# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
February 2015 | Volume 72 | Number 5
Improving Schools: What Works?

Tony Frontier and Jim Rickabaugh

Why is the change necessary?

How much change needs to occur?

Where should the change occur?

Who will participate in the change process?

Aligning the answers to these four questions in a manner that improves student learning is surprisingly difficult. It's also among the most important work that a school leader must do.

Unpacking the Questions

The first question, Why are we doing this? is powerful. When people share an understanding of why they're engaging in certain actions for change, they can align their efforts toward the crucial goals. The amount of effort people exert-and where they direct that effort-looks different when their goal is to comply with an external mandate than when their goal is to change a key process to improve student learning. Being clear about why is essential; the answer becomes the premise for the other three questions.

How much change is needed? asks how much effort people need to invest to move things forward. We've identified three magnitudes of change: maintaining the status quo (meaning existing beliefs and processes are carried forward); transactional change (meaning incentives and requirements drive changes in processes); and transformational change (meaning individuals develop new beliefs, insights, and skills that result in entirely different conceptions of themselves).

Where should the change occur? asks where we should invest efforts to raise student achievement. In education, we've found that virtually every initiative seeks to address one of five areas of leverage: structure (such as schedules and logistics); sample (such as grade configurations and student grouping practices); standards (expectations for quality); strategies (teachers' instructional strategies and students' learning strategies); and conceptions of self (what students believe about themselves as learners and what educators believe about teaching). By understanding the advantages and disadvantages associated with these areas of leverage, educators can better prioritize their efforts.

Who will participate in the change process? seems to be the easiest question to answer, but it may be the most elusive. If educators engage in a significant change process but students don't notice any difference in their opportunity to learn, have we implemented meaningful change?

The Traffic Safety Analogy

Allow us to use an analogy to clarify the challenges and opportunities associated with aligning why, how much, where, and who. Suppose that rather than serving your community as an educator, you're its director of traffic safety. You and your crew work hard every day to ensure and improve safety. What might happen if you don't thoughtfully consider these questions?

Maintaining the Status Quo: Ensuring That Signs Are Visible

Some change efforts simply maintain the status quo; they leave structures, standards, and strategies in place, but deploy them in a slightly different context. With this approach, Why change? isn't really about improvement, but about reducing any variance in existing practice. Maintaining the status quo can include rolling over dates to establish the next school year's calendar, providing orientation to new teachers, or teaching a lesson to a new group of students using the same strategies as in the past.

To maintain the status quo as director of traffic safety, you'd ensure that existing stop signs were properly installed and visible at every intersection. Your crew would diligently trim tree branches that obscure stop signs, apply new reflective paint, or replace old poles. If this maintenance didn't occur, the results would be catastrophic-confusion at intersections and accidents. But as long as your crew maintains the intersections and assures proper signage, drivers will take this work for granted. They'll use a familiar set of strategies: Stop, look in both directions, and go.

Ensuring that existing structures are preserved and practices are consistent is an essential management task. Without it, chaos would ensue. However, no matter how much effort is put forth to maintain the status quo, these efforts are not about improvement. In schools, they don't improve standards or strategies. To the contrary, they ensure that those who are already served by the system can continue to use the same strategies to obtain the same results.

Transactional Change: Installing New Signs

Other reforms lead to transactional change. Here, Why change? is driven by compliance. Organizations create new incentives, adopt new structures, or modify processes so individuals can efficiently use existing strategies to yield different results. In education, transactional changes could include deploying a new grading scale, modifying the schedule to increase student contact time, or adopting a template to align existing curriculum to new standards.

When examining how transactional change relates to school improvement efforts, it's crucial to understand who needs to change for the initiative to be implemented. Consider this traffic safety scenario.

A government agency creates new safety standards, mandates you to follow them, and deploys safety score measures and incentives to monitor results. Key components include taller, larger stop signs. Some stop signs will require solar panels to power a flashing red light.

Eager to comply, your community adopts these standards. You work with your purchasing manager to acquire dozens of new poles, signs, and panels. Your crew even engages in days of professional development to learn how to install the complex solar panels. The signs require a new type of cement to ensure stability. Your crew is working more hours than ever, and although some crew members are thriving, others express frustration and talk of the good old days when they could get their jobs done by trimming branches or applying fresh paint.

A year later, you receive your new traffic safety scores. You're shocked to see there have been no improvements. To understand how your crew could work so hard, yet your safety scores stay the same, you hold a focus group with 12 citizens. Most of the drivers barely noticed the new, larger signs; only a few noticed the blinking lights. They report using the same strategies they had in the past; stop, look, and go.

