready to develop an instructional framework that addresses the clear classroom-teacher need her investigations have brought to light: an understanding of how to scaffold and differentiate for students. This focus meets the criteria we identified previously: It’s high frequency, since all instruction needs to be aligned to grade-level standards; Cindy’s walkthroughs have shown that there is high variability in current practice; and teaching to grade-level standards certainly has a high impact on student learning. Cindy also has high leverage over this area of practice—she can provide professional development, support, and accountability to change teacher practice. Note that Cindy uses the five-whys process to find a point of leverage, not to place blame or avoid responsibility. For example, while poverty might be the ultimate reason so many students are reading below grade level, Cindy is responsible for addressing instructional quality, not poverty.

When using the five whys to identify the root cause of a problem, concentrate on the thinking behind the behavior, not the visible behavior itself. While it may be easier to give feedback on observable practices, there’s far more leverage in improving teachers’ professional judgment. For example, Cindy could simply direct teachers to stop assigning below-grade novels, but this would not address the deeper need to learn how to scaffold and differentiate to help students master grade-level standards. However, teacher decision making doesn’t drive all observable practices; often, curriculum or other organizational expectations drive what you see. For example, when I (Heather) began using the five-whys process, I often wondered, “Why did the teacher choose this activity?” The answer often turned out to be simply because the curriculum specified it. The reality is that many curricula will provide not only the main lesson activities but also minilessons and suggestions for dealing with student learning issues—for example, mathematics curricula often provide minilessons to support students in overcoming specific and predictable misconceptions. Before settling on a focus for an instructional framework, you’ll make numerous false starts and reach countless dead ends as you explore possibilities. Some problems that may appear to be matters of teacher practice may ultimately be problems of curriculum or other organization-level decisions. Other problems may be rooted in causes outside our sphere of influence as educators and require creative solutions or specialized interventions that go beyond changes in teacher practice. The challenge in using the five-whys process is to find a point of leverage where clearer shared expectations can improve professional judgment and thereby improve student learning.

As you utilize the five-whys process to identify root causes of problems with teaching practice, please note that it is not helpful to use this process to place blame on parents, policymakers, or society at large. School leaders and administrators have no control over the actions of external stakeholders, so there’s no point spending time hoping to fix something we can’t. The process should, however, be used to identify areas you do have control over and can affect positively—areas over which you have leverage. This will provide you with the greatest chance of success as you select an area of focus for your instructional framework.

Choosing a Focus

Make a Hypothesis Once you’ve identified an area of practice that addresses a root problem and meets the four high-leverage criteria, the next step is to state it as an if-then hypothesis. We like to think of this as magic-wand thinking. Imagine that you could wave a magic wand and accomplish X, which would then cause Y to occur. For example, Cindy might phrase her hypothesis as “If we train teachers to scaffold and differentiate, they’ll be able to teach novels that reflect grade-level standards, even though many of our students read below grade level.” To write a hypothesis, ask yourself the following questions. What is the improvement opportunity?

Does it meet the four criteria—(1) high frequency, (2) high impact, (3) high variability, and (4) high leverage?

What is the underlying issue—the root cause—behind this opportunity? Have we identified a cause that falls within our sphere of influence?

What might we do to plausibly take advantage of this improvement opportunity?

Could an instructional framework impact teacher decision making? Would clear shared expectations lead teachers to make better decisions?

If this works, what will happen, and will we be happy with the result?

Then state your hypothesis in if-then terms. If your hypothesis feels both plausible and high leverage, you’re on track. To move forward, it’s not necessary to test your hypothesis; that will come later. The purpose of articulating a hypothesis now is to make sure it passes the sniff test: Is it plausible? Does it ring true? Do you believe yourself when you say it out loud? See the following “In Focus: A Practical Example” text box to read how Cindy thought out and articulated her own hypothesis.

In Focus: A Practical Example Cindy hypothesizes that teachers aren’t clear on how to differentiate for students who have difficulty reading grade-appropriate texts and that teachers don’t understand how to scaffold the learning. She reasons that if teachers learn how to scaffold and differentiate, they’ll be able to teach grade-level standards, even though many of the students read below grade level. Cindy knows that she must clearly articulate exemplary practice so that teachers understand how to help all students succeed with grade-level texts. Her draft framework is shown in figure 4.2 (page 72). Cindy notes that each of the key components in her draft framework could be further broken down into its own components—for an example, see the reproducible “Instructional Framework for High Expectations for Student Learning” in the appendix (page 186)—but she’s decided to keep her framework as concise as possible. In chapter 5 (page 77), you’ll learn how to bound your framework so it doesn’t become unwieldy.

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Level 1 Beginning

Level 2 Developing

Level 3 Fluent

Level 4 Exemplary

Scaffolding

Teacher conducts no preassessment and shows no evidence of scaffolding.

Teacher preassesses all students’ knowledge of the grade-level standard but fails to integrate scaffolding techniques into lessons.

Teacher implements scaffolding techniques with small groups of students to allow them to access grade-level standards.

Teacher divides work into manageable chunks for individual students and offers a scaffolding tool to support their independent completion of each chunk.

Differentiation of texts

Teacher gives some students eleventhgrade texts, some sixth-grade texts, and others ninthgrade texts.

Teacher gives all students a differentiated text based on reading level, with no attempt at scaffolding.

