Beyond “Autopsy Data”

Abstract

Teacher working conditions surveys provide biennial, comprehensive data regarding school leadership. This case describes how a Title I middle school principal proactively addresses end-of-year data to address identified needs and growth areas in a collaborative manner in her middle school. The principal works in a concerted manner with an assistant principal, district liaison, and teacher leaders to make a collaborative correction in her school to foster time in collaboration, increased teacher leadership, and enhanced professional development.

Keywords

principal leadership teacher leadership teacher working conditions professional development instructional time

Case Narrative

Tanya Jones slumped in her office chair and rubbed her forehead, pouring over the data. As a middle school principal in North Carolina, she, like all principals, received the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions (NCTWC) survey results, which provided anonymous survey data from teachers regarding important areas such as school leadership, teacher leadership, use of time, professional development, and community engagement (NCTWC, n.d.). The biennial survey was administered during an already-busy 4-week window in the spring, and the results came in about a month later. For now, at least, her world stopped.

The NCTWC provides teachers with the opportunity to weigh in on important issues. In her second year as principal, Tanya had always considered herself an advocate for teachers and staff. Yet, as the fourth principal of the school in 6 years, she knew that morale was an issue in her diverse middle school of about 900 students located in the urban center of the North Carolina “Research Triangle.” Despite being surrounded by universities and a comparatively decent funding base, Jefferson Middle School still had a number of growth areas to address. Tanya buzzed her assistant principal, Mike Perez, on her radio and closed the door as he entered her office.

“The teacher survey data is in, Mike, and we’ve got some work to do,” she sighed. Noted on an agreement scale of 0% to 100%, Tanya and Mike highlighted together some interesting data that “jumped out” at them from the overall summary results (Table 1). The data were arranged to look at change over time (from the previously administered survey 2 years prior). Thus, they focused on the far-right column to see “their” data, while also looking at how the data had changed from 2 years ago.

Table 1.

Summary Results Comparison.^a

Item	Question	Percent agree
Item	Question	2012 Jefferson Middle	2014 Jefferson Middle
Time
Q2.1 b	Teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues.	33	38
Q2.1 f	Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students.	40	40
Facilities and resources
Q3.1 f	The school environment is clean and well maintained.	42	88
Q3.1 h	The physical environment of classrooms in this school supports teaching and learning.	49	79
Community support and involvement
Q4.1 b	This school maintains clear, two-way communication with the community.	55	68
Q4.1 c	This school does a good job of encouraging parent/guardian involvement.	43	70
Managing student conduct
Q5.1 b	Students at this school follow rules of conduct.	55	72
Q5.1 e	School administrators support teachers’ efforts to maintain discipline in the classroom.	31	81
Teacher leadership
Q6.1 a	Teachers are recognized as educational experts.	33	45
Q6.1 c	Teachers are relied on to make decisions about educational issues.	48	51
School leadership
Q7.1 a	The faculty and staff have a shared vision.	45	55
Q7.1 k	The faculty are recognized for accomplishments.	22	46
Professional development
Q8.1 e	Professional development is differentiated to meet the individual needs of teachers.	54	50
Q8.1 j	Professional development provides ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices.	37	48
Overall
Q10.6	Overall, my school is a good place to work and learn.	43	68

Selected items from North Carolina’s Teacher Working Conditions Initiative (n.d.).

“Hey, it’s not that bad,” Perez offered with a supportive voice. “Look here,” he said, pointing to the columns that showed marked improvement. “That work we did with the building has been appreciated,” he pointed to the “Facilities” column. Tanya smiled, remembering those endless mulch piles she helped volunteers spread and all the small projects she had embarked on to realize what Duke (2010) referred to as “quick wins” to help stakeholders realize that results were within reach. Improving the grounds helped bolster morale, and it was encouraging to see that teachers had noticed. Similarly, the administrators noted marked improvement in community support and student conduct categories, two key areas that often frustrated middle school principals.

