Abstract
This case was written to encourage educators to reflect on what it means to provide high-quality instructional supervision in an era of accountability when the American public education system is heavily influenced by reform efforts that affect how students learn and how teachers are supported as instructors, and pressures school systems face to produce student achievement. The intent of the case is to help leaders explore the difference between supervision (formative feedback intended to help teachers grow as instructors) and evaluation (summative feedback that determines employment decisions) 15 years past the introduction of No Child Left Behind. Educators using this case should also examine how systems thinking can be applied and/or misused to drive school reform and improvement initiatives.
Case Narrative
Ben Taylor just made a huge life change. After 10 years in academia, a successful tenure acquisition with almost 30 peer-reviewed publications, and a lot of soul-searching, Ben was leaving his associate professor position in the Educational Leadership program at the Northern State University (NSU). After becoming increasingly frustrated by the gap between theories he and his colleagues taught and the practices he saw valued in the field, he applied for a principal position at a nearby high school. With his decade of experience at NSU, as well as his previous leadership experience as an assistant principal and a central office coordinator prior to moving into academia, he was quickly hired after his interview in late March. With little more than 2 months left at NSU, he packed up his office and began to plan how he might better bridge the theory–practice gap as a principal.
While Ben was excited to get back to his practitioner roots, he was going to miss one specific class he taught at NSU, a course titled ELA 510 Instructional Supervision. Many years ago, while serving as an assistant principal and after finishing his own doctoral coursework, he focused his dissertation on studying instructional supervision. He familiarized himself with a long list of instructional supervision researchers, including Robert Goldhammer, Morris Cogan, Arthur Blumberg, Noreen Garman, Edith Grimsley, Ray Bruce, Sally Zepeda, Carl Glickman, Steve Gordon, Helen Hazi, Tom Sergiovani, Ed Pajak, Jeffrey Glanz, Jim Nolan, Bernard Badiali, and Don Beach, and more recently Diane Yendol-Hoppey, Mary Lynne Derrington, Rebecca Burns, and Jennifer Jacobs. Collectively, this group of researchers framed supervision as a human development function that provides formative feedback to teachers and helps them improve instruction through targeted, individualized professional development. Essentially, the instructional leader often plays a role similar to an instructional coach. This was a big shift for Ben. Up until this point in his practice and dissertation research, he always assumed the principal’s role as evaluator served as the impetus for teacher improvement, and the assessment and ranking of teacher practice and summative feedback drove growth. Throughout his dissertation development, however, his focus as a practitioner changed, and he advocated that strong instructional supervision should also include formative feedback and instructional coaching to drive adult learning. He focused his NSU instructional supervision course on this dual role of the instructional supervisor and honed his identity as an educational leader, researcher, and program coordinator to align with supporting theories.
While he felt confident about the role he would play as an instructional leader in his new job, he was nervous and knew the transition from academia back to the school building would be full of unknowns. The last time he was in a school building was 2006, and the threats of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) had barely come to fruition. Since that time, a barrage of school improvement efforts had come and gone, including Assessment for Learning (AFL), Response to Intervention (RTI), Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS), Turnaround Schools, and Project-Based Learning (PBL), just to name a few. To be an effective scholarly practitioner, he knew he needed to understand how new improvement initiatives affected the way a school functioned and the support teachers needed from their principal. Moreover, despite implementation of a variety of these improvement initiatives and reform efforts, student success had not greatly improved. His students at NSU shared many stories of administrators blindly rolling out ongoing cycles of new initiatives, and they described administrators as out of touch with the teachers’ perspectives of the challenges of instruction and the looming high-stakes assessments. These stories and his own observations assured Ben that he could be more successful by using a balanced approach of supervision and targeted individualized professional development to drive organizational learning and reform. He felt confident the faculty would welcome his approach.
Ben was hired as the new principal at nearby Oyster Bay High School (OBHS), which serves about 1,000 students. The Oyster Bay School District is a highly politicized school system, with several NSU faculty members serving on the Board of Education (BOE). Dr. Paul Carmichael, a relatively new superintendent to the district, took the helm after the BOE removed the previous superintendent due to a 2-year dip in scores on the state standardized tests. A similar political process played out a year later when high school principal, Suzie Allen, fell victim to vicious attacks in the local paper and on social media orchestrated by board members. These attacks served to publicly document and triangulate key parent groups and community members against her due to the dip in student performance. Although Paul could not legally fire Suzie without due process that would take several months, Suzie knew the small-town politics of Oyster Bay and the lack of support from Dr. Carmichael would prevent her from successfully leading any longer. She resigned and quickly found a new principal position in a different part of the state. Even though Ben was well aware of his predecessor’s fate, he felt confident that his experience in navigating university politics prepared him well for Oyster Bay.