You leave the focus group deflated. Despite the efforts of your crew, the community seems mired in the status quo. Driving the well-worn path between city hall and your house, you approach a familiar intersection and glance in both directions. As usual, there's no traffic. You slow down-but don't stop-and roll past one of the new stop signs. Then it hits you; for the drivers, nothing has changed.

The irony of transactional change is that our best efforts to adjust and comply can still maintain the status quo for those we serve. Whether installing new stop signs or responding to education mandates, leaders need to guide change to ensure compliance. However, we can't assume that our efforts-no matter how significant-will change students' beliefs or help them adopt new learning strategies.

For example, to comply with new evaluation requirements, teachers are often asked to identify the standards they're addressing in each lesson by posting them in their classroom. The intent is to ensure that the new standards aren't placed on a shelf and forgotten. The assumption is that if teachers post the standards, students are more likely to meet them.

But how will complying with this transactional requirement yield different results if lessons are taught no differently than in the past? If posting of the standard isn't accompanied by new strategies that help students establish learning goals, self-assess, and monitor their progress, then for students, nothing will change.

Transformational Change

Transformational change occurs when individuals are empowered to engage in work differently because new beliefs about their capacity support the development of new skills. Such change for a teacher may occur when he realizes the value of providing students with meaningful feedback-as opposed to just grades-after teaching students to use standards to monitor their own progress toward learning goals. A student may realize such a change when she pursues new leadership opportunities after developing self-confidence and new skills in a public-speaking class.

When transformation occurs, the why runs deeper than compliance. The drive to do the same work only better is replaced with the understanding that the work itself must change. As a result, the role of the learner must change as well.

Transformation for Some: From Signs to Lights

Suppose you decide to identify the intersections where the most accidents occur so you can take action to improve your safety metrics. After analyzing reams of data, you identify six intersections and decide to install stoplights. The stoplights require significant restructuring; intersections must be widened, electricity rerouted, and trees removed. Politics ensue, but eventually the plan gets approved. You restructure your department, establishing an electronics team and a heavy equipment team. The teams go through extensive training and emerge with new skill sets.

After months of effort, the new lights are installed. For your crew, this experience has been transformational; they've developed new skills and view their capacity and roles differently.

In the first few months, accident rates decline moderately. But the accidents that do occur are more serious because people drive faster through the new, larger intersections. At your request, a new ordinance is passed that doubles fines for speeding. Ironically, increased police presence at these intersections results in the documentation of more infractions than before, lowering your safety score.

After a few months, drivers in your community fall into familiar routines. Rather than stopping and looking-as they'd done in the past-they aren't even attuned to the traffic. If the light's green, drive; if it's red, stop, wait, and then go. At times, drivers have to sit at a red light for 30 seconds although there are no other cars near the intersection.

You've restructured your department. Your streetscape looks entirely different. Professional development has transformed the capacity of your staff. However, for drivers, the new stoplights have merely resulted in transactional change. Drivers deploy existing skills through slightly different processes, under the threat of new consequences.

A transformed organization may only yield transactional change among those it serves. Switching to block schedules, smaller schools, or one-to-one technology requires dramatic restructuring and hours of professional development. But who develops new strategies to participate in such changes? Too often, students-who should benefit most from the change-engage in different processes, but they have the same learning experiences as in the past.

Imagine that you invest significant time, effort, and energy in purchasing and training teachers to use new technology, but teachers deploy the technology in a manner that yields the same curriculum, instruction, and assessment as before. Or you invest time developing supervisors' understanding and skills associated with a new teacher evaluation framework, but the framework is used in a way that teachers merely view as more visits, different forms, and new deadlines.

The end results in these scenarios are counterintuitive. The organization has been restructured. The individuals implementing the change are transformed. But the individuals using the system simply experience a transactional shift. They play the same role and use the same strategies as in the past.

Transformational Change for All: Roundabouts

As traffic safety director, frustrated by the lack of change in driver behavior, you take a step back and consider the scenario from the drivers' perspective. While you've focused on safety, drivers care about getting through each intersection quickly. Instead of asking, How can I get drivers to stop? You ask, How can I help drivers get to their destination quickly and safely?

You read about a strategy that eliminates intersections: roundabouts. In communities using roundabouts, the rate of serious accidents decreases by 90 percent, whereas the number of vehicles passing through each intersection per hour increases. You're concerned that you may engage in another restructuring effort that yields no meaningful change. So you contact a colleague in a nearby community who's an advocate for roundabouts. You share your concern about the ability of drivers in your community to change: Given their ambivalence in the past, will they develop a different set of strategies?

