Can We Rethink "Improving Instruction?"

Am I saying good teaching isn’t happening? No. There are wonderful and magical things happening in classrooms throughout the state. Schools are filled with hope, positive energy, enthusiasm, and incredible relationships in every region of our state.

Let me clarify: TPEP, in its current, well-intended form, is not working as originally designed. We are not improving instruction as the system was designed or as we all hoped. As a system, we spent years and millions of dollars on professional development to learn and implement instructional frameworks and examine highly effective classroom instruction. Despite clearly defined frameworks, robust evaluation systems, and high-stakes accountability, have we changed the conditions for school principals (who are supposed to be the “instructional leaders” of the building) to truly engage in ongoing professional growth for each of their teachers? 

Not even close. In fact, since TPEP was developed and piloted, the demands preventing a school leader from getting into the classroom have only grown in quantity and complexity. Some principals have confessed that getting into the classroom is nearly impossible. A day of planned classroom observations is thrown out the window thanks to a fight, something on social media, an angry parent, an investigation, or more vaping in the bathroom. Yet the duty to “evaluate” teachers remains on top of their list of responsibilities. 

During the last ten years, the number of unfunded mandates, new initiatives, and policy changes have been countless. The list is daunting, and it lands on the shoulders of our school principals. We’ve nearly made the job impossible with the joint expectations of school management and instructional leadership. I’m not saying principals can’t be both, but they might not survive long enough to do both effectively and without sacrifices.

Here we sit after so many years of investments into the educational system and find ourselves wondering why we are not seeing huge improvements in student achievement, test scores, teacher satisfaction, principal retention rates, etc. Do we just accept this reality that we’ve bounced right back to a compliance-based approach to teacher evaluation? Is that what’s best for both students and adults? 

If we continue to expect our principals to be in classrooms and engage in ongoing professional growth conversations, then we better change the systems to support them, their list of responsibilities, or their working conditions. The current model doesn’t work. The unpredictable demands and their students' social-emotional emergencies precede classroom observation. What if we did something different? What if we explored other models? What if we blasted off the box's walls that limit our creative thinking? 

I was a Spanish major, turned Spanish teacher, assistant principal, and high school principal. In just a few short years, I found myself in charge of leading instructional improvement and teacher evaluation for the Music, Social Studies, and Career and Technical Education Departments. That alone should make us think about changing the system.

Using the Danielson Framework as my guide, I’d walk into the Advanced Concert Choir to “observe” the Choral Director. He was a master who magically moved 90+ students from one song to another. The class was fast-paced, with corrective but positive feedback, high energy,  and authentic relationships. I always enjoyed my two-ish observations per year. For me, it was a great escape (assuming the radio remained quiet) to see wonderful classroom instruction and hear beautiful music. But what about the Choral Director? What did he get from the transaction? He got an affirmation of a job well done, a similarly written evaluation from the previous year, and another piece of paper for his file.

That is just one example. A case of one, but it should paint a more global picture of an ineffectively designed system. First, principals are lucky if they can make it to and through an entire observation. Second, principals are fortunate if they can get through two cycles of observations during the year (two days of 180). Third, are all principals really designed to be the best content, context, and instructional experts? And my Choral Director was just one of the 30+ professionals I was responsible for evaluating. Those questions and comments alone should make us rethink how we approach “improving instruction."

What did my Choral Director need? He probably could have used a peer-to-peer observation and coaching model from another Choral Director from the district or a neighboring district. He could have used a PLC with other music teachers to talk about what is working or not working in the music classroom. He could have used an informal process that shifted the focus from a compliance-based evaluation to a more robust professional growth cycle with his peers. I guarantee I was not what he needed to improve his practice. My best service to him was through managing resources, master scheduling, and sustaining a positive and supportive school-wide culture. 

I talk to my colleagues across the country. They describe systems where teachers observe teachers, where some teachers are considered the “instructional leaders” with release time to provide peer-to-peer feedback (not evaluation), and where principals only step in to “evaluate” when ineffective instruction exists. The reality is most teachers are dynamite. They need systems where they can push each other to improve. Should the focus be on evaluation, or is it time to consider a different model and approach?

Here’s what I can tell you for sure — unless we provide relief to our principals, the TPEP outcomes will remain the same or worse. I can also tell you I’m thankful I was never in charge of the Math Department.