Educator Effectiveness: What’s the Bottom Line? Is There an “Or Else?”

What is required often is determined by the bottom line. The bottom line sets the minimum expectancy that a person sets for their behavior or efforts in order to sustain a status. Said differently, the bottom line also is the maximum effort or behavior a person must exert or demonstrate in order to attain that status. Usually, meeting the bottom line is a quality point. Above the bottom line and a person is in relatively good standing. Below the bottom line is where the person is in bad standing.

In order to drive a vehicle, a person must complete and achieve a minimum score on a written driving test, a vision screening, and a behind-the-wheel driving test. A person does not have to be perfect on any of three to meet the minimum requirements for a driver’s license. In fact, a qualified driver in Wisconsin must answer 40 of 50 questions correctly or can miss nine of 50 test questions. The vision screening results must be at least 20/100 in one eye or 20/40 in both eyes. Bottom lines seldom require perfection or even close to perfection to qualify for a given status.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/index.htm

So, what is the bottom line regarding educator effectiveness? And, will “bottom lining” educator effectiveness make any difference in the quality of student and school achievement?

Establishing a bottom line for educator effectiveness purports to do three things. Effective instruction

1. ensures a higher quality of education of all children, especially in areas where child access to higher quality teaching has been difficult to achieve or sustain,

2. promotes higher student achievement, in particular in areas of national, state and local interest (improved standing on international academic assessments, STEM, creativity, and entrepreneurship), and,

3. provides all children with a better preparation for college and career readiness.

The means for improving educator effectiveness have been heavily influenced by government. Improving educator effectiveness are three words that appear in most state as well as the US Department of Education’s media releases. If you believe that funding provides direction, then the Dept. of Ed’s earmarking almost $2.5 billion indicates both the federal and subsequent state interest in improving educator effectiveness. The federal language includes improving “teacher and principal evaluation systems” and improving “the effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need schools by reforming teachers and school leader advancement and compensation systems” and “promoting evidence-based professional development.” Bottom line – states will be induced by federal money to engage in these reforms.

http://www.ed.gov/teachers-leaders

In addition, the Dept. of Ed included the reform of teacher and principal evaluation systems as a criteria for states to qualify for waivers from the requirements of NCLB, in particular the penalties that schools would incur if they failed to meet the requirement that all children will be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. Bottom line – states and school districts will engage in these reforms or suffer prescribed penalties.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html

To quality for and comply with federal funding, states have undertaken significant revision of their teacher professional development and evaluation systems. In Wisconsin, the Educator Effectiveness System (EE System) balances teacher practices (50%) and student achievement (50%) to create a numeric that represents a teacher’s effectiveness. While the DPI is very thorough in its provision of information and professional development regarding its EE System, it is equally careful to never, ever insinuate what a school district should do with teachers who do not achieve effectiveness as defined in the EE System.

The bottom line from the DPI is that “local districts and school boards will determine how to use data from the EE System within their own context. DPI recommends that districts consider quality implementation practices, research, district culture, AND consult with legal counsel prior to making human resource decisions.”

http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/ee/pdf/eeteacherevaluationprocessmanual-version4.pdf

Understanding the bottom line is important for teachers. In Wisconsin, Educator Effectiveness is reduced to a numeric on an X, Y axis that places a teacher in a graphic distribution of all teachers’ numerics for the purpose of distinguishing between higher and lower performing educators. Rewards and recognitions or remediation and improvement will be doled out accordingly. Professional development instructs teachers that on this scale, 4 is Distinguished, 3 is Proficient, 2 is Basic and 1 is unsatisfactory. This plan complies with the US Dept’s mandates.

ed metric

The bottom line for a teacher in Wisconsin is to achieve a numeric that places her EE at a (2,2) numeric or better. Or, to say it differently, the danger area of (1,1) must be avoided. This is what a teacher learns through the EE orientation and all subsequent professional development training related to educator effectiveness. This is the EE System plan and procedure for implementing educator effectiveness in Wisconsin.

It is not reality, however. Reality sets in when school boards decide how they will apply the EE System within their district’s continuing employment procedures. In the post-Act 10 era in Wisconsin, a district’s employment procedures are prohibited subjects of bargaining and the detail of these procedures is determined by school board action. After all is said and done with the federal incentives for improving educator effectiveness and each of the state’s initiatives relative to the NCLB waivers notwithstanding, the application of bottom line procedures rests with each state’s teacher dismissal statutes. And, the decision to take action relative to the EE System outcomes rests with each school board.

