Month: November 2010

IA04 – Recruiting, Interviewing and Hiring

Leave a reply

Introduction

To complete this Internship Activity, I met with AB, the Director of Human Resources at my school and NH, the Middle and Upper School Principal. We discussed the various procedures they employ to recruit, interview and hire highly qualified teachers, as well as the unique position our school finds itself in as a private school vis-a-vis the NCLB legislation on this issue.

A Private School’s Relationship to No Child Left Behind

As a private institution, our school is not required to follow NCLB guidelines. So, while the legislation regarding the hire of “highly qualified teachers” is recognized as a sound set of operational principles, we are free to follow our own practices in this area.

Our school certainly operates within the NCLB guidelines when it comes to considering teachers. All of the instructors on our campus, K-12 are either certified by the state when hired or are required to achieve certification within their first year on campus. Furthermore, they all hold at least a bachelors degree in their area of instruction and many hold graduate or doctoral degrees as well.

The issue of State exams is interesting, particularly among our religious studies faculty; we are a dual-curriculum school and, while many of our religious teachers hold advanced degrees, there is no standardized test in their areas of instruction to require them to take.

Our Process

My interviews with AB, our HR Director, yielded more policy discussions, while the time I spent with NH felt more real-world. According to AB, our hiring procedures are:

  1. Identify a specific need for a teacher in a certain grade and/or subject area.
  2. If the need can not be met internally, allocate budget toward the hire of a new member of the faculty.
  3. Write and run an ad in a set of professional listings, some more general, some specific to private, religious schools in our area.
  4. Receive and examine resumes, weeding out the obviously unqualified. Check references on the remainder.
  5. Schedule in-person interviews with the most likely candidates. Interviews involve a number of administrators from across the school.
  6. Select the best candidate, extend an offer and hire.

When these steps are listed like this, the process seems orderly and certain to succeed… of course things never really turn out quite that smoothly. As NH, pointed out, there are a number of complicating factors:

  • What if the need is immediate, making it impossible to run an ad for any length of time?
  • What if a suitable candidate does not apply?
  • What if budget can not be found?

In other words, NH’s real-world experience with the hiring of teachers during the school year (as opposed to over the summer) has given him a more cynical perspective on the goal of hiring only highly qualified teachers. “Every school employs unacceptable teachers,” he explained to me. “At a certain point, you’re left with only two choices: no teacher, or a lousy teacher. What’s the alternativ

I discovered this myself, first-hand.

My Experience

This year marked a transition for me from faculty to administration: I had been the high school’s Computer Teacher and, when I left, another teacher was hired to replace me. He was excellent, highly qualified, and a great fit for out school. Unfortunately, sometime in October it became clear that another teacher, one of our upper school Math Teachers, was not a good fit and she was asked to leave. DT, the Computer Teacher, was asked to take over her classes and the search began for a new Computer Teache

I participated in this search. I was asked to review resumes, identify likely candidates and, when the time came, I got to meet with the leading candidate as part of the interview process. I remember feeling that she knew the material and seemed qualified; NH extended an offer and we hired her.

Within a week it was apparent that we had made a mistake. The teacher we had hired couldn’t handle AP Computer Science, the most challenging course (which I had to teach in her stead) and wasn’t doing very well in her other courses either. She couldn’t manage her classroom effectively, missed meetings and seemed to have a lot of trouble following direction; she had to be told things several times before being able to complete tasks. Inside of a month she was let go and we are now searching for another teache

What went wrong? In hindsight, it seems obvious: we hired a teacher without ever seeing her teach. When I was looking for my current job, another school invited me to visit their campus to deliver a model lesson. I remember thinking how silly it seemed to travel all the way to New England just to teach for an hour but now, I wish we required the same thing as part of our procedure. The fact of the matter is that teachers are asked to do many things, but none is as important as the teaching… and our procedure, as it stands now, doesn’t examine that factor.

Obviously, this is where we have work to do. The NCLB requirements don’t really speak to this issue but I’ve come to realize that, when hiring a teacher, the most important question to ask is, “Can he teach?” I have understood for a long time that teaching ability spans subject matter; a talented teacher can teach almost any subject, provided he is given time to prepare the material.

.

IA03 – Principal Shadowing

Leave a reply

Introduction

I scheduled three sessions  during which I spent time following a Lower School Principal, DA, while she performed her duties. Two of these sessions were during the morning and one was during the afternoon. Each of the morning sessions took place in DA’s office and we spent the afternoon time moving between classrooms.

During the sessions, I had the opportunity to watch DA in a number of different modes. I observed her as she planned her schedule, as she dealt with other administrators, as she mentored new teachers, as she met with parents and their children and as she observed her faculty in the classroom.