"I was concerned about that, too," replies your colleague. "Then I realized that I'd never really asked drivers to change. I was so busy training my crew and restructuring that I assumed drivers would change as well. But we can't expect the outcomes to be different than in the past unless we empower drivers to see their role differently and develop new behaviors."

A roundabout differs from previous restructuring efforts because it requires-and supports-use of different driving strategies. The new structure is based on a different set of assumptions (there is no intersection). It requires new strategies (the center circle requires drivers to make an active response). It's simpler (rather than looking both ways, drivers need only look to the left) and yields different processes (rather than stopping when no traffic is approaching, drivers are free to proceed through). Finally, it empowers each driver as the active agent in the process.

Real Change

What might a school restructuring effort that empowers students as the most critical component in the learning process look like? Implementation of new standards would begin with the premise that students should be taught to be the primary users of the standards. Teaching students to establish their own learning goals and monitor their own progress through formative assessments would become part of the curriculum. Students would be taught how to design activities that guide their own progress toward each standard. A shared language of quality among teachers and students would be seen as essential. As students learned skills and strategies that empower them to be active agents in the learning process, their engagement, commitment, and learning would grow.

Viewing change through the eyes of those who are intended to benefit from that change clarifies the areas of leverage most likely to improve results. All learning, and all change, is personal. Meaningful change occurs when students shift their conceptions of themselves because they've been empowered to use new strategies that guide them toward new standards. This can occur independently of the structural changes typically associated with reforming schools.

Structural changes are enticing because they're tangible (We had a large high school; now we have four small high schools). Yet too often, these changes are the equivalent of taller stop signs. The people who control the system engage in significant change efforts, but those who use it utilize the same beliefs and skills they applied in the past. Restructuring schools is hard work-but not always the right work.

Aligning the reason for change, the magnitude of change, the area of leverage where the change should occur, and the people who participate in that change is challenging. But it's the only way we know of to ensure that the changes we make will support the outcomes we seek.

Endnotes

Frontier, T., & Rickabaugh, J. (2014). Five levers to improve learning: How to prioritize for powerful results in your school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J.,Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tony Frontier is an ASCD faculty member and an assistant professor at Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Jim Rickabaugh is director of The Institute@CESA#1 in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. They are coauthors of Five Levers to Improve Learning: How to Prioritize for Powerful Results in Your School (ASCD, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
February 2015 | Volume 72 | Number 5 Improving Schools: What Works? Tony Frontier and Jim Rickabaugh Why is the change necessary? How much change needs to occur? Where should the change occur? Who will participate in the change process? Aligning the answers to these four questions in a manner that improves student learning is surprisingly difficult.

# data[].attributes.body
The article focuses on Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation (PBSE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by James M. Aseltine, Judith O. Faryniarz and Anthony J. Rigazio-DiGilio

Marcia Williams, an 8th grade social studies teacher at Fairview Middle School, organized her students' papers into a neat bundle, ready for grading. Her "Period C" class had just left the room, and she could now turn her thoughts to the meeting she had scheduled for her planning period. It was mid-September and time to meet with Fairview's principal, Gary Mulholland, to discuss her professional objectives for the school year ahead.

At Marcia's end-of-year meeting with her principal last spring, Gary had shared his excitement about a different way of approaching the whole process of supervision and evaluation. Just a month earlier, he and his colleague administrators had taken part in a professional development program that provided in-depth information and simulation activities in a process called Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation (PBSE). The gist of it, Gary had explained, was collaborative effort between a teacher and supervisor to align the teacher's annual development plan with explicit student learning needs: choosing an area of "essential learning," analyzing related performance data, identifying a specific learning need within that area, and pursuing the professional development necessary to address that need more effectively. He had become convinced that this process would improve student performance at Fairview and dramatically enhance the teachers' capacity for effective instruction and assessment. Gary had arranged for his teachers to have their own training in the process during the two professional development days in August.

Her principal's enthusiasm had been contagious, and Marcia had approached the August professional development session with an open mind and a curious spirit. After the workshop, she had found Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation even more appealing. To Marcia, the model made sense, connected with many of the best-practice recommendations she continued to hear and read about, and seemed realistic about the challenges of the classroom. Most of all, she liked the model's consistent focus on student learning and building teacher capacity to address student learning needs.