Paul, Ben’s new boss, had 20 years of superintendent experience and a strong reputation as a practitioner who ran a tight ship. Throughout his career, he touted a “systems thinking” approach and credited this perspective with producing high levels of student achievement in his districts. He was successfully repeating his method at Oyster Bay and solidifying notoriety and political connections throughout the state. The BOE liked their choice and the work he was doing. When Paul offered Ben the job, he was surprisingly candid about his reason for hiring him. “Ben,” he said, You have great experience as an instructional leader, and the years you spent at NSU gives you and Oyster Bay some good cachet in a time when we need more trust from the public. And, don’t get me wrong, I love what you bring and the knowledge you have. But let’s be clear about one thing: You will need to follow my lead and use a systems approach when it comes to driving instruction and student learning in OBHS and throughout the district. This means we will use a data-driven process to collect student data based on assessments that are aligned with state learning objectives. We use this data to make human resource decisions. Will you be able to do that?
Ben, who had been influenced by Peter Senge’s conceptualization of systems thinking as the connection between theory and practice to better understand how schools might operate as learning organizations, thought using a systems thinking approach sounded pretty logical. In addition, Ben’s excitement about being back in a practitioner role blinded him to caution, and he agreed to follow Paul’s lead. Paul had a strong reputation, and Ben was sure his new boss would want to use research-based practices around instructional supervision, all of which would inform organizational learning and systems thinking. He also knew school districts generally make decisions from the top-down, and he did not want Paul to think he opposed his approach and vision for instructional leadership, especially when he expected it would align with his own. Shaking Paul’s hand, Ben confirmed he would follow him, because he was confident he would later be able to influence Paul with his own ideas if there were areas on which they did not agree. Later, Ben would reflect that his decade of experience in academia had not prepared him to be told what to do by someone who was unwilling to reflect on instructional practices.
Applying the Theory of Supervision Into Practice
Throughout the summer, Ben continued to reacquaint himself with the responsibilities of a principal. He introduced himself and his thoughts about improving the culture and climate of OBHS to every teacher from the high school who was willing to come outside contracted time to meet him. He actively participated in several summer curriculum meetings where he was careful not to come off too strong and drive the direction of the conversations. In addition, Ben wanted his new staff to see that he empowered his people to make important decisions and supported them to turn their ideas into action. Ben even went to football practices and chatted with the coaches, introduced himself to the team, and stayed after to shake hands with parents from the booster club. Most importantly, Ben dedicated his time to preparing his supervision schedule, so he could hit the ground running on the first day of school and visit every class within the first week. He was determined to use these visits to establish himself as an instructional leader in the eyes of his staff.
Two weeks before the start of school, Ben got a call from an old friend, Lisa Milburn. Lisa completed most of her PhD program in tandem with Ben, and the two had been close friends prior to Ben joining academia. In fact, Lisa mentored Ben while he was an assistant principal, as she had a few more years of administrative experience. Although Ben lost track of Lisa over the years, he soon discovered she was working as the middle school principal in the district where Paul Carmichael had just left. Ben hoped to reconnect with Lisa to learn more about his new boss, and he was happy she had called.
“Well, that’s why I’m reaching out, Ben,” Lisa said.
Dr. Carmichael—he likes to be called that, by the way, not Paul—is pretty, how would you say it, direct with his expectations for his principals. The last year he was here, it got pretty bad. None of the principals felt they could answer a question regarding curriculum and instruction without first checking with him: it was very top-down. Now, I know you are big into instructional supervision and providing informal feedback to coach teachers. I remember that from our days in grad school together, and I loved what you wrote about and did in practice. But all that being said, Paul’s version of instructional leadership is highly regimented, and it focuses on using prepackaged curricula, pacing guides that teachers must abide by to cover all tested material, and a barrage of weekly student assessments. He thinks this kind of leadership that he calls systems thinking leads to data-driven decisions, and the public loves it, because Paul produces results on the state standardized tests and touts the scores on social media. But Ben, before Paul left, the climate became toxic. He views systems thinking as the tight control of curriculum, scripted lessons, and adherence to pacing guides that are way too fast for half of our kids who struggle academically. And, when teachers tried to raise their concerns, they were immediately shut down and told they needed to work harder to improve student achievement. Very quickly, they learned their professional opinions didn’t matter and felt more like automatons than professionals. Also, he’s got a hyper-focus on evaluation, so he can document everything and get rid of the teachers he doesn’t think are good instructors. Be prepared to do a lot of paperwork and documentation on your teachers. It’s been a few years since he’s been gone and we’re still picking up the pieces and trying to rebuild our climate. I just thought—I thought you might want to know this about him to help you prepare for your new role. A lot has changed in the last 10 years since you and I were assistant principals together. You and I go way back, and I just didn’t want you to be blindsided.