“And it is encouraging that our ‘Overall’ score made a 25 point gain,” Tanya added, sizing up the data. “True,” Mike smiled, “most politicians would kill for a 68% approval rating.” Tanya shot him a dirty look, “Now don’t go comparing us to politicians” she said, feigning disgust, “We’ve got work to do.”

Having provided almost 3 years of consistent leadership at Jefferson Middle, Tanya and Mike realized they were poised for improving in some other key areas. They had already hired nearly half of the staff, test scores were on the rise, yet they realized their collaborative instructional leadership was lacking. Jefferson was a diverse school (over half the students identified as Black, one quarter as Hispanic, and nearly one quarter as White) and had made steady academic gains (Table 2).

Table 2.

Jefferson Middle School Summary Overview.

	2014	2013	2012
Students total (Grades 6-8)	912	899	880
Socioeconomically disadvantaged students	88%	84%	82%
Language arts pass rates (all)	82%	74%	69%
Math pass rates (all)	80%	72%	61%
Teacher retention rate	88%	76%	62%

Tanya walked over to her whiteboard in her office and took the cap off a blue marker.

Well, this isn’t “nail in the coffin” data. Let’s focus on the areas in which we need to grow. We need to let our teachers know that we hear them and, more importantly, we are tuned in to their thoughts. If teachers feel successful and supportive, it’s a win-win for everyone at the school, especially the students.

She explained, “We shouldn’t treat this as ‘autopsy data’ that is final, but we should find ways to lead collaboratively and move this school forward.” “I think,” she continued,

that we need to look at this through three categories that York-Barr and Duke (2004) identify from the literature. This is a teacher leadership issue. Our test scores are going up, but teachers are telling us they want to be more involved in leading this work.

She then outlined three categories and the word “Strategies” under each (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Identified conditions for teacher leadership.

Strategies for Growth Areas

Tanya sketched in possible strategies under the areas of school culture and context, roles and relationships, and structures. They knew that simply relying on their own expertise would not necessarily bring about sustained change; teachers would likely view this as “more of the same.” They consulted the literature closely regarding teacher leadership and school culture. Tanya and Mike knew that they had to carefully consider how to approach this with both internal and external input to truly make a difference. They resolved to map out strategies, solicit input, and be transparent in addressing these key areas.

School Culture and Context

Matthews and Crow (2010) observe that school principals, along with strong professional learning communities, can “maintain and enrich” (p. 93) a successful school culture. Birky, Shelton, and Headley (2006) note that principals are pivotal in either encouraging or discouraging teacher leadership activities. To build a culture and context focused on shared leadership, administrators encourage collaborative leadership by focusing on the following:

Embracing change and allowing experimentation and risk taking by teachers;

Promoting and facilitating collaboration (including participation in meeting when helpful, and allowing independence when participation was not necessary); and

Involving faculty members in decision making (Birky et al., 2006, p. 96).

Similarly, principals can discourage teacher initiative leadership by

Withholding, controlling, or limiting power from teachers,

Placing teachers in isolation rather than in collaborative situations; or

Focusing too much on micromanaging the details of the work instead of providing and supporting the big picture—the larger goal (Birky et al., 2006, p. 96).

Understanding that teachers at Jefferson mirrored teachers in national surveys, the administration determined to find more time for collaboration to indeed empower them in supporting “the big picture.” Understanding that meetings are often seen as a waste of time, Tanya surveyed teachers by using an anonymous online poll and she received overwhelming responses indicating that more time learning from and with each other was desired. Respondents included feedback such as the following:

“We don’t even know what’s going on in other classrooms next door”

“Let’s cut the managerial crap and focus on learning”

“If you don’t need a faculty meeting, don’t just make something up, give us time in our classrooms!”

To better understand context and facilitate collaborative culture building, Tanya and Mike met with a small group of four team leaders (one from each grade level and a specialist) to devise the following plan for prioritizing faculty meetings as a productive time of learning and sharing.