But as much as the PBSE model appealed to her, Marcia was unsure about how to begin using it herself. She had thought about the model as she considered potential areas for professional growth, but the annual plan she was about to propose to her principal was more a reflection of her old habits than the new approach. She had decided to focus on furthering her students' understanding of economic globalization. In light of current events, this certainly seemed to be an authentic and appropriate consideration for social studies. It was part of the 8th grade curriculum and a topic that she found personally interesting. In addition, Marcia's 8th grade team was a close-knit group, and her colleagues had expressed interest in working on a year-long theme-perhaps one related to world issues. Economic globalization seemed to fit the bill.

Marcia arrived at her meeting with the principal with a proposed professional objective in hand. She began to explain a number of possible professional development activities, including reading about the world economy, collecting related newspaper and magazine articles and sharing them with students, investigating guest speakers who might present "real life" information about domestic and worldwide economic changes, and holding weekly team meetings to discuss how the global economy theme might be addressed in math, science, and language arts classes. She noted that she would assess her students' deepening understanding of economic globalization by engaging them in discussion around the topic at least once per marking period and taking notes on what they had to say. And as evidence of her professional growth, she would collect artifacts of her instructional efforts, including students' assessments and comments, and share them with the principal once at mid-year and again at the end of the year.

When Marcia had finished explaining her idea, Gary smiled and took a breath. Marcia's plan was timely, authentic, collaborative, and focused on enriching the 8th grade curriculum. It was fully in line with the type of supervisory process he had used with staff members for many years. But it was not in line with the plan to implement Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation. To bring Marcia on board, he would need to help her bridge the divide between past practices and the new approach: one grounded in analysis of student performance data, results-driven change, and a commitment to building instructional and organizational capacity.

The State of Supervision and Evaluation

Teacher supervision and evaluation is an important focus for principals and other administrators. Since the 1960s, our body of professional knowledge on this topic has grown, supported by the work of Acheson and Gall (1997), Goldhammer, Anderson, and Krawjewski (1993), McGreal (1983), Manatt and Manatt (1984), Peterson (2000), Stanley and Popham (1998), Hunter (1976), Eisner (2002), Scriven (1981), Stufflebeam (1991), and other pioneers. We have come to understand more clearly the nature and importance of specific aspects of quality teaching, such as building on prior learning, effective questioning techniques, productive and intellectually challenging activities, and reinforcement of lesson objectives (Marzano, 2003). We can identify student engagement, self- and peer assessment, and the opportunity for children to work collaboratively as important components of effective classrooms. Most classroom teachers believe that both children and adults need to take an active role in their own learning. And our professional vocabulary has embraced terms such as "constructivist learning," "discovery learning," "cooperative learning," "differentiated instruction," and "multiple intelligences."

Given the historical focus on instructional processes, it is understandable that many current supervisory practices look primarily at curriculum and instruction: what the students are learning and how they are learning it. This focus is evident in the typical pattern of supervision and evaluation: a new goal at the start of the school year; periodic classroom observation, with formal and informal feedback; mid-year and end-of-year meetings to discuss progress toward the goal; and the supervisor's end-of-year evaluation report that comments on the teacher's accomplishments and perhaps lays the groundwork for next year's focus.

This traditional process is not without merit. One-on-one goal discussions with a supervisor help teachers understand what school leaders believe to be important for professional growth. The traditional process also provides performance feedback and underscores that teachers are accountable for the work they do with students. In addition, the process acknowledges teachers' professionalism by giving them some latitude in choosing what they want to work on for the year and asking them to develop learning experiences related to that professional focus.

The Call for an Alternative Model

So why revisit supervisory practices? Why do we need a different paradigm for teacher evaluation? Here are some reasons to consider.

1. The focus in education has shifted from the centrality of teaching to the importance of student learning. Over the past 10 years, this idea has been embraced not only by educators, but also by parents, communities, and legislators. The now-widespread use of content standards as benchmarks for student learning is a prime indicator. National professional organizations, state departments of education, and many local school districts have identified and publicized what students should know and be able to do at each grade and within grade clusters for many of the content areas.

2. We live in an age of ever-greater accountability. There is near-ubiquitous sentiment that educators need to demonstrate through performance that their efforts are resulting in student learning. Educators are expected to be able to prove that students are learning what they need to know at challenging levels of understanding and as a result of what and how teachers are teaching.

3. Education literature and professional development initiatives are increasingly focused on data-based decision making. For the classroom teacher, data-based decision making means looking at student work carefully and analytically and using the findings to inform instructional planning. Yet, many teachers have not received the training they need to confidently examine student work from an analytical perspective.

4. Traditional models of supervision and evaluation focus on the process of teachers' work rather than its outcome. During traditional classroom observations, supervisors are the persons collecting data: they take notes, analyze those notes, give feedback and direction, and write up a report. Outside of any pre- and post-observation conferencing, teachers rarely participate in analyzing and drawing conclusions from these data or, more importantly, from student performance data.

