step 1: pinpoint analysis - we will. skyrocket...skyrocket educator training’s unique approach to...

Skyrocket Educator Training’s unique approach to developing teachers and leaders maximizes both

decades of professional experience and cross-industry best-practices to ensure best results. This white paper

analyzes the core components of the Skyrocket approach to training educators, drawing links between the

practices implemented and best-practices from across varied industries (both in and around education).

The white paper discusses the high-repetition practice component of the Skyrocket model, as well as the

hierarchical approach to developing skills amongst newer teachers and leaders in training. Lastly, the

white paper focuses on the efficacy of the meeting design and supports provided to educators in training,

drawing connections between the effectiveness of the program and the tactics prioritized when working

with educators.

Skyrocket Educator Training exists for a single, audacious goal- to dramatically impact student outcomes through

intense and intentional school leader and teacher training. Skyrocket’s approach, founded on decades of shared

educator experience, is formulated to drive both teacher and leader impact through three critical steps: pinpoint

analysis, hyper-focused training meetings, and intense ongoing support. Beyond experiential knowledge, from

years in the classroom and as school leaders and district-level administrators, the practices of Skyrocket Educator

Training are steeped in research, and evidence-based best practices, merging both the art and science that

empower the strongest educators. This research and corresponding evidence serves as a core component of

decisions made, allowing for faster, more precise coaching for teachers and leaders throughout various locations

and circumstances.

Step 1: Pinpoint Analysis

Skyrocket training, be it with teachers or leaders, is grounded in precise analyses of current performance through

the Skyrocket Frameworks. These Frameworks are used to evaluate teacher and leader needs, getting down to

specific actions that can be taken to improve student and school-level outcomes. Coaching decisions are driven

by the data, and improvements are prioritized in an order that builds from the most basic skills and eventually

ramps up into the highest-order actions that educators can take.

The use of these Frameworks in this scaffolded fashion is based on the core belief that both teacher and leader

actions are hierarchical in nature. An educator must become adept at the basics before progressing to the

more difficult, complex actions (which are so often thrust upon them early on in their careers without support).

This belief is backed by a depth of research in cognitive development theory, including foundational research

from the 1980s by Kurt W. Fischer, currently the Charles Bigelow Professor of Education at Harvard Graduate School

of Education. In his article, “A Theory of Cognitive Development: The Control and Construction of Hierarchies of

Skills”, Fischer highlights a critical component of developing skills- “that skills develop through levels, not stages:

Development is relatively continuous and gradual, and the person is never at the same level for all skills,” (Fischer,

1980, p. 481). Equally importantly, Fischer challenges that skill development must be induced by the environment

that the individual is experiencing, as “only the skills induced most consistently will typically be at the highest level

that the individual is capable of,” (Fischer, 1980, p. 481).

The Skyrocket Approach

WeWillSkyrocket.com [email protected]

Fischer’s concept of hierarchical development of skills is backed by the 2009 article in the Journal of Teaching

and Teacher Education “Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for research on teacher training

and professional development” (Kyriakides, Creemers, & Antoniou, 2009), where the authors directly discuss the

impact of hierarchical skills on student outcomes. Kyriakides et al empirically identify that “teachers exercising

more advanced types of behavior have better student outcomes,” (Kyriakides, Creemers, & Antoniou, 2009, p.

12), but press further that how teachers learn to exercise these behaviors must be developed dynamically and

over time. The authors share that the findings of their research indicate that, much like the students they serve,

“teachers may also move gradually from one type of teacher behaviour to a more complicated type,” (Kyriakides,

Creemers, & Antoniou, 2009, p. 23).

Skyrocket leverages this research to guide the necessity of both data alignment and hierarchical design of

teacher and leader coaching, tackling those next most important steps in order of capability and necessity.

This process of prioritizing specific skills based on the Skyrocket Frameworks not only enhances the abilities of the

trained individual in the ways recommended by Fischer and Kyriakides, but also empowers the school leader

involved to leverage these tools in future teacher development opportunities. These types of learning opportunities,

discussed by Venne and Coleman in 2010 as “experiential evolutionary scaffolding”, are directly linked to

developing not just skills in the moment but deeper effectiveness in the long run. “[E]xperiential evolutionary

scaffolding allows for escalated development of independent thinking via scaffolding and critical thinking via

increasingly complex authentic learning experiences,” (Venne & Coleman, 2010). This enhanced independence

and improved critical thinking is at the heart of developing educators who drive high-quality student outcomes.