After a few minutes of catching each other up about their personal lives, the phone call ended with a promise to meet up later in the fall once the semester was underway. Hanging up the phone, Ben looked out his window and thought about his situation. He knew this was part of the tension education was experiencing, where theory was increasingly losing respect among practitioners. Poor implementation of using assessment data strategically for differentiation had led to a destruction of the role of the professional teacher, and in many settings, textbooks and their materials and assessments now dictated pedagogy. Although texts might give a nod to student-centered instruction, teachers were often left with little time to include it in their classroom. Ironically, this centralized and uniform process was often touted as an approach that would help teachers differentiate instruction and personalize learning for students. It also reduced teacher autonomy in the decision-making process and placed little value on professional input regarding how they taught. Ben knew he could not lead the way Dr. Carmichael wanted him to lead, but after his recent conversation with Lisa, he also knew he likely could not change his boss’s mind. He decided the climate of his building was more important than trying to control every aspect of instruction—besides, weren’t teachers supposed to make professional decisions about their practice? He would implement his supervision schedule as planned, but as he drove home that evening, he already felt a sense of powerlessness, as if his professional opinion was suddenly muted.
Ben hit the ground running on the first day of school. He visited every class the first week of school, and by the end of the second week, he completed quick, impromptu meetings with every teacher in the building regarding their instruction. Over the next month, Ben focused almost all of the conversations in the building around instructional issues. At the first two faculty meetings, teachers, both novice and veteran, shared successful instructional strategies that led to higher levels of student engagement in their classrooms. He also told teachers not to worry about constantly assessing students. Data were important, but he wanted to focus on quality instruction with the idea that student achievement and growth would naturally follow. As the weeks went on, the culture at OBHS slowly began to shift. In the break room, teachers had more discussions about their experiences and attempts to try new ways to connect with students. Most weeks Ben made it into every room, and after each observation, he gave verbal and written feedback to encourage teachers to be innovative in their instruction and take chances. He differentiated the way he approached this message to meet individual needs of each teacher. He was more direct with beginning teachers and offered specific steps they might take to improve. With veteran teachers, he valued and affirmed their professional knowledge and empowered them to be reflective and creative about how they could improve. For the most part, the OBHS faculty were encouraged by his efforts to focus on the importance of instruction. Despite the predictable few who refused to engage in change, most of the teachers wanted to continually improve their practice, so more students would succeed.
By the middle of October, Ben felt all his hard work was beginning to pay off. A newly formed professional learning community (PLC) was experimenting with peer observations twice per week during planning time, so the members could get new ideas for their own instruction. New teachers received intensive mentoring from veteran teachers who had volunteered to serve as peer instructional supervisors, and Ben was taking part in these meetings as well. Even some of the veteran teachers who were reluctant to accept the new principal’s help were reinvigorated by the stimulating conversations in these meetings. All was going well until Ben received the following email from Dr. Carmichael: Hi Ben, October 20 We need to set up a time to talk about your quarterly teacher observations. I noticed there is currently no information in the district database for the first quarter (no teacher evals, no assessment data aligned to the state test), and with two weeks left in the first quarter you’ll need to get these in soon so I can review these with you. These are important if we need to get anyone on a professional improvement plan, so we can document if we choose not to rehire anyone. Ben, we make systems based, data-driven decisions here. Put your data in the system and contact my secretary so you can get on my schedule in the next week. Dr. Carmichael
Ben did not like the tone of the email. He was sure he would like the in-person conversation with his boss even less.
Systems Thinking at Oyster Bay
Not wanting to get off to a poor start with his superintendent, Ben logged into the district portal and began to rank his teachers. He was flabbergasted by what he was supposed to enter. He was expected to rank his teachers on over 50 elements, and the rankings were based on his perspective alone. Teachers had no voice to evaluate their own practice or to set their own professional or instructional goals. Ben put in tireless hours with all of his teachers the first 2 months of school and felt he knew their strengths and areas for improvement fairly well. Not wanting to damage the climate of his school during the first semester of his new tenure as OBHS principal, he ranked all of his teachers on each domain as either scoring a 3—Proficient or 4—Advanced. No one received a ranking of either a 1—Basic or 2—Developing. Besides, Ben was much more focused on motivating teachers as adult learners, and he was more concerned about engaging in the process of instructional supervision than in the documentation of it. In addition, already having to renege on his word about entering student achievement data, he asked his teachers to enter their subject data from the past several summative assessments, and assured them this would only drive student remediation efforts and not be taken into account regarding their own evaluations so early in the semester.
