Welcome back to Flipping the Focus.
In the last post, you read about some of the key characteristics of instructional leaders. These characteristics were drawn from interviews held with a small group of school administrators, here, in Ottawa, Ontario. Themes and guiding questions for leaders' professional learning that emerged from the analysis of interview transcripts are featured below (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 - Attributes of Instructional Leaders
From these interviews, past experiences with whole-system improvement, and more recent conversations with school and system leadership, leads us to the following, question—a question that reminds us of our shared responsibility "...to promote a culture of reflection, collaborative inquiry and shared responsibility for continuous improvement at both...board and...school [levels] (School Effectiveness Framework, p8).
How might system and school leaders best work
together to shaping a coherent improvement
model for Mathematics teaching & learning?
together to shaping a coherent improvement
model for Mathematics teaching & learning?
The remainder of this post aims to answer this question—by proposing a conceptual model that can be used to guide collaborative inquiries that serve as a vehicle for system-wide improvement in Mathematics.
Shifting Pedagogical Practice: System-Wide, Professional & Collaborative Learning in Mathematics Education, K to 12
Planning, Implementing & Monitoring System Improvement in Mathematics
Where to start?
A model for system improvement--one that is multi-year, -faceted, invites reflection and is relevant--can begin by using a logic model for planning. In Fig. 2, below, a general logic model has been drafted to focus on the development of instructional leadership through principal inquiry. In a coincident manner, a multi-faceted planning model also takes into account the development of knowledge and skills in those who can support an education system's priorities. In this particular model, teachers, program leads and facilitators comprise a group, whose learning needs (met), can contribute greatly to overall program success.
Plans of this nature invite continuous reflection--both within the program (Efficiency; identify and recognize tangible results) and across the program and its anticipated outcomes (Effectiveness; observing and measuring change over time). Reflection and the flexibility of the plan then allow for continuous improvement to occur--that is, consistently adapting the plan-in-action, based on practice-based evidence collected in an ongoing manner, until the prioritized need is met.
For example, adapting the plan-in-action can involve changes to structures, learning processes and resources represented in a school's improvement plan (see Fig. 3, below), where the principal leads communication around such changes for moving forward with teachers and other staff to meeting their school's goals. Communicating such changes with the district planning team then helps to shape board improvement planning (informing how school districts can respond just-in-time to program changes in structures, learning processes and resources/supports) that supports both schools and district in meeting the shared, prioritized need.
A model for system improvement--one that is multi-year, -faceted, invites reflection and is relevant--can begin by using a logic model for planning. In Fig. 2, below, a general logic model has been drafted to focus on the development of instructional leadership through principal inquiry. In a coincident manner, a multi-faceted planning model also takes into account the development of knowledge and skills in those who can support an education system's priorities. In this particular model, teachers, program leads and facilitators comprise a group, whose learning needs (met), can contribute greatly to overall program success.
Plans of this nature invite continuous reflection--both within the program (Efficiency; identify and recognize tangible results) and across the program and its anticipated outcomes (Effectiveness; observing and measuring change over time). Reflection and the flexibility of the plan then allow for continuous improvement to occur--that is, consistently adapting the plan-in-action, based on practice-based evidence collected in an ongoing manner, until the prioritized need is met.
For example, adapting the plan-in-action can involve changes to structures, learning processes and resources represented in a school's improvement plan (see Fig. 3, below), where the principal leads communication around such changes for moving forward with teachers and other staff to meeting their school's goals. Communicating such changes with the district planning team then helps to shape board improvement planning (informing how school districts can respond just-in-time to program changes in structures, learning processes and resources/supports) that supports both schools and district in meeting the shared, prioritized need.
Fig. 2 - Logic Model for System Improvement in Mathematics (Draft)
The relevance of the plan relates to how well the program influences the multi-year outcomes. Performance measurements (quantitative) can help to describe relevance as well as qualitative measures of program interest. Measures of interest take into consideration the relevance of the program to all those who are focusing direction, enacting leadership and supporting one another to addressing the prioritized need. Getting to relevance with multiple, interest groups (school leaders, teachers, program leads, facilitators and students) requires that the members of each group are motivated for continuous learning--i.e., along the way, they are personally and collectively building relationships, finding meaning, growing competence and autonomy and addressing accountability.