5. The traditional emphasis on instructional processes delimits teachers' professional growth. Once classroom teachers become familiar with and even expert in effective teaching strategies, they usually maintain their proficiency but are less likely to continue refining their practices and striving for further improvement. It's certainly true that many master teachers use their considerable instructional skills to great effect in their classrooms, and perhaps even mentor colleagues new to the profession, but their own professional growth curve often flattens. Then there are the cases of teachers whose knowledge of classroom pedagogy has surpassed that of their supervisors' and who must determine future professional challenges on their own.

6. Traditional teacher supervision and evaluation may not explicitly link instruction and student learning or provide for differentiated instructional contexts. As in our opening scenario, teachers' intentions are typically laudable when it comes to selecting a worthy focus for professional growth. However, to make a real difference in student learning, supervisors and teachers must follow a more strategic and contextualized process. Even when a teacher's plan involves collecting verbal student feedback, the relative lack of performance data makes it difficult to gauge how much of an impact those efforts really have on student learning. In addition, a more traditional protocol for supervision and evaluation is basically a "one size fits all" approach; the supervisor's similar pattern of involvement and interaction with all members of the teaching staff-meet, observe, comment, evaluate-limits the opportunities to help each teacher achieve maximum growth.

7. Traditional methods of teacher evaluation rarely help teachers make a direct link between their professional growth and what the standardized test results and school improvement plan indicate are the real student learning needs. A teacher's draft goal may be appropriate for her curriculum area, but is it appropriate for her particular group of students and their learning needs? Will it benefit them when they encounter standards-based assessments? Will it help the school achieve its overall improvement goals? Linking the work of many faculty members through the focused goals of the school improvement plan helps create a sense of professional community in which members from diverse curriculum areas can contribute to the growth of all students. When all teachers are working on meaningful and connected goals-goals that are measurable and directly linked to the overall mission of the school-then real progress will be possible for all students, not just those fortunate enough to be in a specific teacher's classroom.

An Overview of Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation

The process of supervision for learning described in this book offers both teachers and their supervisors the opportunity to work together to improve student learning. It draws on assessment research (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Iwanicki, 1998; Peterson, 2000; Stiggins, 1989) and extends best practices in teacher supervision and evaluation in the following ways:

It focuses more on instructional results than instructionalprocesses.

It emphasizes setting meaningful and achievable professional goals, measured in terms of improved student performance.

It asks educators to individually and collectively analyze student work, and use these data to address learning needs in areas of essential knowledge and skill throughout the curriculum.

It asks teachers to design focused interventions to strengthen and enhance student learning in the target area.

It asks teachers to develop a plan for continuing professional growth that is related to the focus for improved student performance and that further establishes them as role models of lifelong learning.

It requires teachers to use evidence of student performance to demonstrate that learning has taken place.

It marshals the power of mutual collaboration and commitment by the teacher, the supervisor, and additional "expert resources."

It links the work of classroom teachers with the goals of the school improvement plan.

KEYSTONE

An Introduction to the Criteria of Excellence

Fundamental to Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation are the "Criteria of Excellence." These Criteria, found in their entirety in Appendix A, identify key processes, competencies, and achievements that the teacher and supervisor will accomplish through their work together. They are organized into six phases, or distinct components, of a full cycle of teacher growth.

Teacher Preparation. This is the process by which the teacher begins to collect information about student learning needs and to develop an emerging idea for a clear, narrow, and standards-based area of essential learning as an appropriate focus for an improvement objective.

Initial Collaboration. The teacher and supervisor analyze student data more deeply and finalize the focus and details of the improvement objective and the professional development plan.

Initial Monitoring. The teacher begins to participate in professional development and to implement strategies that support student learning, making necessary adjustments as the process unfolds.

Mid-Cycle Review. At mid-year, or another appropriate midpoint, the teacher and supervisor review progress to date, examining artifacts related to teacher initiatives and, if possible, student work, and modifying the plan as needed.

Secondary Monitoring. The teacher continues to carry out the professional development plan and deepens learning related to student needs by using more refined assessment methods to inform instructional decisions.

Summative Review. At the end of each cycle, the teacher and supervisor review evidence linking teaching strategies to student learning outcomes, and develop written reflections that detail teacher growth and suggest ideas for further development in the next cycle.