Step 2: Hyper-focused Training Meetings

Skyrocket Educator Training starts with precise focuses on the next most important steps, but the true hallmark

of the program is the intense, supportive training that is provided prior to an individual being placed into a

performance situation. These meetings focus on high-repetition practice, allowing for a developing educator to

create automaticity in their responses. Developing this automaticity through practice is supported by Schmidt and

Bjork’s “New Conceptualizations of Practice”, where the researchers posture that “from a practical perspective,

this framework would stress that a trainer’s major goal is to focus clearly on the criterion performance, and to

understand what kinds of processes are required for its proficiency. Then, practice activities that exercise these

particular processes could be designed,” (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). Skyrocket’s high-repetition practice technique

attends to the need to practice key processes, allowing for the learner to build increased confidence in those

new skills.

The practice opportunities presented during Skyrocket training are also varied. Rather than focusing on only

practicing a single frame of attacking a situation, the learner is given a variety of situations where the practiced

skills may be valuable, creating a learning opportunity closer to what Schmidt and Bjork note as “varied practice”,

which has a stronger correlation to the learner being able to generalize the skills practiced into other potential

challenges they may face. The combination of repetition and variation serves to empower the learner to go

forward into the classroom with enhanced confidence and ability to tackle a broad spectrum of problems they

may face.

WHITE PAPER PRODUCED BY:Daniel Bell, Resonant Logistics (Lansdale, PA)

WeWillSkyrocket.com


Also critical to the success of these meetings is a focus on the individual connection between trainer and trainee.

Prioritizing positive check-ins and discussions around “glows” from previous observations are embedded in the

framework of the training meetings, and serve to develop a rapport in the room. This connection is essential

in the creation of a servant-leader style connection between the trainer and trainee, prioritizing the concept

shared by Saundra Reinke that effective leaders are “committed to the growth of both the individual and the

organization,” (Reinke, 2004). This style of leadership, as noted by Irving and Longbotham in the 2007 article “Servant

leadership predictors of team effectiveness”, serves to create a 39% increase in overall team effectiveness (Irving

& Longbotham, 2007).

Additionally, Skyrocket prioritizes urgency and focus in training meetings. These meetings, designed to swiftly focus

on solving problems and practice, match what research identifies as an effective meeting: focused on problem

solving and enhancing organizational effectiveness (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012) and maximizing

strategic thinking (Mankins, 2004). “Better meetings were associated with higher team productivity. Moreover,

constructive meeting interaction processes were related to organizational success,” (Kauffeld & Lehmann-

Willenbrock, 2012). By leveraging the robust Skyrocket framework and rapidly getting to the heart of the work

(both in attending to growth and practicing targeted skills), the barriers created by extended meetings are

effectively removed and overall satisfaction in the supports are enhanced.

Step 3: Intense Ongoing Support

One critical distinction between traditional teacher observations and the Skyrocket model is the prioritization

of real time feedback to the individual engaging in the action. Rather than sitting back and waiting to deliver

the feedback after the fact, the trainer leans into the moment to intensively model and coach at the point of

potential failure. This not only allows the leader to monitor performance, but also provide crucial support to a

team-member during moments where member skill and confidence must be developed (Yukl, Gordon, & Taber,

2002).

The intense Skyrocket supports also ensure that the level of challenge to teacher and leader development is

consistently maximized, pushing individuals to continuously improve on those skills being practiced. As noted

by Jung, Schneider, and Valacich in 2010, providing feedback and “designing for optimal challenge” in the

environment allows for significant performance gains to be realized (Jung, Schneider, & Valacich, 2010). Prioritizing

rapid and accessible feedback enables faster development of those prioritized skills and, in turn, enhanced

student outcomes.