When he entered Dr. Carmichael’s office for his quarterly teacher evaluation meeting, he was not comforted by what he saw. Dr. Carmichael had a stack of papers in front of him and began the meeting in a somber tone. “Ben,” he said, We have a few problems here I’d like to address today. One of them is your ranking of teachers in your building. How is it possible that every teacher in your building is either proficient or advanced on the 50 elements of good instruction? Every teacher, and I mean every teacher, has something they need to improve upon, so you will need to go back and reenter your information to accurately reflect a more objective evaluation of where your teachers need to focus their improvement efforts. I also want to bring up your student data. Have you seen these scores? If you have, I think you would have ranked many of your teachers as either basic or developing. These scores are used as part of our teacher evaluations at Oyster Bay, and many of these scores should trigger a professional improvement plan for a teacher. If teachers can’t meet criteria in their professional improvement plan, then the process for documentation begins, so we have a paper trail to justify why we will not be offering them an ongoing contract.
Ben was not sure how to respond. After a few seconds of gathering his thoughts, he gave a response that he thought would help Dr. Carmichael understand his perspective while keeping him in good graces with his superintendent.
Dr. Carmichael, I appreciate the feedback you have given me, and I will take this into account. I know we use systems thinking in Oyster Bay to drive our decisions. But, I want to raise a concern with you about this, if I may. You see, systems thinking, as I know it, is highly aligned with Senge’s definition. I believe that all teachers need to be allowed to achieve personal mastery, have time to develop new mental models, learn together in teams, and collaboratively build a shared vision. That’s what we have been doing at OBHS this entire semester. I have been working hard to give teachers individualized support and supervision since the start of school, so they can improve their instruction, and people are really beginning to take different approaches to their pedagogy. Based on my walkthrough data, students are more engaged and teachers are using higher-order thinking strategies a greater percentage of the time, all of which will lead to increased student success and impact the student data you referred to. I think you’d be encouraged to hear a PLC has started engaging in peer observations, which allows OBHS teachers to learn together and develop a common vision about instruction. Also, and I am not trying to be rude, but how can our teachers focus on doing 50 things well when great teachers can barely focus on doing 10 things well, let alone 50? My focus on self-improvement the first quarter was intended to improve the school climate and encourage new ideas and practices. As teaching and the climate improves, student test scores will improve. And regarding the student data, the new ESSA requirements don’t—
Paul Carmichael interrupted Ben.
Ok Ben, I know what ESSA says about the use of student data in teacher evaluations, and I’ve heard enough. First of all, this is exactly what I feared might happen when I hired you. This isn’t theory, ok? This is practice. And in our system, we evaluate. We don’t just provide supervision or focus solely on school climate and culture. Do you have any idea how much money we have paid to use our evaluation system? Our taxpayers want to know we are using the resources we purchase. Also, your walkthrough data doesn’t speak to the public the same way standardized test scores do. When those scores are released each August and reveal how well we did on the state tests, the public cares, so making sure those scores are positive should be the only thing you care about. And finally, there are districts throughout the country that use our evaluation model and don’t seem to have an issue using 50 elements of good instruction. Is this going to be an issue for you? Because if it is, you might not be a good fit at Oyster Bay.
Ben’s mind raced. Was this what had happened to “instructional leaders” while he had been in academia? Everything seemed so scripted and cookie-cut. How were teachers supposed to feel ownership of their instruction and meet the needs of their students? Maybe just as important, how were principals supposed to lead using “systems thinking” if all they were allowed to do was rank teachers’ skills and input data to make human resource decisions? Worse yet, the district leader seemed to care more about public perception than people in his own school system. Needing more time to figure out how to best proceed, Ben quickly gathered himself and said, “No, Dr. Carmichael, this won’t be a problem.”
“Good,” Paul replied.
To help you better understand the role of the principal in today’s schools, I’d like you to attend a conference next week. You will learn our evaluation model more deeply, so you are not overwhelmed by rating 50 criteria. Several sales representatives there can help you identify additional online professional development courses you can take moving forward.
Closing the folder and signaling the ending of the meeting, Dr. Carmichael added, “Ben, you really do look nice for the district coming from NSU, but, like I said, this is practice, not theory. This is how we do things around here, and you’re going to need to get on board.” Walking out of the office, Ben Taylor wondered how he could have been so naïve about the realities and pressures his educational leadership students faced and now he faced as an instructional leader in the era of accountability.