My impressions

Two primary issues kept coming up during the time in which I shadowed her:

First and formost, I was struck by how concerend DA is about her schedule. I don’t mean to say that she was worried about it, rather that she recognized its importance. During our debriefing conversations she explained that it took her several years to learn how critical it is to plan her time out in advance and that the realization has made her a more effective administrator. This struck a nerve with me as I’m playing an administrative role for the first time this year and I’m finding myself challenged by the same concerns.

DA works with an administrative assistant, one she shares with her two assistant principals. Although the concept is not new to me, watching her work with her assistant made me realize that I’ve never given consideration to what such an employee actually does or how a principal can best make use of one.

A second major concern was how visible she made herself for the faculty. DA was focused on making the most out of her time in her office so that she could get out and be seen by the members of her faculty.

Time Management and Productivity

DA told me at the start of our first session together that her administrative assistant was “really in charge.” I’ve heard this sort of self-effacing comment before but, over the course of the 30-minute session which followed, I came to see how literally she meant it.

During the first half-hour of each day, DA and her assistant meet to plan out her schedule for the rest of the day. Every meeting is blocked out, as are blocks of time during which she closes her door and works alone. Once this skeleton of the day is established, to-do lists are written so that every task is identfied and scheduled. There is an understanding that the administrative assistant’s primary job is to help create this schedule and then keep DA on it; she escorts every visitor into the office and knocks to end every meeting. If people approach for “just five minutes,” she schedules them a five-minute slot (or longer) later in the day. The daily plan is sacrosanct… it was remarkable.

DA confided in me once the door was closed and we were alone for her work session that at first she didn’t really know what to do with the time. But, as she came to appreciate the organizational structure they had produced together, she found herself knocking tasks out quickly and easily and being far more productive than she had ever been before. 

They didn’t invent the system; they attended a seminar together on the subject and came away inspired and energized. I was honestly amazed at how seriously they both took it and how well it worked.

DA used the work period to make pre-scheduled return calls to parents, answer emails, organize and delegate projects… she even did some of her reading with the time. What she didn’t do was answer a ringing telephone, take avoidable meetings or surf the internet.

She did take two calls during the session, one from the Head of School and another from the Chief of Operations. One of these calls came during her planning time with her assistant; it was clear to me that she places a priority on certain people and allows them to interrupt her; the firmness with which others were turned away made these interuptions even more important.

Visibility

In addition to “hiding away” for her work time, DA made it a point to be as visible as possible when not working on specific tasks. She pre-schedules time to “prowl,” as she calls it, leaving her walkie-talkie in her office and only answering cell-phone calls from her assistant. She carried a notepad with her and visited rooms with specific goals pre-identified: observe Mrs. Jones’s use of the electronic whiteboard, Mr. Smith’s classroom management and if the new student in Grade 4b is still eating lunch alone.

I noticed that the faculty and students were undisturbed when she visited classrooms, which must mean that she is there often. Students were happy to see her and, as far as I could tell, teachers continued as though we weren’t there.

Anecdote 1 – Surprise meeting

During the second morning I spent with DA, her work-time was interrupted when a new student ran from his first-grade class in tears and the father was called into school. The student was not acclimating well and DA took the opportunity to meet with them both and the teacher.

She focused her attention almost exclusively on the child, speaking to the father as little as possible. She listened to his concerns and offered a solution, that the boy buddy up with another student to make friends more easily. I was surprised when, next, she recommended that the father take the boy home until the turmoil there subsided (Mom was in the hospital with the baby) and the situation was more calm. She explained that her only concern was the boy’s learning and, since he currently was too distracted to focus in the classroom, he would be better off at home where he would be less anxious.

What impressed me the most throughout the meeting was how focused DA was on student learning – it was her only concern and, as she explained to me later, she feels it proper that that’s her role.

Anecdote 2 –  teacher meeting

DA made time to meet one-on-one with a rookie teacher. There was no specific agenda, rather this was part of an ongoing process of regular meetings she has with her entire faculty, more often with new teachers.

After the general discussion ended, the conversation turned to a single student about whom the teacher was worried. DA asked a series of diagnostic questions and made concrete, strategic suggestions. She stayed focused on the child’s progress throughout the meeting and kept steering the teacher away from anecdotes and asking for specific, assessment-based evidence. They looked to assessment results from last year as well, noting the student’s progress and discussed strategies the teacher could use for her upcoming meeting with the parents.

The meeting ended just as DA’s assistance knocked on the door to announce the scheduled end. I was struck by how, throughout the meeting, DA took no notes; she focused her attention on the teacher and conducted things conversationally. It felt informal but was, I realized, one of the most focused and productive educational meetings I’ve ever witnessed.