At first glance, the Criteria of Excellence resemble a traditional cycle of teacher supervision and evaluation: a professional development objective is established and the teacher and supervisor meet at a midpoint and end point to review the teacher's progress. That said, they are distinguished by two important purposes:

1. The Criteria of Excellence establish a clear process for supervision and evaluation, offering a generally sequential roadmap for the teacher and supervisor to follow throughout their work together. Significantly, this process mirrors the full cycle of what may be termed "applied action research," with the overarching intent to bring about improved teaching practice as evidenced by improved student performance.

2. The Criteria of Excellence make explicit the knowledge and skills associated with teacher development to improve student learning, establishing a set of standards that can be used to assess and track a teacher's growing expertise. Each phase of the Criteria outlines several associated competencies or accomplishments (called indicators); supervisors and teachers may judge a teacher's competency with each indicator as "competent," "emerging," or "just beginning." Underlying this purpose of the Criteria is the assumption that an effective teacher is one who judiciously and systematically uses pupil performance data to inform modifications and improvements in practice.

The chapters that follow offer a more detailed portrait of how the Criteria of Excellence work in practice, with special emphasis on the Teacher Preparation, Initial Collaboration, and Summative Review Phases. The Initial Monitoring Phase, Mid-Cycle Review Phase, and Secondary Monitoring Phase, while less fully detailed in this text, contribute to the cycle of professional growth by providing an opportunity for the teacher to acquire and apply new learning, collect and analyze student performance data, and receive formative feedback from the supervisor and perhaps other resource personnel as well.

Because each teacher's professional maturity is unique, the Criteria necessarily offer some flexibility. They are a clear guide for the work of the teacher and supervisor, but they are not prescriptive. While working within any phase of the Criteria, the teacher and supervisor may decide that the teacher needs additional professional learning to achieve full competence for any specific indicator. However, it may not be necessary for the teacher to be fully competent with every indicator in sequence before she participates in other activities outlined in the Criteria of Excellence. For example, although a teacher may be working on the preliminary skills of identifying essential areas of learning and analyzing student performance data (associated with indicators in the Teacher Preparation Phase), she will still create a plan for professional development (associated with indicators in the Initial Collaboration Phase) and go on to review new learning and accomplishments with her supervisor at mid-cycle and end-of-cycle conferences (associated, respectively, with indicators in the Mid-Cycle and Summative Review Phases).

KEYSTONE

The "Supervisor" in Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation

In the chapters ahead, we follow the story of Marcia Williams and two of her colleagues at Fairview Middle School as they use the PBSE process to enhance their own instructional capacity for improving student learning. As you will see, all three educators work most directly with their primary supervisor, the building principal. We realize that in various districts, different types of administrators serve as "primary" or "contributing" (secondary) supervisors in their work with faculty, and we use the broad term "supervisor" throughout the book.

Typically, a building-level administrator, such as the principal, assistant principal, "house" principal, and the like, will serve as a teacher's primary supervisor within the process. Proximity suggests that this administrator will be in a strong position to communicate easily with the teacher, observe her work firsthand, and offer appropriate guidance. However, an administrator who is more of a "generalist" educator may not have the specific content knowledge to effectively coach all faculty members, particularly those working in music, art, special education, school psychology, and other specialized areas of professional responsibility. In these cases, a district administrator with expertise in the targeted content area may well serve as the primary supervisor. When this is the case, collaboration between the off-site primary supervisor and the building-level contributing administrator is a crucial factor in supporting the teacher's growth in content knowledge and general pedagogy, and in arriving at a balanced judgment of the teacher's work.

Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation and the Local District's Plan

All districts have an articulated plan for how teachers and other district personnel will be supervised and evaluated. Some districts implement these plans to the letter; others treat them more as loose guidelines. Performance-Based Supervision and Evaluation offers an instructive process that can be integrated into a district's present system:

When teachers and supervisors focus their PBSE work on improving teaching and learning, classroom observations are purposeful and related to the teacher's professional development plan. They become an opportunity for the supervisor to collect related data, to observe for specific elements of effective teaching, and to offer focused feedback.

The model supports collaboration and collegial discourse about student learning and is directly linked to the school improvement process.

PBSE is appropriate for use with teachers and administrators at all stages of their careers; specific growth targets and interventions can be differentiated according to individual learning, group, or team needs.

