As has been mentioned in several comments to a previous post, I-SS teachers are now being given the opportunity to take a version of the survey that the Principals took back in August. Pam Schiffman, Associate Superintendent of Accountability and Technology, sent the survey, via e-mail, with the subject line: I-SS Learning initiatives Opinion Activity – FOR TEACHERS. The survey lists a number of I-SS initiatives/processes and asks for input about each one.
Both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Rogers told me some time ago that the teachers would be given the same survey that was given to principals. However that did not happen. First of all, principals were given the option of listing most items as OK as is, tweak, or abandon while teachers are not given the option to directly mark abandon for any of the items. It was mentioned in one of the blog comments that teachers could write abandon in the Suggestions For Improvement section, but teachers should have been specifically given a column to mark abandon for individual items.
Next, the principals were given 34 items on their survey while teachers were only given 15 items. The following items were on the teacher’s survey.
- Baseline Assessments (BA)
- Common Formative Assessments (CFA)
- Predictive Assessments (PAs)
- School Improvement Planning
- Data Warehouse/Reports
- Early Release Professional Development
- High Yield Instructional Strategies (HYIS)
- Instructional Facilitator Model (IF)
- L to J (Lee Jenkins Resources)
- PDSA
- Classroom Walkthroughs (CWTs)
- Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
- Virtual PLCs
- Curriculum Guides
- Teamwork Matrix
The principal survey included all of the above items except High Yield Instructional Strategies and it also included the following items.
- Budgeting Process
- Hiring Process
- Response to Intervention
- Teacher Evaluation System
- Corrective Reading
- Read 180
- Positive Behavior Support
- The ISS Triangle Models: Raising Achievement and Closing the Gaps & Effective and Efficient Operations
- School Improvement Plan Coaching
- Leadership Academy Week
- Quality Fair/RACG Day
- Leadership Academy for Novice Principals
- Leveled Principal’s Meetings
- Mid and End of Year Review
- Instructional Facilitator/Principal Meetings
- Boot Camps
- Curriculum Review Week
- Assistant Principal Meetings
- Quarterly Principal Coaching Sessions
- Whole Group Principal Meeting
Granted, some of these additional items on the principal’s survey such as Assistant Principal Meetings and Whole Group Principal Meeting do not apply directly to teachers and would not need to be included on the teacher survey. However, a number of them do apply directly to teachers. For example, Teacher Evaluation System, Response to Intervention, The ISS Triangle Models, and Corrective Reading all have direct teacher involvement. Teachers should have been given the opportunity to rate these items as well.
I think that Mr. Johnson needs to have Pam Schiffman restructure the survey or at least give a valid explanation of why these items were not included on the teacher’s survey and why teachers were not given the direct opportunity to mark any items as needing to be abandoned.
Early Monday afternoon I sent Mr. Rogers an e-mail asking him if he knew why the teacher's survey was structured as it was. He responded with the following reply.
ReplyDeleteMr. Klaene,
I was just as surprised as you were when I learned of the changes in the teacher survey. I have sent an e-mail to both Brady Johnson and Pam Schiffman but I have not heard back from them. We will probably discuss it this afternoon at Committee of the Whole.
John Rogers
BOE
I attended the first part of the Committee of the Whole meeting and they did not discuss it during that time. Mr. Rogers spoke to me when they took a break to eat supper. He said that they were going to talk about the survey, that he was going to have his say, and that he was not not happy about it. I told Mr. Rogers that I was going to leave at that time and asked him to let me know what they said.
Mr. Rogers called me after the meeting and told me that they did talk about the survey and that he was not the only Board member who questioned why teachers were not given the opportunity to mark abandon on the survey. He said that Mr. Johnson stated that he was the one who decided the format for the survey and that he (Mr. Johnson) told the Board members why the teachers did not have abandon as one of their options. Mr. Rogers then told me that he was not going to tell me the reason given by Mr. Johnson and that, instead, he wanted me to schedule a meeting with Mr. Johnson so that Mr. Johnson could explain it to me directly. So now I have to wait until I can have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Johnson to learn of the 'secret' rationale behind the survey.
Once again the system says one thing and does another. Teachers are the ones who are directly affected by the items on the survey. They are the only ones who really know if they are effective or not. To not be given the opportunity to mark items as abandon is the systems way of keeping the things that they want to keep. Principals love having IFs because it takes a load off of them. Of course, if there was less testing, there would be no need for all the data collecting being done by IFs. I am in the process of comparing data from I-SS to schools around us. Should be interesting.
ReplyDeleteToo much time on your hands!
ReplyDeleteMore like too much injustice and hypocrisy afoot!
ReplyDeletePaul and Janey, once again---thank you.
There is always something Shakespearan about the way ISS handles surveys ,etc. It is always so it comes back to them the way they want it to. It is the same way the SIT works at our schools. We fill it out one way ,then it is corrected by the person at the Central Office and then, fixed the way they wanted it in the first place. The ones at the Central Office should fill out the surveys and do our SIT the way they want it. because that is the way it is going to be.