.

IA09 – School Leadership Team

Leave a reply

Introduction

I attended a “Vision and Goals” meeting which was chaired by the Head of School and included the Principals and Assistant Principals of the school’s five main divisions (Early Childhood, Lower School, Middle School, Upper School and the Dyslexia Program). The meeting lasted a little over an hour and the stated goal was to concretize a set of general 5-year school-wide Vision Statements into specific Goals.

How would you describe the culture of the group?

The culture of the school leadership team I observed was casual but productive. This was a group of administrators who were obviously accustomed to working with each other. There was evidence of personality conflicts between several members, as well as echoes of past incidents which some team members were still upset about but, to their credit, they did not allow these issues to get in the way of their productivity.

What was the leader’s leadership style?

The leader, the Head of School in this case, seemed to favor a hands-off approach. He presented a challenging, vision-based task to the group and then asked what they needed from him to complete it. They asked a few questions, which he answered, and then he excused himself from the room. His attitude struck me as very similar to the role often played by teachers, who present a student group with a problem, provide necessary resources to discover a solution and then step back and let the students solve the problem.

What roles did the key members play? What were their significant interactions and effects of those interactions?

The key members of this particular team were the two Principals and, to a lesser extent, their Assistant Principals. The two Principals led the discussion once the Head of School left and kept the rest of the group focused. While the two of them demonstrated obvious professional respect for each other, tension between them was apparent and this led several group members to “side with their best friend,” resulting in a stalemate from which there is no obvious solution.

Again, I want to stress that these conflicts did not stymie the group; they were accustomed to the situation and the key members respected one another professionally. They possessed the ability to move past these disagreements and compromise when necessary.

Based on the agenda and discussions, what was the overt or implied purpose of the meeting?

The meeting I observed was a follow-up strategic session. In an earlier session, the group had identified a short list of long-term (3-5 year) goals for a school improvement plan. The purpose of this specific meeting was to turn the grand, vision language into concrete, quantifiable goals that could be recognized when they were achieved.

Did the discussions reference, or were they aligned to, the school’s vision, mission, and goals?

Absolutely; this was the explicit purpose of the meeting. Of course, discussions drifted as the members of the team became distracted by side points and the demands of the school day invaded the meeting. But, overall, the group’s stated goal was to outline concrete steps toward achieving the school’s improvement goals and they stayed true to that purpose.

Were there examples of collaborative decision making? If yes, what was the effect/value of the collaboration? If no, why did no collaborative decision making occur?

Collaborative decision making occurred throughout the meeting. As I have said earlier, this was a talented group of professionals used to working together. They know each other well and frequently refer to one another for advice.

The collaboration allowed the group to achieve solutions that met the specific goals of each division from the outset. If they had met in smaller, division-specific teams initially, their solutions would have met their own needs but still require adjustment to mesh with other divisions. In addition to the obvious benefit of additional resources, in this case collaborative decision making saved time by moving the entire group closer to findings which met all of their needs successfully.

Were there instances of shared responsibility? If yes, what effect did the sharing have on the ownership of the issue(s)? If no, why do you think that was so?

I believe the entire meeting was an example of shared responsibility. The different members of the team all stood to benefit from the discussion, but no single topic was the purview of only one of the constituencies present. Simple participation was shared responsibility since each point of the discussion spanned across divisions.

What process was used to bring concerns/input from the school as a whole to the leadership team, and what process will be used to relay information and decisions back to the school?

None that I was aware of. This is, I believe, a specific challenge for this leadership group. Outside of the occasional anecdotal (“My teachers are telling me that they think…”) this is a fairly isolated group. I was the only non-member present and, while the Administrative team doesn’t meet in this fashion often, when they do, they do so on their own.

Similarly, I’ve seen absolutely no sharing of the meeting’s findings with anyone who wasn’t in the room when it occured.

Are there committees, processes, or infrastructures within the school to address issues identified by the team?

None at all; see point above.

Did the school leadership team meeting (content, process, interactions, roles played by different participants, and culture) contribute to the attainment of the overall vision, mission, and goals of the school and the enhancement of student learning?

This group meeting was productive; I’m sure of that. There was a positive energy in the room and the different team members were excited to have the opportunity to work together on the “big picture.” However, I don’t believe that their findings will constitute a significant contribution to the attainment of the school’s overall mission or the enhancement of student learning. The discussion was simply too ethereal, too theoretical and too far away from classrooms and teachers to matter in that way.