Firsthand Account of American Reform Efforts on Instructional Leadership
One week later, Ben drove into the city and went to the conference Dr. Carmichael requested he attend. When he parked his car and entered the building from the underground garage, he was amazed by the corporate feel of the conference. Vendors were everywhere, handing out free demos and enrolling district after district in prepackaged curricula and products. Eavesdropping on one conversation, he heard a salesman say, “Since we write the exam, we also know how to best support the implementation of the curriculum.” Ben did not agree with it, but he was beginning to develop a better understanding of why his superintendent had a different definition of instructional supervision. If resources and curriculum are highly aligned to the test, the principal’s primary goal was implementation fidelity. He was to manage implementation, not provide instructional leadership designed to develop each teacher individually reflect on best practices and pedagogy.
Moving deeper into the conference center, he found his breakout room for the evaluation model session and put his bag down toward the back rows. The handouts on his chair suggested the 50 elements of teacher evaluation would help him “clinically assess” teachers and “tie student test scores to human resource decisions.” Already regretting his decision to attend, he moved toward the back wall to pour himself a coffee. As he stirred his drink, Lisa Milburn’s familiar voice surprised him.
“Ben! It’s great to see you! How’s everything going at Oyster Bay?” she asked.
“What a surprise!” replied Ben, who then looked at Lisa and paused for several seconds before replying.
I can’t lie, Lisa, I’m already wondering why I thought it would be a good decision to leave academia and come back to being a practitioner. I mean, look at this place. Don’t people understand this is all a sham? Do well-educated practitioners not realize that our students are the ones suffering from this lower-order, teach-to-the-test instruction? And really, what is this evaluation model supposed to do to help me provide better supervision to my faculty? Whatever happened to teachers focusing on improving one or two things each year, and learning to do them really well? I mean 50 elements? What are we doing?!?
Lisa, always a straight shooter, replied to Ben bluntly.
Ben, when we talked a few months ago, I told you this was the new reality of a principal. I don’t agree with it either, but I have seven more years before I can retire, and I’m not giving that up after 23 years of work. Most of us who care about being an instructional leader just play along with the paper trail to keep our superintendents happy. We do our best to protect our teachers, but this is the new reality of high stakes student assessment and teacher evaluation. Once one district starts outperforming another, it becomes somewhat of an arms race to buy materials to boost your state test scores. So, unless you live in a wealthy community where students tend to do well no matter what your teachers use for instruction, these companies and the products they sell become too tempting
Ben shuffled back to his seat, happy to be with an old friend, but wondering how education had changed so much. As assistant principals, Lisa and Ben used to share a passion for instructional supervision, and he was disappointed to see she resigned herself to this new reality as if it was an unchangeable force. Just how far had education regressed in the last decade while he had been away from his role as a practitioner, and how had the bright and energetic practitioners he used to work with changed so much? Whatever happened to supervising teachers, meeting them at their ability level, and identifying individualized professional development opportunities to improve their ability to instruct? What happened to being the teacher of teachers? Did administrators really need to scare teachers into improvement efforts by constantly evaluating them and always targeting teachers for nonrenewal? And what about the notion that adult learners need to be in charge of their own learning, as opposed to being told that a prepacked curriculum knew more than their own professional opinions and experiences? Everything he was seeing was the antithesis of the research-backed practices he taught his NSU students about working with adult learners and leading school improvement.
The lights dimmed and the presentation started. Ben took notes here and there, but he was mostly consumed with his own disappointment by the entire experience he was having in the PK-12 system. Less than half a year into his return to the principalship, Ben could already see how business and accountability had removed the human component from the education equation. Even if people did not leave the profession, they were forced to comply with practices solely intended for making a school look good on annual accountability measures instead of creating a child-centered education. Ben felt as though the principal no longer had the power or authority to help teachers improve instruction and meet all children’s needs. Rather, principals were there to ensure students were being assessed enough to prove the district is doing a good job and teachers were identified for nonrenewal if they do not follow the curriculum. What had happened to his beloved profession?