Fig. 3 - Cycles of Inquiry for School Improvement Planning
| Above all else, it's important for all leaders--district, school and those in informal leadership roles--to keep the following principles in mind to building and sustaining the success of a multi-year improvement plan (Leithwood, 2019):
|  Fig. 4 - Implementation Curve |
With any change in improvement programming, it's common to experience an "implementation dip" (see Fig. 4). To minimize the depth and length of such a 'dip', it's critical that these principles be shared, encouraged and practiced to maintain high levels of program interest (relevance). And along the way, it's important to monitor that more is being done and less is said (see Fig 5, below). If the gap between having to say and do is shrinking (with positive, observable and measurable changes over time), then the model for system improvement is working in the right direction (relevance).
Fig. 5 - Linking what we say and do to meeting system and school priorities
Communication with District-Level Teams
When systems of education encourage internal accountability—i.e., by taking a developmental approach to evaluation—and are attending to communicating with all shareholders with rhythm and frequency about their learning, they are then better able provide the necessary resources, professional learning and support for monitoring the ongoing, collaborative work within and across schools. Basing future support on the outcomes of a particular year, with consideration to long-term goals, will go a long way to ensuring there is coherence between the system and its schools.
When systems of education encourage internal accountability—i.e., by taking a developmental approach to evaluation—and are attending to communicating with all shareholders with rhythm and frequency about their learning, they are then better able provide the necessary resources, professional learning and support for monitoring the ongoing, collaborative work within and across schools. Basing future support on the outcomes of a particular year, with consideration to long-term goals, will go a long way to ensuring there is coherence between the system and its schools.
Program Example - A Conceptual Model
-Principal Learning Inquiry for Improving Mathematics Teaching & Learning-
-Principal Learning Inquiry for Improving Mathematics Teaching & Learning-
| What could such a program do (efficiency) and achieve (effectiveness)? Based on your past experiences with whole-system improvement in Mathematics Education (relevance), and more recent conversations with school and system leadership, what might a program look like that meets such a need (Fig. 2)? And further to this, how might such a program work towards demonstrating its outcomes, year-over-year? |  Fig. 6 - Attributes of Leadership Content Knowledge |
Let's start with the end in mind--a backwards-design approach. The objective of the program model, in this educator group (school administrators), is to increase both individual and collective leadership content knowledge for improvement in Mathematics. The three goals to developing this type of knowledge (Stein & Nelson, 2003) are featured in Fig. 6. That is, instructional leaders know:
- 1-What effective mathematics instruction looks like;
- 2-How to encourage strong mathematics instruction when it is not yet present; and
- 3-How to create a culture of learning that supports all students developing and expressing mathematical identity and agency.
What's important to identify is that these three elements are not mutually exclusive--i.e., they should and can develop together. Culture, in and of itself, will not be influenced merely by the first two elements--sure enough, these elements are key to growing a mathematics learning culture, and as such, culture will always be influenced by the outcomes from monitoring both the identification and response to a lack of effective mathematics instruction over time. For the purposes of this model--set in the context of starting a Principal Learning Inquiry Network--the outcomes for Years 1 and 2 should focus predominantly on elements 1 and 2.
YEAR 1
In Year 1, there could more of an emphasis on what to look for ('SAY') with less accountability around how to respond ('do'): It's hard to invite teachers to professional learning that deepens subject content knowledge and/or to explore different pedagogical practices when one doesn't necessarily have an understanding of how to develop mathematical content knowledge for teaching-MK4T (Ball, Thames & Phelps, 2008) nor has invested enough time into developing their own MK4T (See Fig. 7).
YEAR 1
In Year 1, there could more of an emphasis on what to look for ('SAY') with less accountability around how to respond ('do'): It's hard to invite teachers to professional learning that deepens subject content knowledge and/or to explore different pedagogical practices when one doesn't necessarily have an understanding of how to develop mathematical content knowledge for teaching-MK4T (Ball, Thames & Phelps, 2008) nor has invested enough time into developing their own MK4T (See Fig. 7).