Two meetings per month with a consistent format of sharing. Thursdays were designated, by the district, as afternoon meeting days; two of these would be utilized at Jefferson as faculty meeting days. Grade levels (and specialists) would take turns “hosting” the meeting in their respective classrooms. The start of the meeting would be a 10-min overview of a particular learning focus in that grade (or subject area), with teams sharing learning strategies and success stories. Following Birky et al.’s (2006) advice, teachers would be empowered in helping shape the agenda. A university faculty partner was invited by the administrators to attend to help provide perspective and support as well.

Clearly defined next steps. Team leaders would continue to work with administration to determine, and share, the agenda several months in advance and the bulk of each meeting would have a carefully crafted instructional focus led by a district leader, school administrator, or teacher with clearly defined “next steps” outlined for all.

Time for teamwork and class work. As Thursdays were designated as meeting time, the other 2 (nonmeeting) weeks would be allowed for teamwork time and individual work time to foster autonomy and shared leadership.

By emphasizing to teachers that their time mattered, Tanya and Mike were able to effectively set the tone with regard to staff and professional development times. Focusing on best practices and effective strategies, some of which were already in place in Jefferson, enabled a shift in teacher perceptions of both professional development and use of time in this regard. Tanya charged Mike with continuing to periodically take online surveys to stay abreast of how teachers viewed this time.

Roles and Relationships

As Tanya continued to dissect the results from the survey, she was encouraged to see a 22% increase in teachers feeling they were experts in their field. However, she noticed that her teachers felt as though they were not relied on to make important instructional decisions. Tanya knew that building leadership capacity with her teachers would be critical helping to shape the vision and culture of Jefferson Middle by broadening power to her core teachers (Fullan, 2011).

Effective leaders are able to build effective learning teams focused on student learning and achievement (Haberman, n.d.). In his graduate studies, Mike had recently studied York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) conceptual framework on teacher leadership and knew that Tanya and he needed to better utilize the teacher leaders’ “solid foundation of teaching experience and expertise” (p. 267) to move the school forward. Specifically, he explained, “We need to build structures to enable teacher leadership from within . . . it’s not going to just happen on its own.” To build this capacity, Tanya decided on the following strategies:

Identify teacher leaders—Tanya met with Mike to develop criteria to identify Jefferson’s teacher leaders in each grade level and subject area. The criteria took into account instructional competence, initiative, and leadership ability eliminating the perception of “favorites” during the selection process. The identified teacher leaders would be provided ongoing professional development in facilitating effective professional learning communities and be tasked with the role of lead teachers.

Develop a leadership team—In order for teachers to have input in major instructional decisions, a formal framework and process must be developed for Jefferson Middle. Tanya determined the most effective method would be to create a Jefferson Middle Leadership Team that must meet monthly as a part of a regular decision-making process. The team was comprised of lead teachers and support staff necessary for providing input on important instructional decisions and help increase vertical communication lines between administration and teachers. It would be important to involve teachers in managing and monitoring the school improvement planning process as well (Duke, Carr, & Sterrett, 2013).

Partner with a district liaison and university faculty member—Realizing that school administration and teacher leadership with university faculty support and a district liaison could combine to form a powerful “four cylinder engine” (Sterrett & Griffin, 2013), Tanya resolved to meet monthly with her district liaison (an assistant superintendent) and she also coordinated with a local associate professor of curriculum and supervision who was open to holding office hours 1 day a week at Jefferson Middle. This additional perspective provided a continual counterbalance in ensuring that goals and strategies were successful.

Structures

The teachers at Jefferson Middle School are not unlike teachers nationwide who yearn for increased collaborative time. Even school leaders who serve in states that do not administer such surveys must be astutely aware that teachers desire greater collaboration. The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher (MetLife, 2010) reported the following:

Over two-thirds of teachers (67%) and more than three-quarters of principals (78%) think that greater collaboration among teachers and school leaders would result in a “major impact on improving student achievement”;

Most teachers (90%) agree that other teachers contribute to their success in the classroom; and that

Potential positive outcomes from a collaborative approach include improved school climate, career satisfaction, retaining qualified educators, and more effective teaching and learning. (pp. 9-12)

However, teachers are understandably busy. From adapting to curriculum changes and finding ways to communicate with parents, Tanya and Mike realized that teachers often worked in “silos” with the doors closed, oblivious to the successes that their colleagues enjoyed.