Skyrocket Educator Training exists to empower teachers and leaders to deliver outstanding student outcomes

through carefully orchestrated development and training. Through the Skyrocket Approach of Pinpoint Analysis,

Hyper-Focused Training Meetings, and Intense Ongoing Support, teachers and leaders are not only given the

tools to tackle the incredibly challenging work of driving student achievement but it also engenders a strong

sense of community and personal ownership in the work. Leaders participating in the Skyrocket program share

that they are more prepared and more comfortable in their ability to deliver the critical messages and training to

their teachers than they were prior to their experience with Skyrocket.

As noted by Kouzes and Posner in their 2007 Harvard Business Review article, “To Lead, Create a Shared Vision”,

72% of surveyed employees want forward-looking thinking from their leader (Kouzes & Posner, 2009). The Skyrocket

Approach to tackling educator training, both for teachers and leaders, is a research-backed, evidence-based

forward-looking program designed to proactively prepare them for increased success in working with their

students and staff.

CONCLUSION


SKYROCKET TEACHER FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE: STRAND 1: CLASSROOM CULTURE1. Classroom is neat, clean, and organized. Classroom layout (desks, whiteboard, projector, etc.) is most conducive to student learning. Teacher and

student materials are prepped in advance (handouts, guided notes, PPTs, etc), and all lesson components are logical and accessible for students.

EVIDENCE: In studying high school learning environments, researchers from Virginia Tech University identified strong correlations between higher student acheivement and aesthetic quality ratings, lessened graffiti, quality furniture, and pastel painted walls (instead of white walls) in instructional areas. (Cash, 1993)

2. Classroom norms and academic expectations/anchor charts are posted and visible to all students.

EVIDENCE: Per the US Department of Education, “Students tend to learn as little or as much as their teachers expect. Teachers who set and communicate high expectations to all their students obtain greater academic performance from these students than do teachers who set low expectations.” (40) (Wong & Wong, 1998)

3. Student work is displayed. It is recent and includes detailed feedback that celebrates students’ effort, improvement, and success.

EVIDENCE: “Be sure to post work that is both exemplary and provides a model to other students.”“[R]eplace writing ‘great job’ in the margin with, ‘Great job starting your paragraph with a clear topic sentence,’ or even, ‘Great topic sentence- clearly previews the key issue in the paragraph[.]” (Lamov, 2010)

4. Teacher has created, modeled, and habituated expectations for all class routines (classroom entry, homework submission, share outs, partner work, etc.).

EVIDENCE: “Posting, teaching, and reviewing expectations (i.e., social skills) and providing feedback are associated with (a) decreases in off-task behavior and disruptive behavior (i.e., talking out) and (b) increases in academic engagement, leadership, and conflict resolution.” (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008)

5. A signal (hand raised, countdown, claps, etc.) is used to achieve and maintain One Voice when appropriate.

EVIDENCE: “Research demonstrates that teacher actions to generate positive attention by manipulating antecedent variables can reduce problem behaviors and increase on-task behaviors by 27%.” (Allday & Pakurar, 2007)

6. Directions are delivered from the front of the room and/or with the attention of the overwhelming majority of students.

EVIDENCE: “Students of clear teachers are more likely to be motivated, have positive affect for their instructor and the course, and are more likely to perceive that they have learned more cognitively.” (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001)

7. Major directions include information on time, task, materials, and sound.

EVIDENCE: “To be clear, teachers need to make their organization of content explicit so that students are able to integrate lecture material into their schemata effectively. Clear teachers also speak fluently, stay on task, and explain information effectively.” (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001)

8. Teacher scans the room after every direction to determine whether or not behavioralexpectations are being met.

EVIDENCE: “Classroom management, as opposed to the other aspects of classroom quality, appeared to show the strongest link to children’s self-control, work habits, and engagement in the classroom.” (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009)

9. Teacher immediately and genuinely praises students meeting expectations after every direction given.

EVIDENCE: “Praise, the simplest strategy reviewed, has perhaps the strongest evidence base. Delivering contingent praise for academic behavior increased participants’ (a) correct responses, (b) work productivity and accuracy, (c) language and math performance on class work,and (d) academic performance. “ (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008)

10. Appropriate redirection is used and logical consequences are issued for misbehaviors.

EVIDENCE: Classrooms with better management practices are directly linked to improved behavioral and cognitive self-control development over the course of the school year. (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009)

11. Teacher is warm and positive while also being strong in presence and tone. Teacher uses the formal register most often.