Make no mistake about it: this is challenging work. For this process of supervision and evaluation to be successful, both teachers and administrators need to study the process, work through the phases, and support each other in the effort to improve student learning. This demands mutual commitment, energy, and trust, as well as a willingness to be accountable for the results of one's efforts. Nonetheless, the potential rewards are great: demonstrated professional competence and growth that result in improved student learning and greater organizational capacity for change. Our students deserve nothing less.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by James M. Aseltine, Judith O. Faryniarz and Anthony J. Rigazio-DiGilio Marcia Williams, an 8th grade social studies teacher at Fairview Middle School, organized her students' papers into a neat bundle, ready for grading. Her "Period C" class had just left the room, and she could now turn her thoughts to the meeting she had scheduled for her planning period.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To function effectively within the organization, the supervisor also has to be able to effectively communicate horizontally as well as vertically (see Figure 1). People in organizations spend over three-quarters of their time in some form of interpersonal situation. Poor communication skills carry a great deal of liability. Employees and especially supervisors who do not communicate effectively are at a disadvantage and do not do thrive in organizations.

Figure 1: Communication Flow

Though we have been communicating with others from a very early age, the process of transmitting information from one person to another is complex. Research has found that there is erosion of meaning in the neighborhood of 40-60 percent in the transmission of information from one person to another. Given the above, it is not surprising that a substantial number of interpersonal issues, performance problems, and misunderstandings have their roots in poor communication. So it is critical to appreciate, understand, and be aware of the potential barriers to effective communication.

The Basics

Language is a means and an important factor in our communication. It is used to convey and exchange ideas and meaning, to talk to people, and to express thoughts. It is the vehicle that helps the people with whom we are trying to communicate clearly understand the message being conveyed. The choice of words or language used in the message will influence the quality of communication. So the words used may have to be chosen with the different recipients in mind. Are the words used easy to understand by the recipient? Is the phrasing easy to grasp? Is descriptive language used? Is the ultimate message clear? By thinking about the end result-that is, what happens once you finish speaking-you can choose the words you'll need and decide how to use them to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved.

Research has shown that listeners have to put together what is being said with how it is being said in order to fully understand what is being conveyed. Effective basic communication has six elements: the sender, the receiver, the channel, contextual factors, the message itself, and feedback (see Figure 2). For communication to be effective, the supervisor must understand and manage the potential variables that may affect these elements.

Figure 2: The Two-Way Communication Model

Sender: (source) the person trying to communicate information, provide direction, establish performance, give feedback, etc. How the supervisor communicates affects the relationship with the workforce.

Receiver: (destination) the person receiving the message and trying to understand it. The relationship the worker has with the supervisor affects how that worker views the information and reacts to it.

Channel: The communication channels can be formal, informal, or unofficial; personal or impersonal; and active or static. The communication method (or channel) selected should depend on the type of message or its content. Before choosing which method to use, consider whether the message is interactive or static and whether it is best suited for personal or impersonal transmission. Each of these impacts the quality of the exchange.

Interactive is a two-way communication. It allows for a discussion (back and forth).

Static is a one-way communication. The receiver cannot provide immediate feedback.

The question is whether the communication should be one-way or two-way. What does your message require? You also need an understanding of the potential challenges with which the recipient may have to deal, what the recipient may need to be able to effectively carry out the instructions, etc.

Personal communication means a conversation, which needs to be face to face or by phone.

Impersonal communication is in some form of writing.

Does your communication require you to hear or see the other person? Are you trying to build a relationship or improve rapport? Will the tone of voice be important for this particular message or case? Is the information or idea potentially confusing to the recipient?

The communication channel becomes richest (see Figure 3) when the human element is a part of the exchange.

Face-to-face or personal communication is one of the richest channels of communication that can be used within an organization. The physical presence, the tone of the speaker's voice, gestures, posture, and facial expressions help the recipient(s) of a message to interpret that message as the speaker intends it. This is the best channel to use for complex or emotionally charged messages, because it allows for interaction between speaker and recipient(s) so as to clarify ambiguity. A speaker can evaluate whether an audience has received the message as intended, ask or answer follow-up questions, and provide clarification as required. The more complicated the message is, the richer the channel should be. When the message is routine and easy to understand, a lean channel is more appropriate.

Figure 3: Communication Channels

Message: The message is the information being transmitted. The message can be verbal and/or nonverbal. To reduce potential problems, the senders should use appropriate words and a clear, straightforward structure; provide all the necessary and relevant information so that it is easily understood; etc. This requires the sender to have some idea of the capabilities of the recipient to understand it and to have the motivation to respond to it affirmatively.

Feedback: The only way the sender can determine that the message was received and understood is to get some form of confirmation from the receiver. This can be in the form of acknowledgement, parroting, or paraphrasing. If there is some misunderstanding or there are barriers to the receiver's ability to respond affirmatively to the information in the message, the sender needs feedback to identify the possible barriers involved. This may require a few exchanges in order to resolve the issue.