In pursuit of a bottom line regarding EE, a school board must fulfill two duties. The board must be compliant with its published procedures, and it must be complaint with WI Statute 118.24. The statute clarifies that the board alone has the authority to hire and fire teachers. Relative to discontinuing a teacher’s contract with the board, the statute outlines the due process standards for board action regarding teacher dismissal.

The history of board actions to dismiss teachers in Wisconsin is, as prescribed by the statute, confidential. Nationally, the statistics for teachers leaving their employment as teachers says that approximately 46% of the workforce turns over annually. Reasons for leaving the profession are many and include retirement, disenchantment with teaching, a change of professional interests and death, as well as dismissal. Non-renewal of employment represents one of the least frequent reasons for teacher turnover. For example, over a ten-year period in New York City, twelve teachers in an employment pool of 75,000 teachers were dismissed for incompetence. An unknown number of NYC teachers exited the profession rather than face dismissal procedures. However, if the NYC number is indicative, teacher dismissal in most states is a small number and in most school districts is a rarity and may have never been exercised.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/firing-teachers-mission-impossible-article-1.1615003

So,, what is the bottom line for educator effectiveness? It is remains mystery. At some date and place, a school board will take action to resolve its continuing employment of a teacher whose EE System metric is unsatisfactory and, despite district efforts to raise the teacher’s bottom line practices, has been unsatisfactory over time. At that date and time, an understanding of the bottom line will be temporarily affixed. No doubt, once that event has happened, other school boards will have a better understanding of how the EE System connects with continuing employment and will take action on its local bottom liners.

The mandate to improve educator effectiveness, at this time, is like a parent who makes a threatening statement to a child in the attempt to modify the child’s behavior. Frequently in that setting, a recalcitrant child looks the parent in the eye and asks, “What happens if I don’t?” Then the dance of parenting begins and, as often happens, the threat is withdrawn with small if any conciliation by the child. So it is with school boards and teachers and educator effectiveness. We don’t yet know how the bottom line for educator effectiveness really works because we don’t know how school boards will act if an employee persists in being ineffective.

Today, there is no bottom line to educator effectiveness improvement because there is no evidence of the “or else.”

Writing Instruction Without the Fretting

When the classroom assignment is to write, the teacher needs to listen and watch. Listen to the comments and mutterings of most children. “I don’t know what to write.” “I can’t think of anything.” “I hate to write.” Listen to those who struggle with and then balk with the idea of writing. In contrast, watch. Watch the other, fewer children who eagerly pick up their pencil or fire up their computer and begin putting words to paper or screen. What is the difference between these two groups of children? Why are some children writing and others not. You listened and you watched. What did you learn?

To unpack your learning, let’s examine several other commonplace classroom activities to understand writing and why children fret about writing. And, if children fret about writing, so do their teachers.

The teacher says,

“Take a minute to think back on yesterday’s trip to the museum. What one memory about the entire trip do you remember most clearly? Think and then tell the person on your right about your memory.” Some start talking immediately. Others look up, look down, look to the right and left and then start talking. Everyone is either talking or listening or talking over the talking. Talking is easy if not natural for most children.

“It’s almost lunch time. Your ticket for leaving the classroom is to write one sentence. In your sentence, tell me one thing that you learned from our reading and talking this morning about global warming. The first words of your writing could be, ‘This morning I learned that …’”

“Let’s have some volunteers go to the white board. Each will show and then tell us about their outline for our writing project.” Hands shoot into the air to volunteer but just as many or more dig into pockets as if to prevent their person from being chosen to do board work. Public review is anathema to many children.

As teachers of the language arts, we know many things about writing and speaking. Writing is a learned behavior. It is different than speaking which is universal and natural; everyone who is capable speaks. Infants are speaking, or it seems like speech, by their first birthday. Writing is a cognitive activity that is mentally acted out on paper or screen. Children typically write using letters to form what may seem like words after their third birthday or even later. Children speak at the drop of a hat but it often takes much more to drop to cause them to write. Writers are hemmed in by rules of grammar, structure, organization and vocabulary. Speakers go with the flow and use their listeners’ body language to guide their speaking. Writers receive a delayed feedback, if any, from their readers. Writers create sentences and paragraphs while speakers use phrases and idioms and body language to convey meaning that would be difficult to put down in writing. Speaking is almost never critically reviewed; writing almost always is analyzed for form and substance. We put up with many errors in speech that would be jumped upon if written. Hence, many children become reluctant or at least circumspect writers.