EVIDENCE: “Teachers who have strong control succeed because they understand the power of language and relationships: they ask respectfully, firmly, and confidently but also with civility, and often kindly. They express their faith in students.” (148) (Lamov, 2010)

12. Teacher uses growth mindset language to both celebrate individual and class achievements and to motivate students after individual and class misses.

EVIDENCE: “Extending prior research, we find that a growth mindset (the belief that intelligence is not fixed and can be developed) is a comparably strong predictor of achievement and that it exhibits a positive relationship with achievement across all of the socioeconomic strata” (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016)

SKYROCKET TEACHER FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE: STRAND 2: CONTENT MASTERY1. Lesson objective is the most important next step for students; and, all materials selected are purposeful, rigorous, and aligned to that objective.

EVIDENCE: “Objectives state what you want the students to accomplish. The students must know before the lesson, assignment, or activity begins what they are responsible for learning.” (Wong & Wong, 1998)

2. Lesson plan includes an accurate and appropriately rigorous lesson exemplar, steps for success, and criteria for evaluation as well as potential student misconceptions.

EVIDENCE: To prepare an effective lesson plan, there are three critical components:• Objectives for student learning • Teaching/learning activities • Strategies to check student understanding (Milkova, 2012)

3. Lesson requires students to engage (notes, annotating, written responses, etc.) consistently throughout.

EVIDENCE: “Existing research from preschool and elementary school classrooms further supports the important role teachers play in orienting children to a task, scripting and structuring socially interactive tasks, and organizing the materials in such a way that children are more likely to learn successfully from the work that they are about to undertake” (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009)

4. Teacher states daily objective/learning outcome to students, what they will accomplish by the end of the lesson, and how/why they’re both meaningful.

EVIDENCE: “Objectives state what you want the students to accomplish. The students must know before the lesson, assignment, or activity begins what they are responsible for learning.” (223) (Wong & Wong, 1998)

5. A lesson hook (anecdote, student prediction, connection to previous learning, etc.) is used to engage students.

EVIDENCE: “If you can introduce material in a way that inspires and excites and can get your students to take the first step willingly, then there is no content about which you cannot engender excitement, engagement, and deeplearning among your students.”(Lamov, 2010)

6. Direct instruction succinctly and efficiently models the precise steps and cognitive process students are expected to take to master content.

EVIDENCE: “Providing students with direct instruction on comprehension strategies and metacognitive skills is an effective way to teach comprehension” (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991)

7. Teacher differentiates content, materials, presentation to meet the needs of all learners.

EVIDENCE: “[Studies] revealed that the use of differentiated techniques proved to be engaging, stimulated student interest and providing a gratifying experience for the teachers.” (Subban, 2006)

8. An appropriate amount of time is allocated for each lesson portion to ensure students have enough reps, both guided and independently, to master the content.

EVIDENCE: “When about 80 more test trials occurred in the learning phase... repeated retrieval practice led to greater than 150% improvements in long-term retention.” (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008)

9. Teacher frequently and strategically checks for understanding and that data is used to make appropriate adjustments to instruction.

EVIDENCE: “Posing questions to check for understanding is an essential move during guided instruction.” (Frey & Fisher, 2010)

10. Lesson objective is clearly displayed and visible to all students throughout the lesson. Teacher makes multiple mentions of that objective throughout the lesson and updates students as to their progress toward it.

EVIDENCE: “When students perceived their class as emphasizing a mastery goal, they were more likely to report using effective learning strategies, prefer tasks that offer challenge, like their class more, and believe that effort and success covary.” (Ames & Archer, 1988)

11. Student learning and progress toward the objective are assessed (exit ticket, independent practice, questioning, whiteboards, student self-assessment, etc.) at the end of the lesson and assessment data is used to tell students overall class progress toward the objective.

EVIDENCE: “[F]indings suggest the importance of integrating objective measurement and evaluation with instruction.” (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984)

SKYROCKET TEACHER FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE: STRAND 3: RIGOR1. Teacher scripts out multiple higher-order questions and engagement opportunities in lesson plans. These include opportunities for students to respond to

each other.