ReplyDeleteThe State needs to come in and interview all our teachers, and then maybe they would clean house.
The dishonesty with the way our SIT teams are facilitated manipulated should be enough to make the state question whether all our data is so factual with our testing. We meet all the time but our school decisions are not followed.
It is wasting all our teachers's valuable time so that the powers that be ,can put down that we as teachers had input. BS!!!
It goes back to having a third party "arms length" handle the survey. It's so simple yet they will never do it that way because then they can't "control" the outcome or the data. I anxiously await Mr. Johnson's answer on why the survey was done in that manner. Perhaps Mr. Klaene should also ask why they didn't hire an outside firm to handle something as sensitive and important.
ReplyDeleteIt's simple Paul, they don't want to hear it. It just proves how data can be manipulated, and ISS is the master at manipulating data! Principals are leadership, therefore their opinion is more important than those doing the work with students. That's the message it sends and it's no surprise to anyone in this district.
ReplyDeleteThere's also a letter selling the Baldridge model, which in a true survey is considered manipulating the data,...but more importantly, look at the numbers. Not all that impressive. In 7 years, reading EOG proficiecy went from 79.3 to 74.9 and math went from 83.9 to 88.1 while both tests were renormed from the state. Take away the ISS created rankings, and there actually hasn't been a whole lot of improvement in the elementary schools.
Just like you are manipulating that data. You can't compare those numbers because the score needed to pass the test 7 years ago was lower than it is now and the question difficulity is harder on the current test.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers are the number of students proficient in the district. The state of NC renormed both the reading and math tests in the last few years and the process to change the scores is based on how the students across the state perform on the new test. All schools and students are held to the same scale.
ReplyDeleteI met with Mr. Johnson this afternoon. We spent most of the time speaking about the teacher’s survey. Mr. Johnson said that he did not put abandon as one of the choices because he was afraid that teachers would mark abandon and not explain why. As for only listing 15 items, while the principals had 34 items on their survey, Mr. Johnson said that he knew some of the items on the principal survey did not relate to teachers and that he wanted to select those items that he felt were the ones that were the most critical to teachers. He also said that he wanted to keep the survey more manageable. Mr. Johnson said that he probably should have structured the survey differently but that he is interested in hearing from the teachers.
ReplyDeleteMr. Johnson said that a number of the surveys have already been returned and that he has looked over some of them. He also showed me a few of them. I noticed that there were many items marked as needing to be tweaked. Mr. Johnson indicated that he was pleased that there were also many written suggestions. Some of the suggestions were quite lengthy.
Mr. Johnson said that they would probably have to have someone come in and tally the results. He mentioned a name but I will not say who it is because the person has not yet been contacted. Mr. Johnson said that he does want teachers to complete the survey, that they will get a report of the findings, and that he will act on the responses.
Mr. Johnson said that one of the things that he is hearing is that teachers want more flexibility. He said that for the last two years I-SS was doing everything strictly ‘by the book’ so they could win the Baldrige Award. Mr. Johnson added that I-SS cannot maintain that pace and things have to change. He said that there is still some resistance to that change among some administrators. Mr. Johnson said that some principals were still very committed to the way things have been done and even told him that he should not give teachers the opportunity to take the survey. Mr. Johnson said that he has heard from some teachers that things have been better this year, but he also admitted that for others things have not changed.
If anyone thinks this is the real reason, I have a bridge to sell you.
ReplyDeleteDo you really feel like teachers needed to vote on Leadership Academy Week, Quality Fair/RACG Day, Leadership Academy for Novice Principals, Leveled Principal’s Meetings, Mid and End of Year Review, Administrative Boot Camps, Assistant Principal Meetings, Quarterly Principal Coaching Sessions, Corrective Reading/Reading Mastery etc? Most of these things don't effect teachers or only a small minority. Oh, why am I asking,,,you will probably say yes and come up with some crap!
ReplyDeleteNov 7, 11:27 AM - As I said in my original post there were items on the principal's survey that did not need to be on the teachers survey. However, a number of them do apply directly to teachers. For example, Teacher Evaluation System, Response to Intervention, The ISS Triangle Models, and Corrective Reading all have direct teacher involvement. These were on the principal's survey but not on the teacher's survey. Even Mr. Johnson agreed that it would have been better if he included these on the teacher's survey.
ReplyDeleteMr. Klaene, did you happen to ask whether or not the survey may be submitted electronically?
ReplyDeleteNov. 7, 6:26 PM - I did not specifically ask Mr. Johnson if the surveys could be submitted electronically but he did say that several teachers had already e-mailed their surveys to Pam Schiffman. Mr. Johnson did not indicate that it was a problem, so I would assume that it is OK to do so.
ReplyDelete