Teaching Notes: Supervision Versus Evaluation, Interpretations of Systems Thinking, and the Impact of American School Reform Efforts on Instructional Leadership
Frequently, the definitions, functions, and purposes of supervision and evaluation conflate, leading to confusion among practitioners to use the terms as synonyms (Mette et al., 2017). Teacher supervision, which can be described as the formative feedback provided to teachers to support their ongoing reflection on instructional and pedagogical practices, occurs through conferencing, walkthroughs, and observations of lessons (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2014; Zepeda, 2017), among other feedback loops and processes. Typically provided by principals who have a strong propensity for supporting reflection (Mette, Range, Anderson, Hvidston, & Nieuwenhuizen, 2015), instructional coaches and peer teachers can also provide teacher supervision. Rather than exerting control over teachers using hierarchical power structures of a system, a supervisor should provide differentiated support based on strengths and needs of a teacher through a reflective improvement process done with teachers and not to them (Glickman et al., 2014). As seen in the Oyster Bay case, Dr. Taylor focuses on formative feedback and the empowerment of teachers to be reflective instead of ranking and evaluating teachers with little feedback intended to promote professional growth.
In stark contrast to the definition of supervision, teacher evaluation can be described as summative feedback documenting the performance of teachers and is used to determine teacher retention (Hazi & Rucinski, 2009; Oliva & Pawlas, 2004). Recent efforts to standardize teacher evaluation, as seen with several popularized prepackaged teacher evaluation systems focused on the use of evaluation tools and rubrics to assess performance and abilities of teachers (Danielson, 2011; Marzano & Toth, 2013), support the notion of teacher evaluation as the primary function for administrators. However, Darling-Hammond (2013) posits that rigid, standardized teacher evaluation systems may actually prevent teachers from receiving tailored feedback that is useful to their individualized needs. In addition, evaluation systems often create side effects that negatively affect school climate and culture, due to lack of educator engagement and concern about practice focused on scores rather than the ability to reflect upon improving instructional and pedagogical practices. In the Oyster Bay case, Dr. Carmichael’s leadership approach tightly and narrowly focuses on standardization and summative evaluation practices to evaluate teachers and inform nonrenewal of teachers. Evaluation practices with narrow definitions of accountability and teacher quality based on assessment often drive teacher disengagement and concern about various reform and school improvement efforts.
Interpretations of Systems Thinking
This case offers competing philosophical interpretations of systems thinking that drive two educational leaders to interpret supervision differently. Dr. Carmichael’s belief in systems thinking as centralized management of different organizational components to address complex challenges (Shaked & Schechter, 2017) clearly defines his expectations for performance management of public sector organizations. His notion of systems thinking focuses on strategic planning, the attainment of measurable goals, and defined systems around the measurement and analysis of outcomes (Mwita, 2000). From Dr. Carmichael’s perspective, systems are “messes” (Ackoff, 1999), defined as organizations with complex problems where there is no one best solution to a holistic problem or issue that can be fixed via systems thinking. Paul believes his approach will help the organization develop efficient processes to reduce complexity and influence outcomes (Grammatikopoulos, 2012).
Morgan (2006) might argue that Dr. Carmichael has misidentified his concept of systems thinking and organizational learning, and instead desires his organization to function as a machine. As highlighted in Dr. Carmichael’s leadership decisions, he believes employing his systems thinking perspective empowers a centralized approach to instructional leadership that attempts to address the complex challenges of raising student achievement, and in this case, the student achievement did increase as a result of the approach. In addition, the use of a standardized teacher evaluation tool and a summative feedback system tied to student achievement allows the Oyster Bay School District to maintain tight control over teacher performance by using specific goals and outcomes that contribute to summative teacher evaluations. In the Oyster Bay case, this notion of systems thinking is so widespread, the board replaced the former superintendent with Paul Carmichael with expectations that he could lead the district to employ tighter control of instructional practices and increase student achievement.
Ben Taylor exemplifies the other interpretation of systems thinking, which has its philosophical roots in organizational theory and change. Specifically, Senge (1990), whose conception of systems thinking requires organizations to empower employees to seek personal mastery, create opportunities for team learning, question deeply engrained mental models, and build a shared vision around organizational learning, informed Ben’s interpretation of systems thinking. To shift from Dr. Carmichael’s interpretation of systems thinking to Ben’s requires organizations to move organizational cultures from leadership that values traditional hierarchy to one that views organizations as social systems that can produce results when empowered rather than controlled (Schein, 2010). From Ben’s perspective, systems thinking requires teachers and administrators understand how a school functions as a learning organization by analyzing and improving upon the pedagogy and andragogy used to help both students and adults build capacity to continually and sustainably learn (Fullan, 2007). As underscored in the Ben’s leadership style, his approach to systems thinking requires a leader to provide guidance around areas of improvement, but simultaneously empower personal growth and shared leadership. In this case, Ben’s approach did lead to organizational learning and a shift in culture when teachers started to focus less on producing test scores and more on instructional improvement efforts. The assumption is that this movement would eventually lead to increased student outcomes. In addition, Ben’s systems thinking ideology provided a bottom-up approach to instructional improvement efforts that valued teacher voices in the face of a top-down teacher evaluation system.