Tanya considered ways in which she might help share effective teaching strategies within the building (Kachur, Stout, & Edwards, 2013; Reeves, 2008; Sterrett, 2011; Sterrett, 2014). Over the next few weeks, she would also take time to draw on the insights of some trusted colleagues. She met monthly with a principal colleague to exchange ideas and conversation. She also routinely called up her mentor at the district office who now served as an assistant superintendent. Both offered thoughtful, specific advice culled from knowing Tanya, her school, and from their own years of experience.

Being the principal of a low socioeconomic status (SES) urban school, Tanya understood that her students face not only academic obstacles but also social and emotional issues as well. It was important for her to create cultural awareness with her staff and instill within them the belief that all of Jefferson’s students are capable of growth and success. It was Tanya’s mission to instill this belief in her staff by communicating the vision clearly in her everyday interactions with staff and students (Schmoker, 2011). Tanya also asked Mike for ideas on how to improve communication to the staff. Together, they identified the following strategies:

Better understanding of teachers’ needs—Tanya dispatched Mike to distribute exit slips at the end of each faculty meeting to better understand the perspective of teachers. The exit slips would ask teacher to identify what was working, what was not working, and to share additional comments or insights.

Morning visibility—Tanya and Mike would also start each day by greeting each teacher at their door in the morning. The greeting would serve two purposes. First, it would ensure that administration touched base with every teacher each morning and address any immediate concerns. The second purpose would be to greet and monitor students as well and ensure all duty stations were covered.

Classroom walkthroughs—Tanya committed money for substitutes to allow for coverage of teachers who wanted to visit colleagues’ rooms to learn a new strategy.

Collaborative scheduling—She knew that there were always perceived “winners and losers” with the master schedule. She and Mike usually crafted this during the waning summer weeks as enrollments and classes were finalized. She resolved to have a teacher representative from each grade level and an arts teacher to flesh out the committee.

Daily email—At the end of each day, Tanya would send all staff a “Daily e-mail” that included any important announcements for the day, daily celebrations, important dates, and a daily quote. Instead of the staff being bombarded by multiple emails, they would be looking for one email that would contain all the necessary information for the day and reaffirm the vision of the school (Sterrett, 2011).

Conclusion

The importance of leadership in effective schools has been determined to be only second to classroom instruction when examining school-based factors. In fact, the impact of effective school leadership is also amplified in schools that need strong leadership the most and in schools serving lower SES populations (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).

Changing perceptions and attitudes does not happen overnight. By taking a team approach and fostering a climate of teacher leadership, Tanya and Mike sought to build a sustainable, shared spirit of collaboration with a strong learning focus. Realizing that the adults in the building were learners themselves, principals can forge an ongoing sense of inquiry and dialogue. Schlechty (2009) refers to schools that take this approach as “Learning Organizations,” whereby each member of the school is a learner, including the administrators who foster the climate of learning and help facilitate the change from a top-down approach to the learning organization model.

Not all schools, districts, and states participate in annual teacher surveys. However, there is the need to engage teachers in both formal and informal leadership functions (York-Barr & Duke, 2004). In this case, Tanya and Mike knew that sustained improvement would require ongoing collaboration and dialogue. They met frequently to check the pulse of the campus and to ensure they were allowing ample time for teacher collaboration and whole-campus collaboration. By striving to be continually responsive to the needs and insights of the staff and stakeholders, they began to receive positive feedback long before the next round of state-generated survey data.

Teaching Notes

Teacher working conditions surveys provide comprehensive data regarding school leadership. While not all schools utilize such surveys, research points to benefits of engaging in teacher leadership to foster school success. In this case, by proactively addressing end-of-year data to address identified needs and growth areas in a collaborative manner, a middle school principal—along with her team—works to foster time in collaboration, increased teacher leadership, and enhanced professional development.