From our three examples, we know that cognition resulting in speech is free flowing, especially when the subject is loosely structured. Any memory of yesterday’s trip to the museum will do even if the memory was of the bus ride or lunch. Better if it was an exhibit, but the assignment was to remember something and speak about that memory. Easy.

We know that a brief writing assignment is good. A single sentence starts the words flowing. After lunch it will be easy to have the writer add another sentence or two or ten. Beginning with a first word is a start and once a child is writing words the next idea and words about that idea come easier.

Public exposure of writing and possible criticism are downers for reluctant writers. It is like standing in front of the class in your underwear; critiquing is a mental exposure that shuts down all motivation to write. Children who find writing easy seldom are bothered by a display of their writing. In fact, posting their writing on a bulletin board or in the hallway boosts their writer’s ego. For the reluctant writer, a display of writing shuts down the super-ego. Their writing may never be good enough for display. Why – because it is their writing.

If writing is a somewhat unnatural act, it also is a very idiosyncratic act. Google any article or report on the teaching of writing. Then, check the posted comments on the article or report that follow. The opinions and responses of others will cover the universe in their agreeing and disagreeing. One can find a study to support almost any conjecture about writing and all studies will contain some truths.

So, professional teacher you are charged with teaching children to write. Where do you start? First, you start with the knowledge that writing and improving writing skills are a life-long endeavor. Neither your singular assignment nor your school year of writing assignments will create a finished writer. Your instruction lies within a long continuum of work. Second, writing is in the eye of the reader. Unlike the evaluation of other academic work, an assessment of writing is subjective and most often judged with a holistic-type task. When ten readers examine the same piece of writing, they will generate a range of responses, usually similar but seldom identical. Third, writing is personal. Every child’s visit to the museum results in different mental images and memories. When children write from their experiences, it always will be idiosyncratic.

Back to the beginning of this article. Some of your children-charges will have no difficulty finding their words. For these children, get out of their way. Let their fingers and fists fly. Your work is not in starting their writing but in assisting them to contemplate what they have written afterward and consider if what they actually wrote is what they wanted or needed to write. And, perhaps, if they could find ways to improve their writing, given what they know about structure, grammar and spelling. Non-critically, they, at any age, can reread their writing for clarity and self-correction.

Regarding the reluctant writers, consider Forrester’s words to his protégé Jamal in the movie Finding Forrester (2001).

“No thinking – that comes later. You must write your first draft with your heart. You rewrite with your head. The first key to writing is to write, not to think!”

Seem wrong? Not. Too often children become brain-frozen by overthinking how to start. Unfreeze them – “Start writing, please. Don’t think about it too much, just tell me in your words what you are thinking.” Later on, when children know more about how language works, they can think about the quality of their writing.

Give reluctant writers an opening sentence. Like when Forrester gave Jamal a paragraph from his own writing as a beginning for Jamal’s writing, he said “Start typing that. Sometimes the simple rhythm of typing gets us from page one to page two. When you begin to feel your own words, start typing them.”

I have watched children sit on their hands when assigned to write in the belief that the clock and recess or lunch or going to music class will relieve them of their agony. I have watched these same children do this over and over again regardless of the subject or of the other incentives offered. For these children, professional teacher, you must prime their pump. If not with a pre-written first sentence, then use oral language to prime written language. “Tell me how the Earth and the sun and the moon go around. Help me to know which goes around the other. Tell me and I will write it down.” Then, a child can work with her oral words recorded through your writing. She is in motion as a writer.

I have watched children fret about writing and then watched fretting become their learned behavior. A fretting writer begets a fretting teacher who knows that if a child frets about easy daily assignments the same child will fret and freeze when given on-demand writing assignments in her annual academic assessments. Today, teachers have a lot at stake when children do not become fretless writers.

I also have watched insightful teachers remove the fretting for their reluctant writers by understanding what it is that makes writing difficult for a reluctant writer. And, I have watched these same insightful teachers relieve their own fretting because fretless writing also is a learned child behavior.

Your Pre-K Vocab Predicts Your School and Adult Vocab – Learn More Words Earlier

How many words did you know when you were three years old? If you knew that the strength of your adult vocabulary would be predicated on your three year old vocabulary would you have looked at words differently then? Will you look any differently at three year olds and their world of words now?

The urgency for developing word power for your children has been an under the radar work in progress for many educators. Social research and in-school observations support declarations that children of poverty and familial distress suffer many disadvantages when they enter school. One of the most significant learning disadvantages is their lack of word power – they are underexposed to vocabulary. Now, the Clinton Foundation and the Next Generation project have joined to form the Too Small To Fail initiative to improve the health and well-being of pre-school aged children. A part of their work addresses the word gap that burdens children of poverty.