EVIDENCE: “A focus on higher-order thinking skills is associated with improved student performance.” (Wenglinsky, 2002)

2. Teacher plans for students to have at least 50% of class to work independently/with partners/in groups.

EVIDENCE: “[C]operative learning processes that integrate direct instruction on comprehension and met comprehension strategies seem to be very effective.” (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991)

3. After each high order question asked, teacher will require all students to, either individually or with partners, generate a response (Everybody Writes, Turn and Talk, White Boards, etc.).

EVIDENCE: “Applying problem-solving techniques to unique problems is a key component of[higher order thinking] skills. Hands-on learning can be understood in this way as well, in that it involves the simulation of concepts, moving the student from the abstract to the concrete.” (Wenglinsky, 2002)

4. After giving sufficient time to process, write, talk to partners, etc. teacher will cold call after 100% of higher order questions.

EVIDENCE: “The current study indicates that teacher practices, particularly patterns of calling on students (e.g., unequal calling, volunteers vs. nonvolunteers), can attenuate those positive messages by limiting opportunities for some students to participate and be involved in the learning process.” (Turner & Patrick, 2004)

5. Teacher will neither confirm or deny, through speech or body language, whether a response is correct. Rather, the teacher will thank the student for participating and call on other students to respond to the speaker after all HOQs.

EVIDENCE: “For a discussion to be effective, “openess” is a crucial pre-condition. Researchers define openess in discussion as “a)The matter is open for discussion; b)the discussants are open-minded; c)the discussion is open to all arguments; d)the discussion is open to any person; e)the time limit is open; f)the learning outcomes are open, not predictable; g)the purposes and practices of the discussion are out in the open, not covert; and h)the discussion is open-ended, not required to come to a single conclusion.” (Dillon, 1984)

6. Teacher projects/shares student work and has students analyze to either further their understanding or to address misconceptions.

EVIDENCE: Through the process of leveraging student work to analyze student progress, “When individuals participate in shared endeavors, not only does individual development occur, but the process transforms (develops) the practices of the community” (Kazemi & Franke, 2004)

7. Teacher models academic language for students and holds students accountable for using academic language in both verbal interactions and written work.

EVIDENCE: “Snow, Cancini, Gonzalez, and Shriberg (1989) found that meeting the expectations of a formal academic register…correlated with academic success. Therefore, children who are less skillful in academic language are less likely to succeed at school.” (Snow & Uccelli, 2009)

SKYROCKET LEADER FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE: STRAND 1: Fundamentals1. Design foundational school systems and common expectations (vision, values, goals, adult responsibilities, org. chart, etc.) and present to staff.

EVIDENCE: “A critical aspect of leadership is helping a group develop shared understandings about the organization and its activities and goals that can undergird a sense of purpose or vision.” ; “People are motivated by goals which they find personally compelling as well as challenging but achievable. Personal goals with such properties are critical to the development of efficacy.”(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008)

2. Engage staff members in crucial conversations. Lead planned and unplanned conversations that are direct, urgent, and supportive to reinforce values and common expectations.

EVIDENCE: “One misconception about highly successful cultures is that they are happy, lighthearted places. This is mostly not the case. They are energized and engaged, but at their core their members are oriented less around achieving happiness than around solving hard problems together. This task involves many moments of high-candor feedback, uncomfortable truth-telling, when they confront the gap between where the group is, and where it ought to be.” (Coyle, 2018)

3. Be present and active during school-wide student events (morning arrival, transitions, lunches, and dismissal, etc.) to celebrate and reinforce common expectations.

EVIDENCE: “Visioning and establishing purpose also are enhanced by monitoring organizational performance and promoting effective communication and collaboration.” (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008)

4. Visit every classroom in a morning walkthrough to build positive relationships with teachers and monitor school culture expectations. Ensure the facility is bright, clean, and functioning.

EVIDENCE: In studying high school learning environments, researchers from Virginia Tech University identified strong correlations between higher student acheivement and aesthetic quality ratings, lessened graffiti, quality furniture, and pastel painted walls (instead of white walls) in instructional areas. (Cash, 1993)

5. Lead daily leadership briefing and weekly leadership meetings. Prioritize logistics and problem-solving to ensure staff is informed and challenges are addressed.

