bolstering teacher leadership and peer coaching through ......troubleshoot coaching model: limit...

Running Head: ACADEMIC COUNCIL CRITICAL FRIENDS GROUP 1

Bolstering Teacher Leadership and Peer Coaching Through an Academic Council Critical

Friends Group

at Kennedy Catholic High School

EDU 6600 Final Project

Beth Cable

Seattle Pacific University

ACADEMIC COUNCIL CRITICAL FRIENDS GROUP 2

Background: Academic Council and Coaching Model Information

Kennedy Catholic High School is a Seattle Archdiocesan secondary college preparatory

school in Burien, Washington. The school’s mission is “to graduate leaders following Christ in a

school community that is accessible, diverse and committed to pursuing the fullest potential of

every student.” The curriculum is designed to fit the needs of the 875 diverse learners needs.

From college in the high school programs, AP, honors courses, the St. Teresa program for

students with documented learning differences, an international Engish Language Learners

program, and a certified AVID program, Kennedy Catholic offers a vast area of curriculum

compared to similar Seattle catholic high schools. Kenendy has set out to meet the needs of the

changing population of the Seattle area.

The Kennedy Catholic Academic Council’s purpose is to disseminate information and

address academic and curriculum concerns of the school. The council lead by the academic dean

and is made up of sixteen members including the department heads and department coaches who

were chosen by their department, self-elected, or recruited by administration to provide

wide-ranging opinions to inform school-wide decisions (Appendix A).

Our academic dean became acquainted with the University of Washington Center of

Educational Leadership training for peer coaching in the Spring of 2017. The first cohort training

was August 2017 through the Archdiocese of Seattle and consisted of five of the academic

council members. It costs roughly $13,000 per year, which we acquire through Title II funds.

This was specifically for coaching high school teachers and to work with them on targeted


feedback using the 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning instructional model.

The school adopted the 5D during this time to have a unified language around

professional goals, observations, and evaluations. After the faculty voted to remove the cross

department PLCs due to lack of engagement and a desire to work within content areas,

administration wanted another method of collaboration and feedback. The 5D protocol addresses

the changing diversity within our school while pushing academic rigor (Appendix B).

Rationale: Using Critical Friends Group Model to Bolster Coaching Model

Our school has invested in professional development of the peer coaching model. In order

to bolster these efforts, I am proposing we implement the Critical Friends Group professional

learning model.

The work the coaches and department heads are doing aligns with the purpose of Critical

Friends Group (CFG) to examine “student work through teaching practice” (Zepeda, p. 144).


The time and space for this model already exist and would only require reframing the monthly

academic council meeting time. These meetings are built into the yearly calendar ensuring that

the work of the CFG would be ongoing. Additionally, this small group of 16 members possesses

many of the characteristics of effective teams listed on page 147 of Zepeda’s text already.

Specifically our group possesses balanced membership as we all represent different content areas

and were selected by our peers and administration to be on the council. We have been purposeful

in exercising positive behaviors, support, communication, and conflict. In order to reform this

community into a CFG we would review Figure 9.1 Characteristics of Effective Teams in

Zepeda Chapter 9.

The existing protocols would be a huge benefit in reframing the meetings. We could use

this model to solidify the goals of the coaching work and create alignment between the

departments. For example, many of the departments work through the coaching observations on

a trimester schedule, where they see each department member once a quarter. That schedule does

not allow for frequent coaching feedback. The Consultancy protocol (Appendix C) and Atlas

protocol (Appendix D) will be valuable in examining this dilemma. The council would be able to

balance and assign coaches. As mentioned at the beginning, there are some teachers who have

two to four teachers to observe while other coaches have eight. Furthermore, there are a few

teachers who have no coach at all. Those isolated teachers could feel included. The council could

problem-solve both of these dilemmas in the CFG.

Additionally, the five stages of group development mentioned in Zepeda, would help us

examine our growth as a group: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. By

using the stages as a temperature check at the end of each semester, we can evaluate our


relational capacity and ensure our members are benefiting from the professional learning.

Finally, the CFG could empower the efforts of the coaches and department heads to

positively impact student learning because pedagogy would be at the forefront of our work.

“Goals guide the work of the CFGs...and must be clearly established and linked to the purpose of

the group” (Zepeda, pg. 145). Meeting regularly to discuss the connection between our coaching

work and addressing the needs of the changing student population will ensure we are

laser-focused on student learning.

Troubleshooting the Problem of Practice

This model will allow teachers who are peer coaches, department heads, counselors, and

administration to work together to address the following four problems of practice around the

peer coaching model:

1. Empower the teacher leaders

According to Terry Knetch Dozier’s article “Turning Good Teachers into Great

Leaders,” accomplished teachers aspire to become influential members of their site.

