“In November 2019, the California Health and Human Services Agency…develop[ed] a Master Plan for Early Learning and Care to…put into action…recommendations and research about the benefits of quality early learning and care.
I would agree starting with leadership expectations/standards makes sense. How do we ensure engagement and commitment? We don't want a surveillance system, yet I know things don't get done consistently across schools/districts unless there is some type of accountability system.
I’ve addressed this question in earlier posts more fully in earlier posts and am still writing several others for future posting. Teachers are best positioned to hold one another accountable for the practices they select through self- and peer-assessment in professional settings much like medical professionals. Engagement and commitment are expected from professionals who apply specialized knowledge on behalf of children. Using external surveillance short circuits legitimate engagement and commitment by usurping the right to practice that is granted with a credential. It’s hard to conceive of this notion because the factory metaphor is so deeply entrenched. External intrusion by non-practitioners into professional practice distorts the work. I think principals should be practicing teachers with decision-making authority grounded in professional protocols. We now have a bureaucratic surveillance system.
I agree with what you share here Terry. The factory model makes it difficult to initiate, embed, and sustain collaborative professional work. The principal makes the difference in facilitating and leading this work. Who supports the principal to successfully lead these endeavors? A rhetorical question, food for thought.
Right now, the principal is in a hard spot. The management-labor relationship dichotomy imported from industry separates the principal from teachers and in many cases leave teachers with informal instructional leaders who have no instructional authority. I’ve worked in upwards of 25 different elementary school sites as a reading specialist working as a demo teacher and teacher developer. My ability to do real work with individual teachers was dependent on the principal. I did not always commit to practices the district was mandating; sometimes I committed to practices the district frowned on. With the right principal who could shield me from district administration I could be an honest broker and talk frankly with teachers. They could reject or modify or embrace my input without fear of retaliation. All of us could grow. In cases where the principal was a ventriloquist for the practice of the moment I had no legitimate role. I thought back then I would have been better positioned as a principal in a school with no authority to evaluate teachers. I could then have been intellectually honest with teachers, shield them from external intrusion, and expect them to self-assess. I would have needed final authority in hiring decisions. I’m not sure about any of these thoughts as solutions, but I am sure the current model works against teacher professional development and makes principals face challenges in becoming an instructional leader. I have to say I worked with a handful of remarkable, dynamic, powerful principals who made me better.
All you share here Terry is spot on. I feel this tension regularly as a principal, wanting to protect, support, and hold high expectations *with* teachers while also knowing that I carry a lot of power in my role as a supervisor and evaluator *of* teachers. I don't see clear solutions right now - instructional coaches as partners? - but the vision you describe is a destination I'd like to walk toward.
I would agree starting with leadership expectations/standards makes sense. How do we ensure engagement and commitment? We don't want a surveillance system, yet I know things don't get done consistently across schools/districts unless there is some type of accountability system.
What kinds of “things not getting done” are you referring to, Matt? Can you give me some examples?
The practices that are articulated and expected in the standards that lead to better conditions for student learning.
I’ve addressed this question in earlier posts more fully in earlier posts and am still writing several others for future posting. Teachers are best positioned to hold one another accountable for the practices they select through self- and peer-assessment in professional settings much like medical professionals. Engagement and commitment are expected from professionals who apply specialized knowledge on behalf of children. Using external surveillance short circuits legitimate engagement and commitment by usurping the right to practice that is granted with a credential. It’s hard to conceive of this notion because the factory metaphor is so deeply entrenched. External intrusion by non-practitioners into professional practice distorts the work. I think principals should be practicing teachers with decision-making authority grounded in professional protocols. We now have a bureaucratic surveillance system.
I agree with what you share here Terry. The factory model makes it difficult to initiate, embed, and sustain collaborative professional work. The principal makes the difference in facilitating and leading this work. Who supports the principal to successfully lead these endeavors? A rhetorical question, food for thought.
Right now, the principal is in a hard spot. The management-labor relationship dichotomy imported from industry separates the principal from teachers and in many cases leave teachers with informal instructional leaders who have no instructional authority. I’ve worked in upwards of 25 different elementary school sites as a reading specialist working as a demo teacher and teacher developer. My ability to do real work with individual teachers was dependent on the principal. I did not always commit to practices the district was mandating; sometimes I committed to practices the district frowned on. With the right principal who could shield me from district administration I could be an honest broker and talk frankly with teachers. They could reject or modify or embrace my input without fear of retaliation. All of us could grow. In cases where the principal was a ventriloquist for the practice of the moment I had no legitimate role. I thought back then I would have been better positioned as a principal in a school with no authority to evaluate teachers. I could then have been intellectually honest with teachers, shield them from external intrusion, and expect them to self-assess. I would have needed final authority in hiring decisions. I’m not sure about any of these thoughts as solutions, but I am sure the current model works against teacher professional development and makes principals face challenges in becoming an instructional leader. I have to say I worked with a handful of remarkable, dynamic, powerful principals who made me better.
All you share here Terry is spot on. I feel this tension regularly as a principal, wanting to protect, support, and hold high expectations *with* teachers while also knowing that I carry a lot of power in my role as a supervisor and evaluator *of* teachers. I don't see clear solutions right now - instructional coaches as partners? - but the vision you describe is a destination I'd like to walk toward.