EVIDENCE: “The key to sustaining improvement is to focus on the daily work of front-line managers, supported by a high-performance management system that prescribes standard tasks and responsibilities for managers at all levels of the organization.” (Beckers & Review, 2017)

6. Lead recurring staff meetings to celebrate success, highlight growth opportunities, and build a sense of community among staff.

EVIDENCE: To enhance team effectiveness, leaders should attend to 6 key themes: a) provide accountability, b) supporting and resourcing, c) engaging in honest self-evaluation, d) fostering collaboration e) communicating with clarity, and f) valuing and appreciating (Irving & Longbotham, 2007)

7. Lead recurring student community meetings to celebrate success, highlight growth opportunities, and build a sense of community among students and staff.

EVIDENCE: “[M]any schools have strong, positive cultures. These are schools where student rituals and traditions celebrate student accomplishment, teacher innovation, and parental commitment” (Peterson & Deal, 1998)

8. Send a weekly email to staff each Monday with shouts outs, reminders, and a calendar of events for the coming week.

EVIDENCE: Strong leaders routinely drive “task behaviors”, including planning short-term activities, clarifying task objectives & role expectations, and monitoring operations and performance. (Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002)

9. Create a weekly calendar that includes all Skyrocket Leader Coaching Framework Strand 1 daily and weekly leader actions.

EVIDENCE: Well-planned, properly scheduled, and effectively communicated jobs accomplish more work, more efficiently, and at a lower cost. (Nyman & Levitt, 2006)

SKYROCKET LEADER FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE: STRAND 2: COACHING1. Design a semester-long teacher development calendar to coordinate observations, feedback, coaching, and evaluation.

EVIDENCE: To drive school improvement, “the principal is a key participant in ensuring the development of a collaborative culture, the use of high-quality professional development, and the successful implementation and maintenance of [reform] activities.” (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989)

2. Review weekly lesson plans and provide focused, written feedback to all teachers using the Skyrocket Teacher Coaching Framework.

EVIDENCE: Effective principals review lesson plans and use pre-observation conferences “to ensure novice teachers understand clarity of lesson objectives, including systematic steps used in constructing the lesson (anticipatory set, instruction, and closure).” (Range, Duncan, & Hvidston, 2013)

3. Observe teachers weekly and provide focused, written feedback using the Skyrocket Teacher Coaching Framework.

EVIDENCE: “Feedback that is specific to the learner’s performance is highly valued by learners, whereas nonspecific evaluative feedback is less valued.” (Moorhead, Maguire, & Thoo, 2004)

4. Actively coach a focus group of teachers using The Skyrocket Teacher Coaching Framework. Spend time each day improving instruction and culture through pinpoint analysis, hyper-focused training meetings, and real-time coaching.

EVIDENCE: “Effective principals ``hold up a mirror’’, serve as ``another set of eyes’’, and are ``critical friends’’ who engage in thoughtful discourse with teachers. The effects of this feedback included increased teacher reflection, innovation/creativity, instructional variety, risktaking, better planning for instruction, and improved teacher motivation, efficacy, sense of security, and self-esteem.” (Blase & Blase, 1999)

5. Actively coach leaders using The Skyrocket Teacher Coaching Framework. Spend time each day improving coaching through pinpoint analysis, hyper-focused training meetings, and real-time coaching.

EVIDENCE: As per Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom, one of the core leadership practices is “Developing people — Enabling teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively, offering intellectual support and stimulation to improve the work, and providing models of practice and support.” (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005)

6. Design and deliver monthly, whole group professional development workshops on Strand 1 teacher actions from the Skyrocket Teacher Coaching Framework.

EVIDENCE: Psychological research notes that “good classroom management…is a condition for student learning, by allowing teachers to accomplish other important instructional goals.” As such, leaders should leaverage teacher training “methods that promote the reflective-practioner approach to teacher education attempt to situate classroom management within real-world contexts and events.” (Emmer & Stough, 2001)

7. Lead a weekly culture meeting that focuses on improving leader and dean skills in executing the comprehensive student culture plan.