“In fact, there is a startling gap between highly educated parents and less educated parents in the amount of time that parents spend talking to, reading to and engaging in other activities with their young children that support cognitive development. Robert Putnam and Evrim Alintas call this “Goodnight Moon” time, and their forthcoming research indicates that while “Goodnight Moon” time has increased for all families, it has increased most dramatically for those families with more highly educated parents. In the 1960s and 1970s, highly educated and less educated parents were spending similar amounts of time reading to their children; yet in 2010-2012, the total gap between high- and low-educated mothers’ and fathers’ time spent on “Goodnight Moon” activities was more than half an hour daily.8 This gap adds up over weeks, months and years to a significant gap in time investment in young children.

A key result of this gap is a troubling difference in children’s early vocabularies. Researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risley found that by age four, children in professional families had heard an average of 30 million more words addressed to them than children in families on welfare, and 15 million more words than working-class families. This means that children from lower-income and even middle-class families often enter school with substantially smaller vocabularies than many of their peers. Unfortunately, inequities on display in preschool and kindergarten largely persist throughout life. Most of the high school achievement gap between poor, middle-income and wealthy students is already visible by kindergarten. And the children who have weak pre-literacy and numeracy skills in kindergarten are, on average, the same children with weak vocabulary and math skills in seventh grade. Similar trends can be seen when it comes to life skills: discrepancies in attention span during preschool predict relative levels of academic persistence, earnings, and family stability, even 20 and 30 years later. These lasting effects are no surprise: New brain research also shows how adverse childhood experiences linked to poverty can harm the development of the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which is associated with the ability to pay attention, exhibit self-control, organize and plan.”

word power

Percentage of children ages 3–5 who were read to 3 or more times in the last week by a family member by mother’s education, selected years 1993–2007

Give pre-school children a boost for a life time – teach them more words.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2s2f_framingreport_v2r3.pdf

Teacher Coaches – The New Player No One Knows

In the land of teachers, what is a professional coach for teacher effectiveness?

When a new position is created in an established game, no one knows the rules for the player in that position. It would be like introducing a twelfth player onto the football field, one who is an expert in offensive and defensive and special team play, but does not wear a football uniform. Instead of playing the game, this expert-player is a coach on the field who can “stop the action” in order to critique the last play and then tell and show actual players how to improve performances on the next play. Most players, as well as football fans, would say, “This is new! How does this work?” This is the environment of professional coaches for educators who are employed to advance educator effectiveness. It is a new day and professional coaches in education are the new player.

Educators have a history of working with evaluators, coordinators, consultants and vendors. A veteran classroom teacher has a ready understanding of the roles these persons play in public education. Evaluators typically are building principals or district supervisors. Coordinators, as in curriculum coordinators and subject area specialists, assist the teacher in understanding the district’s approved curriculum and interpreting curricular outcomes into instructional designs. Consultants and vendors most usually work for producers of educational materials and are invested in helping teachers implement materials the district has purchased. But, a professional coach is none of these. So, what are the role parameters for a teacher’s coach?

“What does an instructional coach do? Look at ‘instruction’—the act, process, or art of imparting knowledge and skill. Look at ‘coach’—to teach. Instructional coaches teach teachers how to be effective instructors. This is the focus of instructional coaching because good instruction is 15 to 20 times more powerful in producing student achievement than family background and income, race, gender, and other explanatory variables. Student learning must be at the heart of all decisions made in the school.”

http://www.teachers.net/wong/SEP11/

In order to coach, coaches will need to persevere. If educational leadership follows past practice, professional coaches will be lost in the soft work of staff development and educational community building. Why do I believe this? Let’s start with the mission of a teacher coach: to improve a teacher’s active demonstration of the district’s adopted teacher effectiveness practices, and, improve the teacher’s skills in causing all children to achieve the district’s standardized testing and student learning objectives. Just as a hitting coach is responsible for improving each player’s hitting skills, as in on-base percentage and hits with runners in scoring position, a teaching coach is responsible for improving the educational effectiveness of teachers. Aligning and keeping the teaching coach aligned with this mission is the difficulty.

Too many coaching positions are filled by teacher/coaches. A current teacher, usually a very competent teacher, is assigned to a split assignment: half-time teacher and half-time coach. This “half way” attempt to create a coach fails to align the coach with the mission because teaching is a full-time assignment. A competent teacher will commit as much time to planning, assessing and teaching a half-day assignment as she will to a whole day assignment. The belief that she can be an effective coach on released time is both naïve and condescending to the possibility of coaching.