As the American public education system continues to increase adoption of standardized curricula, assessments, and evaluations, leaders face philosophical dilemmas related to instructional leadership as a driver to improve student achievement. The competing values between Ben and his superintendent related to systems thinking in Oyster Bay highlight this struggle. Although both leaders want to see student outcomes improve, their definition of systems thinking has an enormous and opposite impact on their strategies for instructional supervision. The Oyster Bay case illustrates what theory looks like in practice when two school leaders adopt very different conceptions of instructional leadership as part of systems thinking. It helps warn of the unintended consequences of the accountability movement, specifically around organizational learning that drives student and adult practices.
The Impact of the American School Reform Efforts on Instructional Leadership
When leaders provide direction to improve instruction, coproduce knowledge to affect instructional practices that will best meet the needs of students, and create a systematic approach to sustainable growth and development (Salo, Nylund, & Stjernstrøm, 2015), it can affect student achievement. Although the research literature on instructional leadership identifies the necessary behaviors for leaders to improve instruction, it is less clear how practitioners navigate the theory–practice gap that exists in instructional leadership (Neumerski, 2012). In addition, accountability contexts, including pressures from federal, state, and local levels, affect school organizations in varying degrees, particularly those under systematic reform (Marks & Nance, 2007). In the Oyster Bay case, Dr. Carmichael’s conception of systems thinking leads him to demand an approach to instructional leadership with an underlying assumption that a standardized curriculum and evaluation system can produce increased student outcomes. However, this leadership style pays little attention to the adult learning of teachers and principals, and in this case, reduces the motivation of teachers and principals to lead instructional supervision efforts.
In an attempt to function more efficiently, school systems have been pushed by policymakers and school reformers to incorporate business management techniques and the use of data to drive school reform and improvement (Murphy, 2008; Peck & Reitzug, 2012). Observation and assessment data play a role in that conversation, but the poor implementation and interpretation of theory coupled with the accountability movement has created workplace conditions that cause teachers to leave the profession (You & Conley, 2015). Leaders must be able to provide specific and timely feedback to teachers that will inform instructional practices and support reflective teachers (Glickman et al., 2014; Grissom, Loeb, & Master, 2013). In the end, the adoption of accountability-driven practices has not succeeded at mitigating the persistent inequities that persist in education (Giroux, 1988; Murphy & Meyers, 2008). Thus, while it is necessary to focus on improving student achievement, instructional leaders must realize that this cannot come at the expense of supporting teachers and their professional opinions. In the Oyster Bay case, the district is able to use a standardized approach to measuring student achievement and evaluating teachers, but in doing so it uses a systems thinking approach that values centralized management and control.
At question in the Oyster Bay case is the balance between the necessary use of data to drive decision-making and the need to provide opportunities for locally based instructional interventions (Slater & Griggs, 2015). Strong instructional leaders address low-quality instruction through robust and differentiated teacher learning, access to resources to support professional development, and practices that foster relationships to improve to instructional practices (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015). Based on the Oyster Bay case, Dr. Ben Taylor is at philosophical odds with his superintendent about how to best improve student achievement. Thus, while the reform efforts employed by Dr. Carmichael at the local level might help control the inputs required to improve student achievement as an output, there is also a need to consider how Ben responded to these reform pressures and attempted to protect OBHS by providing andragogical and pedagogical supports for his school to improve as an organization.
Discussion Questions and Teaching Activities
This case study encourages educators to reflect on the impact competing definitions of theory have on practice. Specifically, it highlights the tension that arises when school leaders do not agree on the definition or purpose of high-quality instructional supervision and systems thinking. Practitioners (school leaders, teachers, central office administrators, etc.) and academics (those teaching and conducting research in leadership preparation programs) can use this case to further define instructional supervision and the role of the principal in supervision and evaluation. Specifically, this case can help consider the type of feedback and organizational learning necessary to develop reflective and creative practitioners who are able to drive their own instructional improvement efforts. In addition, leaders can consider how the educational policies and practice redefine instructional leadership and particular approaches to systems thinking and school reform.
Discussion Questions
Compare and contrast the different definitions of “instructional leadership” as defined in the Oyster Bay case. What kinds of leadership beliefs are required for school leaders to establish teacher supervision (formative feedback) similar to Dr. Ben Taylor? Consider the perspective of Glickman et al. (2014), who posited leaders need to focus on teacher growth over teacher compliance and value collegial relationships over hierarchical power structures. What kinds of leadership beliefs are required for school leaders to establish teacher evaluation systems (summative feedback) similar to Dr. Paul Carmichael? Consider the perspectives of Marzano and Toth (2013) and Danielson (2011), which tend to focus on a clinical assessment of teacher performance and assess teacher abilities based on continuums and rubrics.
