Sherer Aapt Winter 2009 Chicago Session Bf05

DEVELOPING SHARED VISION: DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP Jennifer Zoltners Sherer University of Pittsburgh Reforming STEM Instruction: An Examination of Four Core Change Strategies Chicago, IL: AAPT/AAAS Meeting. February 14, 2009

OVERVIEW OF TALK Background/Co ntext

Theoretical Framework Leadership/ Distributed Leadership

The Case of Adams

IFL

Organizational Change Theory

Implications/Ref lections

BACKGROUND  Learning

Sciences

 Cognition,

 K-12

Social Context, Design

Urban School Reform

BACKGROUND  Learning

Sciences

 Cognition,

 K-12

Social Context, Design

Urban School Reform

 From

Teacher-Centered to StudentCentered

CONTEXT OF STUDY  Distributed

Leadership Study

15 Schools  8 Case Study Sites The Case of Adams: 1999-2003  Understanding

leadership practice

FRAMING THE WORK: LEADERSHIP 

Focus on Individuals Behaviors (e.g., Goleman, 2000; Hallinger & Hausman, 1993) Styles (e.g., Blasé & Anderson, 1995; Blasé & Blasé, 1999) Functions (Heller, 1993; Heller & Firestone, 1995) 



Building and enacting a clear vision

Limited empirical work on practice (Eccles & Nohria, 1992; Heifetz, 1994)

DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK Leader s

Leadership Practice Followers

Situation Structures, routines, tools

FRAMING THE WORK: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE THEORY 

Organizational routine defined: “a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent actions, involving multiple actors” (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 311)

Organizational routines: constancy and change in organizations (March & Simon, 1958)  Stability across time (Feldman, 2000)  Contribute to inertia (Hannan & Freeman, 1984)  Opportunities for Change (Feldman & Pentland, 

2003; Sherer & Spillane, 2009)

THE CASE OF ADAMS 

Chicago Public School (K-8): 1999-2003 1200 Students/70 Faculty 97% African-American, 99% free/reduced lunch, 35% mobility

DATA COLLECTED Type of Data

19992000

20002001

20012002

20022003

Leader Interviews

5

20

32

20

Teacher Interviews

6

14

47

17

Leader Shadows Meetings

0

3

5

0

4

11

14

8

Field Notes

4

7

42

8

Social Network Survey

45

THE STORY OF ADAMS 

1988: New principal arrives at Adams



“I knew I had to begin by setting the climate for restructuring because there was so much confusion.” (Dr. Williams, 1999)

“There were these two buildings and nobody liked each other. They did not want to get to know each other. There was no common core curriculum within a grade level, therefore [there was] nothing sequential across grade levels, but that was secondary to getting the people together.” (Dr. Williams, 1999)

“There were these two buildings and nobody liked each other. They did not want to get to know each other. There was no common core curriculum within a grade level, therefore [there was] nothing sequential across grade levels, but that was secondary to getting the people together.” (Dr. Williams, 1999)

BUILD STRUCTURES TO SUPPORT VISION 

Principal designs structures for teachers to collaborate Faculty meetings Grade-level meetings



Focus of structures Build curricular coherence in and across grade levels



Builds coherence, some growth, but by 1995 test scores still below district average

REFINE STRATEGY TO ENACT VISION 

Strategy: Co-construct with leadership team a series of inter-connected routines that focus work practice on instruction Faculty Meetings (Teacher Leader) Grade Level Meetings Math Team Meetings Literacy Committee Breakfast Club Five Week Assessment Routine

THE FIVE WEEK ASSESSMENT ROUTINE Step 1. Leaders Identify Needs

Step 8. Literacy and Math Leaders Share Scores with Administrators and Teachers to Plan Next Steps and Future Assessments Step 7. Leaders and Assistants Compile and Analyze Scores

Step 6. Leaders and Assistants Score Assessments

Step 2. Math and Literacy Leaders Plan Five Week Assessment Schedule

Step 3. Leaders Develops Assessments

Step 4. Leaders and Assistants Copy and Distribute Assessments to Teachers

Step 5. Teachers Administer & Return Assessments to Leaders

BUILDING SHARED VISION THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTINES The Five Week Assessment Routine 1. FOCUSED WORK PRACTICE  Tasks Frames leader tasks (Steps 1-4 and 6-8) School staff: all K-8 teachers Use of classroom time: Administer the assessments  Formative assessment  Lesson planning 

MOVING VISION THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTINES The Five Week Assessment Routine 2. STRUCTURED INTERACTIONS  Formal Interactions (Meetings) (46%) Discuss assessment results and next steps In-depth discussion of holes in teaching and learning that the data revealed Discuss classroom strategies 

Informal Interactions (Talk) Math and Literacy Leaders  Leaders 

Results and strategic planning

Leaders  Teachers   Teachers 

Assessments, lesson planning

MOVING VISION THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ROUTINES The Five Week Assessment Routine 3. FOCUSED WORK PRACTICE & INTERACTIONS ON INSTRUCTION Using formative assessment data to make decisions Focused on specific content to cover in math, reading, and writing

INTERACTIONS 

Build on socio-cultural scholarship Distributed cognition Communities of practice



Frequency and quality of interactions Teachers and leaders interact around content How do they interact?

DIFFERENCES IN PARTICIPATION 



Language Arts Frequency  Leaders: 58%  Followers: 42% Type of Follower Talk  What I do  Strategies  Needs  Connections





Math Frequency  Leaders: 80%  Followers: 20% Type of Follower Talk  Clarification Questions*  Needs  What I do

*Happens with high frequency compared to the rest of the types of speech seen in these meetings

INFORMAL SOCIAL NETWORKS Reading

Math

THE CASE OF DISCIPLINARY LITERACY THE INSTITUTE FOR LEARNING Goal: Teaching Rigorous Tasks  Routines to Support Change 

Professional Development Professional Learning Communities/Study Groups 



Maintaining learning through participation in communities of practice

Tools to Support Change Thinking Through a Lesson Protocol Lesson Observation Protocol

THINKING THROUGH A LESSON PROTOCOL Set Up Up the of the Task Set Task

The Explore Phase/Small-Group Problem Solving • Generate and Compare Solutions • Assess and advance Student Learning

25

The Explore Phase/Private Work Time Generate Solutions

MONITOR: Teacher Selects Examples for the Share Discuss based on: • Different solution paths to the same task • Different representations • Errors • Misconceptions

SHARE: Students explain their methods, repeat others’ ideas, put ideas into their own words, add on to ideas and ask for clarification. REPEAT THE CYCLE FOR EACH

Share Discuss and Analyze Phase of the Lesson 1. Share and Model 2. Compare Solutions 3. Focus the Discussion on Key Mathematical Ideas 4. Engage in a Quick Write

SOLUTION PATH

COMPARE: Students discuss similarities and difference between solution paths. FOCUS: Discuss the meaning of mathematical ideas in each representation REFLECT by engaging students in a quick write or a discussion of the process.

IMPLICATIONS—SO WHAT? 

Leaders build Routines (structures) Tools (sometimes captured in curriculum/pedagogy)



Teachers and leaders choose how to enact those structures Agency Interactions



Co-construction of the vision happens in the practice (interactions between individuals, tools, and routines)

CHANGE STRATEGIES Structures change, then individuals change  Outcome prescribed at onset but emergent in enactment 

INTERACTION OF CHANGE STRATEGIES

Curriculum & Pedagogy (Capture ideas in tools)

Individual Actions

Goals

Policy (Routines)

Shared Vision

Shared vision is established in the enactment of the routines and the use of the tools