Second, when a teacher is a half-time coach, her fellow teachers cannot have adequate availability to her coaching. Half of the faculty will be available when she is a coach and half will not be when she is teaching. Principals may try to assuage this by using the teacher/coach’s prep time for coaching, but this will only irritate the coach’s teaching assignment. Using prep time in the day or before or after the teaching day only short-changes both assignments.

Third, teachers view teachers as teachers. There always will be a shadow over her coaching as the teachers she coaches will look at the half day she is teaching to examine “And, how effective is she in her own classroom?” Disregarding the variables of student demographics and the pull of her dual assignments, a teacher/coach’s classroom work will be used as a judge of her coaching expertise.

Fourth, district leadership with a political or budgetary mind-set will include the instructional coach within departments of coordinators and staff developers. The coach’s role of critical assessment and refinement of teaching skills requires an intimate relationship with a small set of teachers while coordinators and staff developers work across the district. Combining the coach with these generalists dissolves the ability of the coach to do the critical and clinical work of coaching into another district-wide responsibility.

Finally, districts with multiple initiatives, such as building professional learning communities for teachers, mentoring of initial educators, and teacher retention programs, have a propensity for adding a component of each of these to coordinators and specialists. Existing descriptions of instructional coaches in some districts displays this misalignment of mission.

A report by the Annenberg Institute verifies the potential for structural problems in aligning teacher coaches with their mission. “Since coaching is a relatively new practice, much attention has been given to creating the conditions necessary to implement coaching at the district and school levels. As coaching becomes more widespread, attention needs to shift to making sure coaching has a significant impact on teaching practice, and, ultimately, on student learning. For coaching to make an impact, it must be wedded to specific, articulated gaps in content outcomes. Effective coaching structures use indicators to measure the changes in their practice and assess the effectiveness of their work.

Central office supports for instruction and school-level efforts to improve instruction are often not consistently aligned and coordinated. While coaches can serve as liaisons between school and administration, clear routes of access to supports and communication of needs between central offices and schools remain ongoing challenges, particularly in large or decentralized districts.”

http://annenberginstitute.org/pdf/InstructionalCoaching.pdf

In the land of teachers, district and building level leadership must let teacher’s coaches have direct access to teachers in their classrooms. This new player is a wild card that cannot be clouded by non-mission assignments. Coaching for educator effectiveness is predicated upon a coach’s

  • direct observation of the teacher,
  • clinical lesson studies with the teacher,
  • critical analysis of the teacher’s effective educator practices,
  • instructive modeling of effective practices by the coach,
  • objective analysis of student achievement data
  • instructive modeling of instruction aimed at student achievement gaps, and
  • constant interaction between the coach and teacher.

If the new player on the education field is to be given a chance to make a difference in teacher effectiveness, the coach must be allowed to coach.

Professional Coaches for Educators: Critical Observation, Focused Criticism and Objective Reflection

We all know folks who are born with innate talents. Yay for them. The rest of us need all the help we can get. Professional coaching has become a very accepted and productive strategy for improving professional skills. Today, given state and local mandates for improved educator effectiveness, teachers and principals everywhere should be accessing professional coaching as a means for polishing existing talents and learning new skills.

There was a time when a baccalaureate degree led to a teacher’s license and periodic post-graduate course credits or course equivalency units sustained that license for the duration of an educator’s career. Historic professional development entailed an educator’s attending classes and writing a paper or creating a project or taking a test. Not so much today. The definition and display of professional competence has and is changing dramatically. In Wisconsin, my home state, educator effectiveness is a rated composite of observed educator behaviors and the measured value of student performances on mandated tests and student learning objectives (SLOs). The pathway for today’s educators to learn their new effectiveness competencies is through a much more dynamic professional development (PD) scenario than yesteryears’. Contemporary PD leads to outcomes that are measured and an educator’s measured outcomes must meet “or exceed mandated performance standards to sustain an educator’s professional employment. “Be an effective professional or leave the profession” is the new credo.

Professional coaching serves two powerful purposes for today’s educator. First, professional coaching is the bridge between learning and performing new effectiveness standards. Using the language of instructional design, coaching supports the guided and independent practice of new learning. And, second, professional coaching elevates the level of the educator’s practice; it moves the measurement needle to higher levels of effectiveness. Professional coaching of educators is all about effectiveness training.