Discuss ways to balance summative and formative evaluation. Is there a way for instructional supervisors (typically principals) to be both the coach and the evaluator?
Consider how the support from central office to building principals is shaped by one’s definition of instructional leadership. Using the case detailed at Oyster Bay High School, how might have Dr. Carmichael, the superintendent, balanced the focus on supervision and evaluation so that data are positioned as a reflective tool rather than a weapon? How might Ben have used data in a more systematic fashion to show how his supervision and formative feedback helped improve the instructional practices of teachers? How might both perspectives use data to drive school improvement efforts given the pressures practitioners face in the world of educational accountability? How does instructional supervision fit into this reality and how is it affected?
Consider the differing opinions and perspectives the Oyster Bay case provides around the notion of systems thinking. How has accountability and school reform policy in America affected the way educational leaders perceive the importance of organizational learning and systems thinking? Analyze the political pressures from constituents (local stakeholders and board of education members) to produce high student achievement, and how the myriad of factors that influence student success contribute to the pressures teachers face in various types of schools.
Discuss Ben’s entry into Oyster Bay and his potential lack of awareness about the situation when he signed on as the new OBHS principal. What signs of the impending conflict were apparent prior to his hire? How well did he navigate this conflict? Discuss the political culture of Oyster Bay, including but not limited to the influence of the Oyster Bay BOE, the track record of previous administrators, and the philosophical ideology around the pressures of producing student achievement. Educators using this case should consider the politics of their own communities and apply lessons learned in the Oyster Bay case.
Teaching Activities
The role of a supervisor
In groups of three to four, instructors and/or school leaders should ask educators to discuss the difference between the views of instructional leadership provided in the Oyster Bay School District. Educators should be provided the teaching notes from this article, but should also be provided with electronic copies of High Stakes Evaluation: We Must Do More (Zepeda, 2006) and The Wicked Problem of the Intersection Between Supervision and Evaluation (Mette et al., 2017). Using these documents, educators should engage in a discussion about the merits of supervision, evaluation, and the professional development needed for both teachers and administrators to know the appropriate difference between the two. Then, groups should create a presentation that highlights the different types of instructional leadership provided by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Carmichael, taking into account how supervision and evaluation can coexist, be balanced and separated, and help teachers become more reflective practitioners. Small groups should then present their information to the whole group, and the instructor/school leader should engage educators in a conversation about the importance of delineating the intent of both supervision (formative feedback) and evaluation (summative feedback). Specifically, the conversation should focus on the interactions between Dr. Taylor and Dr. Carmichael and compare and contrast behaviors observed in actual practice.
Unpacking systems thinking
Educators using this case should explore the different conceptualizations of systems thinking presented in the Oyster Bay case as it relates to the instructional, curricular, and evaluative practices of practitioners. Specifically, educators should consider the difference between management decision-making processes that affect the measured output of school systems (student learning) and leadership decision-making processes that affect the support offered to individuals in an organization to grow and learn to function as a group. Instructors and/or leaders should ask educators to split into two distinct groups, one side debating the merits of systems thinking that needs to consider controlling the outputs of school systems (student achievement) and the other side defending the need for leaders to consider supporting a learning organization culture. Prior to the beginning of the debate, educators should be given an electronic copy of Systems Thinking Among School Middle Leaders (Shaked & Schechter, 2017) and be assigned excerpts from An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization (Kegan & Lahey, 2016), both of which give backgrounds to the various and conflicting notions of systems thinking highlighted in the Oyster Bay case. Within the debate, educators should consider the structural and cultural implications of the Oyster Bay School District, and attempt to make a connection to the proposed frameworks offered in this case.
Conducting a critical inquiry of the impact of school reform efforts on instructional leadership
Educators should critically analyze the impact of school reform efforts and how these efforts influence the development of instructional leaders in the age of accountability. This analysis should include local-, state-, and national-level policies affecting the role of a principal to serve as an instructional leader. With this information, educators should present an analysis, either in class or to their peer faculty members. Based on these presentations, instructors and/or leaders should facilitate a larger conversation about the importance of educational supervision that can focus on both student improvement and positive culture and climate. Instructors and/or leaders should then facilitate a discussion on how to respond to school reform pressures, and they should take into account important pedagogical and andragogical considerations that can positively affect practices.
Footnotes
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.