Fig. 7 - Content Knowledge for Teaching
YEAR 2
With a growing sense of confidence and efficacy to supporting educators' professional learning in Mathematics, Year 2 for the Principal Learning Inquiry Network would shift more to a say-DO model--i.e., less time building personal MK4T; more time spent supporting teacher, professional learning. A key aspect to this type of learning, and in relation to long-term commitment to building culture, school administrators cannot relinquish this role to others. Aside from the sizable effect that teachers can have on the success of their students' learning (effect size: 1.57; hinge point: 0.40), school administrators are next-in-line contributors, as they can greatly influence (effect size: 0.84) the quality of teaching in their schools (Robinson, 2007). Certainly, "When it comes to supporting educators as they learn and work to improve student achievement, nothing a principal does 'has a bigger payoff than learning visibly and publicly alongside staff in a school'" (Katz & Dack in Principal as Co-learners: Supporting the Promise of Collaborative Inquiry, 2014).
YEAR 3+
Following the growing success experienced in Years 1 and 2,--efficiency within and effectiveness across--Year 3+ continues to focus on building subject matter knowledge and to respond when mathematical teaching practices have not yet been optimized (i.e., say-DO)--altogether, the improvement model for school administrators' learning sustains its relevance by continuously sharpening its focus (precision) while remaining responsive to the group's needs (personalization).
With a growing sense of confidence and efficacy to supporting educators' professional learning in Mathematics, Year 2 for the Principal Learning Inquiry Network would shift more to a say-DO model--i.e., less time building personal MK4T; more time spent supporting teacher, professional learning. A key aspect to this type of learning, and in relation to long-term commitment to building culture, school administrators cannot relinquish this role to others. Aside from the sizable effect that teachers can have on the success of their students' learning (effect size: 1.57; hinge point: 0.40), school administrators are next-in-line contributors, as they can greatly influence (effect size: 0.84) the quality of teaching in their schools (Robinson, 2007). Certainly, "When it comes to supporting educators as they learn and work to improve student achievement, nothing a principal does 'has a bigger payoff than learning visibly and publicly alongside staff in a school'" (Katz & Dack in Principal as Co-learners: Supporting the Promise of Collaborative Inquiry, 2014).
YEAR 3+
Following the growing success experienced in Years 1 and 2,--efficiency within and effectiveness across--Year 3+ continues to focus on building subject matter knowledge and to respond when mathematical teaching practices have not yet been optimized (i.e., say-DO)--altogether, the improvement model for school administrators' learning sustains its relevance by continuously sharpening its focus (precision) while remaining responsive to the group's needs (personalization).
Principal Learning Inquiry: Maintaining Effectiveness--What Gets Measured? And When?
From the outset, it's important to recognize that the most important outcome--student learning...as evidenced by changes seen at the 'student desk'--is typically the most distant outcome to a school administrator's learning and professional practice. As system improvement is multi-faceted (e.g., administrators and teachers both engaged in collaborative, professional learning inquiries), administrators need to determine how they can best engage in their own inquiries in co-relation to the professional learning of their staff. As referenced above:
From the outset, it's important to recognize that the most important outcome--student learning...as evidenced by changes seen at the 'student desk'--is typically the most distant outcome to a school administrator's learning and professional practice. As system improvement is multi-faceted (e.g., administrators and teachers both engaged in collaborative, professional learning inquiries), administrators need to determine how they can best engage in their own inquiries in co-relation to the professional learning of their staff. As referenced above:
"...nothing a principal does 'has a bigger payoff than
learning visibly and publicly alongside
staff in a school.'"
learning visibly and publicly alongside
staff in a school.'"
This co-relation of study can be done, ultimately, by focusing on the work and thinking that comes from the 'student desk.' That is, for principals to have the greatest impact on the quality of teaching in their schools, they need to minimize their distance from the most important outcome--student learning. The table in Fig. 8 takes this further by summarizing and reviewing much of the information provided in this section.
Fig. 8 - Overview: Principal Learning Inquiry for Improving Mathematics Teaching & Learning
As school administrators work towards building their leadership content knowledge, reaching one's goals depends on learning how to get there--i.e., the look-fors and/or actions that can be taken (success criteria). Adapted from Small and Duff (2018), administrators can focus their own inquiry (in co-relation to the studies of their school learning teams) by learning what to look for and expect of themselves, teachers and students in the classroom setting. Also in Fig. 8, outside of the classroom, administrators can also come to better understanding of what they need to look for and expect of themselves and teachers.
Final Remarks
Earlier in the post, you read about the communication of learning (two-way) between district- and school-levels. This has been repeated, below, as a reminder of the great privilege and shared responsibility that we all have in improving the quality of students' learning experiences in Mathematics.