EVIDENCE: “Effective school leaders help develop school cultures that embody shared norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes and that promote mutual caring and trust among all members. School culture sets a tone and context within which work is undertaken and goals are pursued.” (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003)

SKYROCKET LEADER FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE: STRAND 3: BALANCED LEADERSHIP1. Train teachers to analyze classroom and student level data. Hold data meetings once per semester to analyze progress and inform lesson and unit

planning.

EVIDENCE: “Looking at student work has the potential to expand teachers’ opportunity to learn, to cultivate a professional community that is both willing and able to inquire into practice, and to focus school-based teacher conversations directly on the improvement of teaching and learning.” (Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka, 2003)

2. Conduct weekly instruction, culture, and operations walkthroughs to collect data and identify trends across the school, grade levels, and content areas.

EVIDENCE: “When used frequently, proponents suggest that short, informal walkthroughs can help build a more positive instructional culture, gauge the school climate, and demonstrate the value they place on instruction.” (Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013)

3. Design and deliver responsive, monthly professional development workshops to address schoolwide instructional and culture trends.

EVIDENCE: “[T]hree significant methodological aspects of an effective professional development experience have been identified: (1) a focus on improving the content knowledge of teachers, (2) regular and meaningful analysis of teaching and learning and (3) fostering connectedness and inclusiveness among participants.” (Farmer, Hauk, & Neumann, 2005)

4. Set responsive weekly and monthly goals to prioritize time and resources and attend to the school’s highest needs. Publicly track progress and respond to trends.

EVIDENCE: Over 25 years of research and more than 400 “studies showed that specific, high (hard) goals lead to a higher level of task performance than do easy goals or vague, abstract goals such as the exhortation to ‘do one’s best.’ (Locke & Latham, 2006)

5. Host monthly family and community engagement events. Open houses, round tables, parent association meetings, and other events are designed to bring together the school and community

EVIDENCE: “School leaders can help strengthen family educational cultures by doing things that promote trust and communication between families and schools, by helping to provide resources to families, by educating and supporting families in matters connected to parenting and schooling, and by adjusting school practices to acomodate to the educational cultures that families do have.” (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003)

6. Deliver a teacher training series on cultural competency, relationships, and restorative practices.

EVIDENCE: “Principals must respond to increasing diversity in student characteristics, including cultural background and immigration status, income disparities, physical and mental disabilities, and variation in learning capabilities. These are just a few of the conditions that make schooling more challenging and leadership more essential.” (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003)

7. Create a school advisory committee to meet monthly with the school leader to share ideas and solutions to school challenges.

EVIDENCE: “The emerging desire for more involvement of staff and community members has a potentially significant impact on how we prepare school leaders. A higher level of involvement would change the teacher role from technician to reflective practitioner.” (Brown, Carr, Perry, & McIntire, 1996)

Banutu-Gomez, M. (2007). Leadership and Organizational Change in a Competitive Environment. Business

Renaissance Quarterly, 69-90.

Fischer, K. W. (1980). A Theory of Cognitive Development: The Control and Construction of Hierarchies of Skills.

Psychological Review, 477-531.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2017). Huddle up: Why daily meetings are vital to sustaining quality

improvement. Becker’s Hospital Review.

Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Servant Leadership Predictors of Team Effectiveness: Findings and

Implications. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 82-94.

Jung, J., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems:

The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments.

Management Science.

Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings Matter Effects of Team Meetings on Team and

Organizational Success. Small Group Research, 130-158.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. (2009). To Lead, Create a Shared Vision. Harvard Business Review.

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., & Antoniou, P. (2009). Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for

research on teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12-23.

Mankins, M. (2004). Stop Wasting Valuable Time. Harvard Business Review, 1-15.

Reinke, S. (2004). Service before Self: Towards a Theory of Servant-Leadership. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 30-57.

Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principales in Three Paradigms

Suggest New Concepts for Training. Psychological Science, 207-217.

Venne, V. L., & Coleman, D. (2010). Training the Millennial Learner Through Experiential evolutionary scaffolding:

Implications for Clinical Supervision in Graduate Education Programs. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 554-569.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century

of Behavior Research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15-32.

White Paper Bibliography


Allday, R. A., & Pakurar, K. (2007). Effects of Teacher Greetings on Student On-task Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 317-320.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 260-267.

