Findings
Data from the CMS interviews suggest that some teachers have been successful in developing positive relationships with students. As one faculty member stated, “We have pockets of success stories and good relationships and good rapport.” However, this faculty member added that “We have pockets of the opposite. We have teachers who yell and put kids out of the classroom for minor infractions.” One teacher cited discipline as an issue in student-teacher relationships: “I think what causes the bad relationship is when ... the relationship becomes toxic because the kids are not being disciplined.” Overall, interviewees expressed a desire to develop meaningful relationships, within a system of high expectations to expand opportunities to create connections.
Data from the CMS case study also suggest that the campus is in the developmental stages of building a professional learning community. CMS has adopted an observation protocol for administrators to give teachers feedback about their performance, often referred to as ‘walkthroughs.’ The focal points of this walkthrough system are Community, Alignment, Rigor, and Engagement, also known as the C.A.R.E. model. Faculty interviews revealed differences in perceptions of the C.A.R.E. model. Based on faculty responses, feedback given by administrators appeared to be primarily for evaluative purposes, not coaching. Teacher comments suggest a need for sufficient time for professional growth and reflection. Statements such as “We get feedback. It doesn’t affect me, really, at all,” and “They [administrators] …come in and look for lesson plans, so they can see exactly what we are doing. It doesn’t affect the way I teach,” indicate that observations are not consistently used. Another teacher recalled, “I never sat down about feedback with [Principal Crook]. I got a sticky note, but no detailed analysis.” Another stated that he did receive feedback, but the feedback was not timely.
On the other hand, Principal Crook stated, “I have a strong coaching piece here at Cullen and with my administrative team, I am very explicit on what I expect.” He explained, “I, along with my administrative team and any support staff, we’re constantly coaching teachers and there is a strong conversation piece and follow-up on the feedback I give them.” While Principal Crook envisions the C.A.R.E. instrument as a tool to “coach teachers to greatness,” the data shows that it is not yet being fully implemented to achieve those results.
Some teachers also expressed a desire to collaborate with each other more often. Comments like “[collaboration between teachers] needs to really happen” and “something [needs to be] set up in the school where teachers can have time to diagnose and dissect problems” suggest that Cullen teachers seek collaborative time to discuss pedagogy. One teacher had heard about Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and acknowledged the meetings, but believed they turned into gripe sessions. The data reveals that not all faculty share a common vision for peer coaching at CMS. One teacher felt that teachers “are never encouraged to watch other teachers.” Another member of the faculty asserted that “as a campus, we aren’t ready for teacher-to-teacher observations using C.A.R.E.; we are working towards that.” One member of the faculty voiced another view, saying that teachers “are getting burned out. [We weren’t] getting the support we needed.” Principal Crook and CMS teachers acknowledge the need for additional opportunities to sharpen their craft. Time for PLCs has been built into the 2011-2012 schedule to allow content-area planning time. The recommendations that follow may be used to strengthen teacher effectiveness.
Data from the CMS case study also suggest that the campus is in the developmental stages of building a professional learning community. CMS has adopted an observation protocol for administrators to give teachers feedback about their performance, often referred to as ‘walkthroughs.’ The focal points of this walkthrough system are Community, Alignment, Rigor, and Engagement, also known as the C.A.R.E. model. Faculty interviews revealed differences in perceptions of the C.A.R.E. model. Based on faculty responses, feedback given by administrators appeared to be primarily for evaluative purposes, not coaching. Teacher comments suggest a need for sufficient time for professional growth and reflection. Statements such as “We get feedback. It doesn’t affect me, really, at all,” and “They [administrators] …come in and look for lesson plans, so they can see exactly what we are doing. It doesn’t affect the way I teach,” indicate that observations are not consistently used. Another teacher recalled, “I never sat down about feedback with [Principal Crook]. I got a sticky note, but no detailed analysis.” Another stated that he did receive feedback, but the feedback was not timely.
On the other hand, Principal Crook stated, “I have a strong coaching piece here at Cullen and with my administrative team, I am very explicit on what I expect.” He explained, “I, along with my administrative team and any support staff, we’re constantly coaching teachers and there is a strong conversation piece and follow-up on the feedback I give them.” While Principal Crook envisions the C.A.R.E. instrument as a tool to “coach teachers to greatness,” the data shows that it is not yet being fully implemented to achieve those results.
Some teachers also expressed a desire to collaborate with each other more often. Comments like “[collaboration between teachers] needs to really happen” and “something [needs to be] set up in the school where teachers can have time to diagnose and dissect problems” suggest that Cullen teachers seek collaborative time to discuss pedagogy. One teacher had heard about Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and acknowledged the meetings, but believed they turned into gripe sessions. The data reveals that not all faculty share a common vision for peer coaching at CMS. One teacher felt that teachers “are never encouraged to watch other teachers.” Another member of the faculty asserted that “as a campus, we aren’t ready for teacher-to-teacher observations using C.A.R.E.; we are working towards that.” One member of the faculty voiced another view, saying that teachers “are getting burned out. [We weren’t] getting the support we needed.” Principal Crook and CMS teachers acknowledge the need for additional opportunities to sharpen their craft. Time for PLCs has been built into the 2011-2012 schedule to allow content-area planning time. The recommendations that follow may be used to strengthen teacher effectiveness.