The Role of Teacher Leadership

York-Barr and Duke (2004) ask, “What conditions influence teacher leadership?” and focus on three broad categories: school culture and context, roles and relationships, and structures (pp. 270-271). Consider the following questions regarding teacher leadership:

How can school leaders better understand the perceptions and attitudes of their teachers and staff before an annual (or biennual) survey occurs?

Consider York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) teacher leadership categories, how might the principals involve teachers in determining next steps after receiving feedback data?

How might teacher leadership play a role when it comes to the culture and climate of a school?

The Use of Survey Data

States rely on teacher surveys to better understand the climate and leadership of a school. Examine a set of teacher working conditions survey data from one of these three states:

Kentucky—http://www.tellkentucky.org

North Carolina—http://www.ncteachingconditions.org

Oregon—http://www.telloregon.org

Consider a school that you are acquainted with in your particular role. Then, find a similar school (in terms of size or demographics) in one of the above states and closely examine that school’s respective data. What insights do you glean from the questions and the data?

What questions should be added (or excluded) to better understand the climate and leadership of a school?

Do these surveys help or hinder the work of the school leader? Discuss.

If your state (or district or school) does not utilize a similar survey, how might leaders consistently “take pulse” of teacher perceptions in a similar manner?

Collaborative Discussion

Birky et al. (2006) note that it is “an administrator’s challenge” (p. 87) to influence teacher leadership. In their words and actions, principals can either encourage or discourage such engagement.

Consider the steps that Tanya and Mike took regarding time, school leadership, teacher leadership, and professional development. Do these steps effectively encourage teacher leadership? What other steps might have been taken?

Birky et al. (2006) note that administrators can encourage teacher leaders “not only by affirming their work but by truly collaborating with them” (p. 94). In what other ways might the administrators better collaborate with the Jefferson Middle School teachers?

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The case and names of people, schools, and districts are fictitious.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

William Sterrett is a former principal and middle school teacher; he now serves as faculty member and program coordinator in the Educational Leadership department at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. His research interests include instructional leadership and the role of the principal.

Eric Irizarry is the principal of D.C. Virgo Preparatory Academy in New Hanover County Schools and is a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. His research interests include urban school leadership and instructional leadership.

References

Birky

V. D.

Shelton

Headley

(2006). An administrator’s challenge: Encouraging teachers to be leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 87-101.

Duke

D. L.

(2010). Differentiating school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Duke

D. L.

Carr

Sterrett

(2013). The school improvement planning handbook: Getting focused on turnaround and transition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Fullan

(2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haberman

(n.d.). Creating effective schools in failed urban districts. The Haberman Educational Foundation. Retrieved on September 17, 2014 from http://www.habermanfoundation.org/Articles/Default.aspx?id=17

Kachur

D. S.

Stout

J. A.

Edwards

C. L.

(2013). Engaging teachers in classroom walkthroughs. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Leithwood

Louis

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Review of the research: How leadership influences student learning. The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.learningfromleadership.umn.edu

Matthews

L. J.

Crow

G. M.

(2010). The principalship: New roles in a professional learning community. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

MetLife. (2010). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Collaborating for student success. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509650.pdf

10.

North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ncteachingconditions.org/

11.

North Carolina’s Teacher Working Conditions Initiative. (n.d.) 2012 results. Retrieved from http://2012.ncteachingconditions.org/reports/

12.

Reeves

(2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

13.

Schlechty

P. C.

(2009). Leading for learning: How to transform schools into learning organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Schmoker

(2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Sterrett

(2011). Insights into action: Successful school leaders share what works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

16.

Sterrett

(2014). Maximizing teacher leadership: The principal as facilitator. In N

Bond

(ed.) The power of teacher leaders: Their roles, influence, and impact. New York: Routledge.

17.

Sterrett

Griffin

A. R.

(2013). A four cylinder engine: Shared collaborative ownership as the vehicle for enhanced student success. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49, 131-135.

18.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255-316.