Several common implications arise that are needed to “promote and support teacher

leadership.” Two of these implications are evident in our building. First, teachers require

continued training in their leadership role in order to be effective teachers of teachers.

The coaches and department heads would benefit from the opportunity to develop these

leadership skills. Secondly, teachers want to grow to understand and influence effective

policy. This means that these teacher leaders who are driving this professional learning


should have some control over the way it is implemented and be able to review and

recommend future decision based on the research. The CFG model could provide an

opportunity for teachers to study, refine, and reflect on these skills through monthly

sessions. Additionally these teachers could become the experts on the data and reflection

collected from these coaches sessions and therefore key players in the future of this

model for professional learning.

2. Connect three different cohorts, 13 different departments

In Sally J. Zepeda’s chapter on Professional and Job-embedded Learning, she lists

two key attributes that would combat these problems with our current coaching model.

First, that by providing job-embedded learning, teachers collaborate, share, support and

engage in a way that promotes collegiality. The barriers in understanding and experience

between these three cohorts would begin to dissolve through the CFG work because we

would be working together. The second benefit would be that the CFG could foster a

common lexicon between departments. The more we discuss our work in CFG, the more

we could understand our commonalities to strengthen the coaching model. This lexicon

would spread to the larger teaching community and provide more opportunities for

teachers to become teacher leaders, potentially.

I also want to mention Sharon Conley and Donna E. Muncey’s study on Teacher

Teaming and Leadership. They discuss the benefits of the teacher teaming system of

leadership. This type of leadership creates “lateral interaction among teacher peers” that

helps combat isolation. CFGs would envelope in those outlying members of the faculty


(both as teacher coaches and those teachers who are not part of a larger department).

These members of the community would be included in the professional learning efforts

because the teaming model promotes equity for all school roles and departments.

3. Troubleshoot and extend coaching model (make it stick)

A CFG would allow for context-based adult learning to occur in at our specific

site. The coaching training has taken place outside of the building. Teachers have been

implementing the model in their departments, but there has been no formal opportunity to

form a situated framework for these coaches to practice in their building. According to

Catherine Hansman’s article “Context-Based Adult Learning,” learners benefit from an

opportunity to interact with other learners (in this case, new coaches) while articulating,

practicing, and reflecting their learning. This model allows for all levels of coaches to

benefit and refine their practice. Additionally, this job-embedded learning promotes

learning that is coherent for the learner (coach) and extends the duration of the learning

beyond these sessions outside of the building (Zepeda, pg. 21). These coaches will not

have to wait until the next session to tune their practice. Instead, they can use the CFG

monthly sessions to learn from colleagues in their own building and transfer the

knowledge to their practice.

4. Collect data and reflect on growth


Finally, the CFG would give us the time and framework to gather necessary data

and assess the coaching work. In the article “Exploring New Approaches to Teacher

Leadership for School Improvement” Smylie, Conely, and Marks explore the use of

teacher research teams to improve teacher practice. They point out that “teachers who are

involved in research become more reflective, critical, and analytical...of schooling

practice around them” (Smylie et al. pg. 169). Data and assessment are key in connecting

teacher needs to the school improvement plans. Ultimately, this group would have direct

knowledge of whether or not the efforts of the coaching model are meeting its goals. We

could use existing CFG protocols to evaluate on a school-wide level and initiate reform if

it was needed.

Timeline: 1 Year

When Activity Focus

Jan 2020 Academic Council complete needs assessment survey for coaching Create a new dept for those singleton teachers without a dept.

Troubleshoot Coaching Model & Collect and Reflect on Data: Determine common concerns, identify possible support/facilitators within the group, explore the possibility of taking part in online discussion

Feb 2020 Review coaching model as a whole to articulate common goals: Student outcomes

Connect Cohorts: Three different cohorts / thirteen different departments / review purposes


Specific departmental goals Alignment with School Improvement Plan

March 2020 Introduce Critical Friends professional learning model. Establish norms to best fit needs of the group (consider time, confidentiality, facilitator)

Empower Teacher Leaders: Adult learners’ need, autonomy in the formation of the group

April 2020 Critical Friends protocol - determine best protocol and focus based on needs assessment Reflect on findings and implement changes if needed

Troubleshoot coaching model: Limit choice of protocol because of the nature of coaching

May 2020 Critical Friends protocol - Collect and share coaching data so far and reflect on original goals Collaborate and take back to departments

Collect Data and Reflect on Growth: Data and reflection are key to professional learning Chance to share data across dept

June 2020 Reflect on Critical Friends model Reflect on coaching model

- Schedule - Dept break-down

Suggest focus for next year’s coaching model to Academic

Empower Teacher Leaders & Troubleshoot Coaching Model: Wrap up needed to support changes to next year’s professional learning plan


Dean

July - August 2020

Sept 2020 Re-establish critical friends norms and council goals Discuss / brainstorm possible walk-through day for whole Academic Council (chance to perform collaborative walk-throughs to refine coaching practice

Connect Cohorts: Work on creating common ground, data collection, lexicon and for coaches

Oct 2020 Share out Dept Goals Practice Critical Friends protocol

Collect Data and Reflect on Growth: Tuning the goals to address student learning and SIP.