When systems of education encourage internal accountability—i.e., by taking a developmental approach to evaluation—and are attending to communicating with all shareholders with rhythm and frequency about their learning, they are then better able provide the necessary resources, professional learning and support for monitoring the ongoing, collaborative work within and across schools. Basing future support on the outcomes of a particular year, with consideration to long-term goals, will go a long way to ensuring there is coherence between the system and its schools.
In closing, I can't help but to think of the conversations that can be inspired when we take collective action to improving student learning. As this blog is a means for readers to network and gradually change the context for how they learn, teach and lead, we all benefit by drawing nearer to the perspectives shared here and shared beyond with our professional learning networks.
I am more than happy to collaborate with you and make our learning visible, here. If at any time, you have questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me at Flipping the Focus.
Professionally Yours,
Chris Stewart, OCT
Educational Consultant at Flipping the Focus (c) 2020
I am more than happy to collaborate with you and make our learning visible, here. If at any time, you have questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to me at Flipping the Focus.
Professionally Yours,
Chris Stewart, OCT
Educational Consultant at Flipping the Focus (c) 2020
References
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554
Flipping the Focus. (2018). Action to Impact: Growing Student Agency through Professional Learning in Math. Retrieved from https://create.piktochart.com/output/31067617-action-to-impact-growing-student-agency-through-pl-in-math.
Flipping the Focus. (2019, November 4). Instructional Leadership in Mathematics - Administrators' Perspectives. Retrieved from https://flippingthefocus.weebly.com/blog/instructional-leadership-in-mathematics-administrators-perspectives.
Government of Ontario. A Guide to Outcome-Based Performance Measurement in the OPS: Tools and Resources for the Development and Reporting of Outcomes (n.d.). Toronto, ON.
Government of Ontario. (2013). The K–12 School Effectiveness Framework: A Support for School Improvement and Student Success. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/framework.html
Leithwood, K. (2019, March). Leading Student Achievement - Networks for Learning. Learning Leadership for Math Success. Ottawa.
Rippe, S. J. (2018, March 28). When Our Best Plans Fail. Retrieved from http://edvisions.org/when-our-best-plans-fail/.
Robinson, V. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. In ACEL Monograph Series (Vol. 41). Victoria, Au: Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/19677172/School_Leadership_and_Student_Outcomes_Identifying_what_Works_and_why_Best_Evidence_Synthesis_Iteration_BES_
Small, M., & Duff, D. (2018). The School Leader's Guide to Building and Sustaining Math Success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Stein, M.K. & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership Content Knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, No. 4, page 424.
Visible Learning. (2017, November). Backup of Hattie's Ranking list of 256 Influences And Effect Sizes Related To Student Achievement. Retrieved from https://visible-learning.org/backup-hattie-ranking-256-effects-2017/.
Flipping the Focus. (2018). Action to Impact: Growing Student Agency through Professional Learning in Math. Retrieved from https://create.piktochart.com/output/31067617-action-to-impact-growing-student-agency-through-pl-in-math.
Flipping the Focus. (2019, November 4). Instructional Leadership in Mathematics - Administrators' Perspectives. Retrieved from https://flippingthefocus.weebly.com/blog/instructional-leadership-in-mathematics-administrators-perspectives.
Government of Ontario. A Guide to Outcome-Based Performance Measurement in the OPS: Tools and Resources for the Development and Reporting of Outcomes (n.d.). Toronto, ON.
Government of Ontario. (2013). The K–12 School Effectiveness Framework: A Support for School Improvement and Student Success. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/framework.html
Leithwood, K. (2019, March). Leading Student Achievement - Networks for Learning. Learning Leadership for Math Success. Ottawa.
Rippe, S. J. (2018, March 28). When Our Best Plans Fail. Retrieved from http://edvisions.org/when-our-best-plans-fail/.
Robinson, V. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. In ACEL Monograph Series (Vol. 41). Victoria, Au: Australian Council for Educational Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/19677172/School_Leadership_and_Student_Outcomes_Identifying_what_Works_and_why_Best_Evidence_Synthesis_Iteration_BES_
Small, M., & Duff, D. (2018). The School Leader's Guide to Building and Sustaining Math Success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Stein, M.K. & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership Content Knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, No. 4, page 424.
Visible Learning. (2017, November). Backup of Hattie's Ranking list of 256 Influences And Effect Sizes Related To Student Achievement. Retrieved from https://visible-learning.org/backup-hattie-ranking-256-effects-2017/.