Bjerke, R., Ind, N., & De Paoli, D. (2007). The impact of aesthetics on employee satisfaction and motivation. EuroMed Journal of Business, 57-72.

Cerbin, W., & Kopp, B. (2006). Lesson Study as a Model for Building Pedagogical Knowledge and Improving Teaching. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 250-257.

Cash, C. S. (1993). Building condition and Student Achievement & Behavior. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The Relationship of Teacher Clarity and Immediacy with Student State Receiver. Apprehension,

Affect, and Cognitive Learning. Communication Education, 59-68.

Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. PNAS, 8664-8668.

Dillon, J. (1984). Research on Questioning and Discussion. Educational Leadership, 50-56.

Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Identifying Instructional Moves During Guided Learning. The Reading Teacher, 84-95.

Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The Effects of Frequent Curriculum-Based Measurement and Evaluation on

Pedagogy, Student Achievement, and Student Awareness of Learning. American Educational Research Journal, 449-460.

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning. Science, 966-968.

Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher Learning in Mathematics: Using Student Work to Promote Collective Inquiry. Journal of

Mathematics Teacher Education, 203-235.

Lamov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion : 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Milkova, S. (2012). Strategies for Effective Lesson Planning. Oberlin College. Oberlin, OH: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L. (2009). The Contribution of Children’s Self-Regulation and Classroom

Quality to Children’s Adaptive Behaviors in the Kindergarten Classroom. Developmental Psychology, 958-972.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based Practices in Classroom Management: Considerations for

Research to Practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 351-380.

Snow, C., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of Academic Language. The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, 112-133.

Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The Effects of Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction in Reading Comprehension

Strategies on Main Idea Identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8-16.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 935-947.

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational Influences on Student Participation in Classroom Learning Activities. Teachers College Record,

1759-1785.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How Schools Matter: The Link Between Teacher Classroom Practices and Student Academic Performance.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1-30.

Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (1998). The First Days of School: How to Be an Effective Teacher. Mountainview, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications.

TEACHER COACHING Framework Bibliography


Becker’s Hospital Review. (2017, January 6). Retrieved from Becker’s Clinical Leadership & Infection Control:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/huddle-up-why-daily-meetings-are-vital-to-sustaining-quality-improvement.html

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in

schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 130-141.

Brown, D. W., Carr, R. E., Perry, C. M., & McIntire, W. G. (1996). Principals’ Perceptions of Community and Staff Involvement in Shared Decision

Making. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 17-24.

Cash, C. S. (1993). Building condition and Student Achievement and Behavior. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

Coyle, D. (2018). The Culture Code. New York, NY: Bantam.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals. Stanford, CA:

Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom Management: A Critical Part of Educational Psychology, With Implications for Teacher

Education. Educational Psychologist, 103-112.

Farmer, J., Hauk, S., & Neumann, A. M. (2005). Negotiating Reform: Implementing Process Standards in Culturally Responsive Professional

Development. The High School Journal, 59-71.

Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013, November 1). Effective Instructional Time Use for School Leaders: Longitudinal Evidence From

Observations of Principals. Educational Researcher, 433-444.

Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team Effectiveness and Six Essential Servant Leadership Themes: A Regression model Based on items

in the Organizational Leadership Assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 98-113.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking Leadership to Student Learning: The Contributions of Leader Efficacy. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 496-528.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple

University.

Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at Student Work for Teacher Learning, Teacher Community, and School Reform.

Phi Delta Kappan, 184-192.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 265-268.

Moorhead, R., Maguire, P., & Thoo, S. L. (2004). Giving feedback to learners in the practice. Australian Family Physician, 691-694.

Nyman, D., & Levitt, J. (2006). Maintenance Planning, Scheduling & Coordination. New York, NY: Industrial Press Inc.

Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How Leaders Influence the Culture of Schools. Educational Leadership, 28-30.

Range, B., Duncan, H., & Hvidston, D. (2013). How Faculty Supervise and Mentor Pre-service Teachers: Implications for Principal Supervision of

Novice Teachers. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 43-58.

Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five Models of Staff Development. Journal of Staff Development, 1-31.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15-32.

LEADER COACHING Framework Bibliography


step 1: pinpoint analysis - we will. skyrocket...skyrocket educator training’s unique approach to...

Documents