Nov. 2020 Critical Friends protocol

Dec. 2020 Critical Friends Protocol *prepare for assessment of professional learning model

Empower Teacher Leaders: Group Development Stages (forming - storming…)

Jan. 2020 Reflect on assessment and consider next steps - keep the critical friends group? Transition model into portfolio? Book study?

Conclusion

Zepeda stresses “the cornerstone of successful professional development is the way in

which adults are engaged in learning” (Zepeda, pg. 37). To conclude, it is important to evaluate


our use of CFGs against the six assumptions of adult learning. First, this model offers autonomy

as the adult learners are directing and facilitating the CFGs and therefore have choice over what

they cover. Second, each individual will draw from their experience which will become a

learning tool. Third, the discussion and protocols we use will be selected by the learner to help

them problem-solve their specific situation. Fourth, the job-embedded nature of the CFG should

allow for immediate use of the material and perhaps even influence bigger policy. Fifth, the

needs of the learner are at the driving factor of the CFG work and therefore the motivation to

participate is self-fulfilling. Six, the initial groundwork of needs assessment surveys, creating

norms, and creating goals for the CFG should create transparency and therefore help the adult

learners not only understand the ‘why’, but be part of creating the ‘why’ for learning. This work

is meant to support the hard work of the coaches and teachers who want to improve student

learning. The Critical Friends model is an opportunity to include and empower teacher leaders

while connecting to the school’s existing professional learning.


References

5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning™. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2019, from

https://www.k-12leadership.org/content/service/5-dimensions-of-teaching-and-learning.

Conley, S., & Muncey, D. E. (1999). Teachers talk about teaming and leadership in their work.

Theory Into Practice, 38(1), 46–55.

Dozier , T. K. (2007). Turning good teachers into great leaders. Educational Leadership , 65(1),

54–59.

Hansman, C. A. (2001). Context-based adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education, 2001(89), 43–51.

Merriam, S. B. (n.d.). Andragogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult learning theory. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–13.

Mission and Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.kennedyhs.org/who-we-are/philosophy-and-mission-statement.

Protocols. (2019, October 23). Retrieved November 17, 2019, from

https://nsrfharmony.org/protocols/.

Smylie, M. A., Conley, S. M., & Marks, H. undefined. (2005). Exploring new approaches to

teacher leadership for school improvement. Yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education, 101(1), 162–188.


Zepeda, S. J. (2019). Professional development: what works (third ). New York : Routledge,

Taylor & Francis Group.


Appendix A

Academic Council Facilitated by the Academic Dean

Dept Chair Initials Coach Initials and Cohort #

# of Members

English B.M. K.G. (Cohort 1) 9

Math C.B. / J.V. (Cochairs) C.B. (Cohort 3) 9

Science J.S. J.S. (Cohort 1) 7

Social Studies N.M. J.C. (Cohort 2) 7

Theology J.D. J.D. (Cohort 1) 8

W. Lang M.M. M.M. (Cohort 1) 8

Fine Arts L.B. L.B. (Cohort 3) 5

Bus/Tech J.P. J.P. (Cohort 2) 3

International/ESL P.M. 3*

AVID B.C. B.C. (Cohort 2) 2

Health/Fitness G.C. G.C. (Cohort 2) 5

ST. (Learning Diff) S.G. S.G. (Cohort 1) 4

Counseling J.S. 3

Other: 2*

* not part of the coaching model currently


Appendix B Kennedy Catholic’s Current Diversity by Class

Current Diversity---total students 872

Class of 2020--199 students White--43%

Asian--30% Black--11% Latinx--12%

Pac Is--2% Indig--2%

Class of 2021--212 students White--43% Asian--26% Black--15% Latinx --9% Pac Is--2%

Indig--1% Multi--3%

Class of 2022--228 students White -- 47% Asian -- 26%

Black -- 9% Latinx--10% Pac Is -- 6%

Indig--1%

Class of 2023--243 students White--51%

Asian -- 20% Black--11%

Latinx--10% Pac Is---2%

Indig--2%


Appendix C


Appendix D

bolstering teacher leadership and peer coaching through ......troubleshoot coaching model: limit...

Documents