Teacher gives a differentiated text— same content, lower reading level—to students for whom scaffolding does not work in providing access to the grade-level standard.

Teacher takes a fully integrated approach to reading instruction to bring students’ reading levels closer to grade level, as well as teaches other grade-level standards.

High expectations

Teacher groups students according to ability and gives on-grade texts only to those in the highest group, the only students the teacher expects to meet grade-level standards.

Teacher incorporates standard into full class lessons for all students. Teacher bases follow-up work on ability and does not entirely relate it to the standard.

All students interact with the standard and have the opportunity to reach the standard.

Students have the opportunity to extend their work beyond the standard by doing self-directed projects.

Student groupings

Teacher offers whole-class—one lesson for all, same content—follow-up activities based on three ability groupings.

Teacher offers mainly whole-class instruction, with some attempts to differentiate content.

Teacher offers some whole-group lessons and is able to differentiate the content in the lesson to reach all learners. Teacher ensures small groups reflect a mix of all abilities.

Students group themselves together and choose text(s) based on interest.

Figure 4.2: Cindy’s first draft of instructional framework for rigor in high school English.

Key Component

Choosing a Focus

In Focus: A Practical Example For the various frameworks we’ve discussed from Heather’s school, consider the following hypotheses. If we implement the Zones of Regulation curriculum, then students will learn to self-regulate their emotions in social situations. (See chapter 3, page 41, and the reproducibles “First Draft of Instructional Framework for Zones of Regulation” and “Second Draft of Instructional Framework for Zones of Regulation,” pages 189 and 190, in the appendix.)

•

If we implement an hour-long daily explorations block in kindergarten, student achievement in oral language skills will improve. (See chapter 3, page 41.)

•

If we implement guided mathematics, our students’ achievement in number and operations will improve. (See chapter 3, page 41, and the reproducible “Instructional Framework for Elementary Guided Mathematics,” page 191, in the appendix.)

Not all of these initiatives began with the five whys and a hypothesis, but even if you’re responding to a mandate, articulating a hypothesis can be a helpful exercise to ensure that your framework will address a high-leverage area of focus that will plausibly lead to improvement.

Conclusion In this chapter, we discussed strategies for choosing a focus for your instructional framework. By looking upstream from data and observable behavior, having in-depth conversations about teacher practice and thinking, and using the five-whys process, we can find highleverage improvement opportunities. It may take several tries, but when you arrive at a plausible hypothesis, you’re ready to move forward in developing your framework. The next major challenge is finding the scope sweet spot—the right-sized opportunity for improvement. We need to find the middle ground between a vague, big-picture vision—the kind of statement you’d see painted on the gym wall—and an overly detailed binder of expectations encompassing virtually everything. We’ll discuss bounding your focus in chapter 5 (page 77).

•

REPRODUCIBLE

Questions and Activities It’s time to take your first steps toward creating your own instructional framework. The following activities involve bigger steps than in previous chapters, but don’t worry—you don’t need to make any final decisions at this stage. Just make tentative choices so you can start talking with your colleagues and moving forward. Ask yourself the following questions. 1. Getting into classrooms every day is the single best way for school leaders to discover their best improvement opportunities. What strategies, tools, and habits do you need to put in place to get into classrooms daily?

3. Think of a time you used data to make a school-improvement decision. What practices could you explore if you looked upstream from the data?

page 1 of 2

2. Review Justin’s ten feedback questions from this chapter (see figure 4.1, page 66) and try using them in a feedback conversation with a teacher. Based on the conversations you’ve had with your colleagues so far, what areas of focus come to mind?

REPRODUCIBLE

4. Think about the buzzword you identified in chapter 2 (page 39) as a possible focus for creating an instructional framework. How does it measure up against the four criteria—is it (1) high frequency, (2) high impact, (3) high variability, or (4) high leverage? Ask yourself the following questions to help you draft an if-then hypothesis. z z z z z z

What is the improvement opportunity? Does it meet the four high-leverage criteria? What is the underlying issue—the root cause—behind this opportunity? Have we identified a cause that falls within our sphere of influence? What might we do to plausibly take advantage of this improvement opportunity? Could an instructional framework impact teacher decision making? Would clear shared expectations lead teachers to make better decisions? If this works, what will happen, and will we be happy with the result?

Then state your hypothesis in if-then terms.

REPRODUCIBLE

Compare Your Notes In a collaborative team or with a colleague, complete the following tasks. 1. Now that you’ve written a hypothesis, it’s time to compare notes with your colleagues. Share your hypothesis with your teammates. If they have written hypotheses, listen to their thinking. Together, start to come to a consensus about a hypothesis that rings true for your situation.

2. Once you have a hypothesis, start to consider whether an instructional framework would be a useful tool to impact teacher decision making and to improve teachers’ professional judgment. If your hypothesis is supported, what will happen?

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

M AP P I NG PROF ESS IONAL P R ACT I C E

• Understand the importance of developing clear and practical instructional frameworks

ISBN 978-1-954631-11-3 90000

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/leadership to download the free reproducibles in this book.

SolutionTree.com 9 781954 631113

BELL-WILLIAMS BAEDER

• Access interactive activities for creating their own instructional framework

MAPPING PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE How to Develop Instructional Frameworks to Support Teacher Growth HEATHER BELL-WILLIAMS

JUSTIN BAEDER