When an educator agrees to be coached, she should expect three things from her coach. Her coach must be a critical observer and a laser-pointed critic who causes her to open her professional work to her own objective reflection and improvement. Anything less is a waste of time. There have been too many evaluators in the past who sat silently in the back of the classroom for a mandatory 45-minute observation or two and spent the majority of their time watching a child of interest or reading bulletin boards only to submit a milquetoast evaluation that neither identified professional strengths nor exposed weaknesses. For too many educators and for too long a time, milquetoast accurately described their professional evaluations and professional improvement plans. No longer.

Today’s professional evaluators are evaluating effectiveness of the teacher in executing a set of district adopted teacher practices and in causing children to achieve prescribed levels of results on academic tests. Principals are being evaluated in the same manner using adopted administrator standards and their ability to cause their faculty to cause children to achieve or improve their achievement on academic tests; the latter may seem like a stretch but it is a real part of the evaluation design.

State and local authorities have pointed to professional development as the means for assisting teachers and principals to become increasingly effective. Many state plans for professional development include references to “professional coaches” as resources for teachers and principals. Most state and district plans are indistinct in prescribing the role or expectations of a professional coach. It is the “open door” for coaching that allows teachers and principals to connect with “their coach” and create a very personalized professional development plan for their “improved effectiveness.”

The following portrays what a coach should tell a teacher (or principal) in establishing a coaching relationship.

Coaching as Critical Observation

Her Coach says, “I am your critical observer. Both words are essential. I will be critical and I will observe everything. I have a singular agenda. Your district adopted Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching as its template for educator effectiveness. My job is to cause you to be a very competent practitioner of that Framework. I have no other agenda; I just forgot every other effectiveness template except Danielson’s.

I will be critical in my observation. When you show me your instructional design, I am looking at how well you know the children you are instructing and not just their names. I am looking for your knowledge of their learning preferences and their learning needs and how well you personalize your design for their individual success. I am looking at your unwrapping of their grade level standards and your schedule of incremental learning objectives. I am looking at your array and use of varied formative assessments and reteaching activities, when needed, and learning extensions for children who learned from your initial instruction. I am watching you through Danielson’s eyes and I am watching you through your children’s eyes. And, I am a critical watcher.”

http://danielsongroup.org/framework/

Coaching as Focused Criticism

Her Coach says, “I will start with the black and white. The black is my telling you where you are not coherent with Danielson and the white is where you are. I will not generalize, but will identify the element of the domain as it relates to your work and tell you how effectively you are portraying that element. I will not shirk from calling the ‘balls and strikes.’ We will not mince words.

I tell you now and will remind you every time we talk that I am your Coach. I am employed by the school district, but I report to you alone. What I tell you is for your professional improvement; it is not connected in any way to your professional evaluation. That is your principal’s assignment.

As I describe specific areas of your work, you must listen carefully and ask for any and all clarification you need to understand what I am telling you. I will check your understanding, just as an effective teacher checks a student’s progressive understanding, but you also have a responsibility to seek clarification.

It is essential that we both understand that professional criticism is a good thing when it is designed for professional improvement. Criticism is not mean-spirited or demeaning; it is descriptive of your work. Professional criticism is highly personal, because it is all about you and your work, and it is highly impersonal, because it is transitory. Everything that you take as a negative criticism can be turned into a plan for improvement and cause you to be highly successful.

Finally, even on your best day I will make a criticism. It is what I do. Teaching is so complex and children so diverse that every practice can be improved given these changing variables.”

Coaching that Causes Objective Reflection

Her Coach says, “For every criticism I make, we will create a plan for your improvement. This is the coaching loop. ‘I observe, I criticize, we talk and plan and design new practice, you teach, I observe, I criticize…’ This loop works as long as you are able to engage in objective reflection. I can do all that I do and we can make wonderful plans, but you must understand that is your objectivity in reflecting upon your work and my coaching of your work that will increase your professional effectiveness over time. Your improvement is within you and we need to find it and develop it together.

If you are game, we will begin today. If you are game, we will work together throughout the school year and for years to come.”

It is probable that the world of professional development experienced a true paradigm shift when governmental mandates changed to include educator effectiveness models. The old paradigm that said “professional development is static and passive” also told the educator “you are an individual who can successfully satisfy these rules without much assistance.” The new paradigm that says “professional development must improve an educator’s measured performance of exacting standards and practices” opens the door for professional coaching. And, that door stands wide open with a sign that reads “Coaches Enter Here.”