Context: The circumstances surrounding our communication play a part in determining its success or failure. Although many types of situations affect the messages we send, one particular type that can easily distort our messages is communication under stress. Stress, by its very nature, makes it difficult for us to "think clearly." In a stressful situation, the meaning of the message can be distorted; subtle shades of meaning can be confused; pieces of information can be missed or forgotten; minor points may seem more important than major ones. In addition, the wording or structure of the communication may suffer. Uncertainty, nervousness, and confusion can creep into the speaker's voice, resulting in a less assertive statement.

Barriers to Communication

Successful communication involves getting the point across to another person. Many barriers to communication exist in any organization, which detract from its effectiveness. This can be more pervasive in the construction industry due to a number of unique elements. These barriers can be environmental, situational, or personal.

Physical barriers can prevent or hinder individuals from engaging in effective communication. A host of these barriers can be present in the general area and adversely affect the exchange. They include closed doors, walled-in offices, physical distance, and/or physical discomfort. The area can be noisy or crowded. If the conversation occurs outdoors, the weather conditions may have some form of impact as well.

Culture can have a significant impact on communication. Organizational culture is created by the leadership of the organization and can become ingrained into the very fabric of the way things are communicated and business is done on a day-to-day basis. Some organizational cultures are open and supportive of input from employees and a two-way flow of information. Other cultures are more top-down-where leaders convey messages but don't seek input from staff or other stakeholders. Some cultures create workplace climates that impede people from expressing what they feel, which causes them to say only what they think is expected of them. Organizational leadership needs to be cognizant of what information needs to be shared, when it should be shared, and what process should be used to share information. When employees don't have all the information, the "grapevine" is activated, usually to the detriment of the organization.

Bias: Whether we recognize it or not, all people suffer from various biases. These biases can interfere with communication when we are sending or receiving messages. Biases can be based on our preconceived beliefs or on impressions we form about people as we interact with them. When communicating with others, it's important to be aware of and to work at overcoming these biases.

Misinterpretation occurs more often than not. When interacting with others, we sometimes jump to conclusions or misinterpret what is being said. As a result, our response to the message may further impede the effectiveness of the exchange. So it is important to ensure that the message is clear and that the recipient understands it as we intended.

Role conflicts can create barriers to communication in organizations. Regardless of how open managers and senior leaders believe they are to employee input, employees are often hesitant to share their honest insights, especially when those insights may be perceived as critical of management. This particular issue is more problematic for larger organizations than smaller ones, since these tend to be less formal and bureaucratic.

Other barriers deal with people's perceptions, emotions, and attitude; a lack of communication skills; a lack of knowledge or interest; inability to use language effectively; or the timing of the message. Other factors may involve the selection of the communication channel or the effectiveness of the technology. Most barriers occur at the interfaces within the communication process (see Figure 4). This may be caused by how the sender structures the message or how the receiver interprets it. We do not always effectively communicate what we are thinking or intending to say. Communication failures arise when there is a gap between what the sender meant and what the receiver thought the sender meant.

Figure 4: Communication Barriers

Some examples of the causes of communication failure:

Being so preoccupied that you don't listen to what others are saying

Being so sure of the importance of what you have to say that you fail to listen, instead breaking in to voice your thoughts

Assuming that you know what the other is going to say and breaking in to voice your response

Listening with a closed mind and therefore discounting the content of the message

Being so focused on the words that the emotional aspect of the message is missed

Discounting what is being said due to mistrust of the speaker

All of these barriers can be overcome by conscious effort.

Conclusion

Most people want to communicate effectively but may not have an acute appreciation of the barriers involved. Because of a multitude of potential barriers, there is ample opportunity for something to go wrong in any communication. Douglas McGregor, an expert in the field said, "It is a fairly safe generalization that difficulties in communication within an organization are more often than not, mere symptoms of underlying difficulties in relationships between parties involved. When communication is ineffective, one needs to look first at the nature of these relationships rather than at ways of improving communication."

A supervisor is a critical link between management and the workforce and, as such, must be a highly effective communicator. To be successful, the supervisor must develop an awareness of the potential barriers to communication and learn how to cope with and effectively overcome them. The supervisor must also appreciate the fact that the quality of the relationship between the sender and receiver to a great extent determines the ability of the person transmitting the message to overcome many of the communication barriers. So the supervisor has to be not only an effective communicator but also a relationship builder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of Communication in Effective Supervision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To function effectively within the organization, the supervisor also has to be able to effectively communicate horizontally as well as vertically (see Figure 1). People in organizations spend over three-quarters of their time in some form of interpersonal situation. Poor communication skills carry a great deal of liability.