When considering the professional learning needs of my school, I also consider the district wide mandates that all the schools must adhere to as well. I think our school, and district, could benefit from investing more interest in standards based professional learning and targeted outcomes. Two outcomes in particular could make a significant impact on student learning. Specifically, using comprehensive, sustained, intensive professional learning and utilizing the evaluation of collaborative professional learning would deliver the results the school and district have always aimed.
Killion and Roy (2009) describe the outcome of comprehensive, sustained, intensive professional learning in a school in four key areas. These areas include effectiveness in raising student achievement, collective responsibility for student learning, team configuration for addressing goals for teacher and student learning, and frequency of professional learning per week. In addition, the evaluation of collaborative professional learning would help guide the efficacy of the professional learning on an ongoing basis and reveal areas in need of improvement. By working to improve these two outcomes, our school will move closer to the ideal of enhancing student learning through professional learning.
According to the National Staff Development Council, there are six levels on their rubric to measure schools as they try to improve their professional learning programs. Currently, our school, and probably the district as a whole, is at a level 4 for effectiveness. Killion and Joy (2009) describe level 4 as a school that is engaged in “short-term, intentional, professional learning focused on raising student achievement by improving teaching quality and leadership.” This would describe the literacy collaborative efforts to date. Unfortunately, other subject areas are not included in this type of professional development. Math, Science, Social Studies, and the arts have little to no sustained professional development, leaving them at the lowest level of 6. With some adjustments, and the addition of other subject areas, the effectiveness of professional learning could improve substantially. To help people connect with each other, I could make available digital tools to facilitate meetings for people at multiple sites.
Similarly, the collective responsibility for student learning is currently a level 3. Killion and Roy (2009) describe this as members working and learning together “so that each individual team member can improve the success of his or her students.” Yet, compared to a level 1 that states members “work and learn together sharing collective responsibility so that each individual and team contributes to the success of ALL students within the school,” we can see the responsibility of the individual move to a team of people. True collaborative efforts are not a singular effort and together people can effect powerful change. This team effort includes even those like me, in a technology role, who may have resources and ideas beyond what others may know is available.
In addition to working collectively, the actual team configuration is important as well. The ideal is to have met in a “variety of team configurations over time, addressing specific goals for teacher and student learning, including vertical and whole-school problem or topic-focused school improvement teams and grade-level department, or course teams with members who share common curriculum and/or students” (Killion & Roy, 2009). From my observations and experience, our schools are at a level 4 because we “Meet over time in a single team, addressing specific goals for teacher and student learning, school improvement, and student results” (Killion & Roy, 2009). This could be expanded to include more groups and team configurations; at the elementary level there are many types of groups to be found. In my role as a technology coordinator, I could help facilitate cross subject teams because I often times help plan lessons that bring multiple subjects together.
Then there is the frequency of the meetings. Ideally, a level 1 states “the meetings should take place several times a week within the school day for teacher collaborative team meetings and periodic whole-school collaboration” (Killion & Roy, 2009). The school and district is not far from this ideal, currently team meetings are scheduled to take place several times a week, but there is no whole-school collaborative process as well. This frequency is however skewed because there are no formal guidelines for the several times a week meetings and, to make matters more difficult, they are held during precious teacher planning times in which all manner of responsibilities must be tended to. The fidelity to the meetings is easily broken and other alternatives must be found to preserve the integrity of these meetings.
Finally, the area of ongoing evaluation of the professional learning process is necessary so that fidelity to the process as a whole is not sacrificed. With a comprehensive evaluation process, leadership will be able to identify the areas that need improvement and work to rectify the problems. Currently, the school and district is at a level 4, and they “Engage in ongoing evaluation using multiple sources of data to assess team results and operation” (Killion & Roy, 2009). To bring us up to the highest level of evaluation, team members and individual members’ contributions to teams would be measured, as well as how teams adjusted using individual input. I could assist in the evaluation process by making an online form so that data from it could be easily interpreted. Follow up on the results would be necessary to keep the process operation at the highest levels possible.
Standards based professional learning is a rigorous method to use to determine the effectiveness of educator learning. As in student learning, there are many elements that impact the development, implementation, and outcomes of professional learning. I look forward to helping my school become a stronger professional learning community in all the many forms and adaptations it may require to get there.
References
Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Tool 14.5. Companion disk to Becoming a learning school. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Standards. (2012). Retrieved September 21, 2013, from http://learningforward.org/standards#.Ukd5On_L43I
No comments:
Post a Comment