I could be wrong; the group’s findings could have been communicated upward, to the Head of School and Board of Governors. If so, I am simply unaware of how they were used. But my feeling is that, unfortunately, it was a positive exercise which yielded little of any practical value.

.

IA30 – Master Schedule

Leave a reply

Introduction

Our school uses Senior Systems, a popular suite of School Management tools. One of the components is a Scheduling Module which various members of our faculty and staff use to design and implement our daily schedule. Other modules include financial, grading and attendance tools, as well as the enrollment system which feeds students directly into the Scheduling Module. In order to accomplish this Internship Activity, I completed the following steps:

  • Met with Mr. H, our Middle and Upper School Principal, during the summer preceding the 2010-2011 school year to discuss:
    • the vagaries of our Master Schedule for the 2009-2010 year
    • the changes he planned to implement for 2010-2011 
    • the various ways the options a Master Schedule presents can impact effective teaching and learning
  • Met with Mrs. F in the Guidance Department to see the specific tasks required to process enrollment information and create student and teacher schedules using Senior Systems.
  • As a former teacher, I have been in semi-constant contact with our Guidance Department for years about the challenges and last-minute changes involved with our Master Schedule.

From these interviews and experiences, I learned quite a bit about how our Master Schedule is constructed and what sort of factors impact any changes which are proposed. I heard about how difficult it can be to construct a schedule which meets the needs of the various constituencies in a large school and how much impact a schedule has on teachers’ ability to teach and students’ ability to learn.

Factors which impact a Master Schedule

The most obvious factors which impact the creation and adjustment of a Master Schedule were the number of classrooms, students and class sections in the school. It is wasteful and ineffective to hire a teacher and assistant to conduct a Grade 3 class of only four students or to pay a science teacher a full-time wage to teach only two sections each day. It is equally unreasonable to ask that same science teacher to conduct seven different classes every day or to ask the Grade 3 teachers to accommodate 40 students in a single classroom. So, logic would dictate, the Master Schedule must begin with a balance between enrollment, faculty, facility and academic requirement

Of course, as with most obvious truths in education, this proved far easier to propose than to accomplish. Faculty hiring should be completed in April or May, but student enrolment is often not finalized until the opening of school in the following August. This leads to the unavoidable problem of having too many students or not enough teachers at the last minute, which can cause a Principal to hire faculty based more on availability than talent, which is sub-optimal for obvious reasons. Additionally, even if the number of students, classes and faculty are in balance, it can be difficult to arrange class periods throughout the day so that each student is available at the same time as the teacher he or she needs and while there is a room available in which they can meet. The easiest way to solve this problem is to limit the number of possibilities to that, for example, every student in Grade 7 takes one of three English classes during the same period, but this limits the number of elective choices you can offer and makes it impossible for a gifted student to take a class with a higher grade, for example, or for a student facing difficulty to work with a resource teacher without missing required class time.

Software Solutions

This second problem, the logistical conflict of limited resources of time, space and human resources, is the sort of dilemma well-suited to computer assistance. Senior Systems, for example, includes a scheduling module which can receive student requests for classes then produce an optimized Master Schedule which allows the largest number of students to get the highest priority classes. While this sort of algorithmic approach can overlook several subjective factors, we used it to create our first-draft schedule, which was then carefully adjusted to allow for these fuzzier variables.

For example, one math teacher may prefer to teach all of her classes in a single room while another might require a computer lab for only one of his sections. Some students may prefer a particular teacher while others may be involved in a sport which pulls them out of Eighth Period too often for them to use it for an Advanced Placement class. In our case, we solved a class conflict by asking the AP Computer Science teacher to agree to use a Laptop Cart in the Library whenever his Computer Lab was needed for computer-based standardized testing. The conflict only existed for two three-week periods but it was a factor the software didn’t allow for and creative thought was needed to come up with the solution. This episode, among others, taught me several things about scheduling software:

  • First, tools of this sort are only as accurate as the data they are given. This is the GIGO Rule of Computers (“Garbage In, Garbage Out”) and, while I was aware of it in theory, the Computer Science conflict reminded me of it in a very practical way.
  • Secondly, even the most elegant software solution will not be effective unless it is operated by people who understand it. One can not simply follow a list of instructions to produce a school schedule; the process must be reflective, creative and considered. The schedule I produced was riddled with conflicts, inefficiencies and impossible transitions, while the same tool in Mrs. F’s experienced hands yielded far more elegant results.
  • Finally –and most critically- I learned that no tool, no matter how powerful it is, can make up for a lack in basic communication. Several of our students were forced into classes they had no interest in simply because the critical preference wasn’t communicated to the right Counselor at the right time. When working with a system as complex as a Master Schedule, knowledge is power. Every decision one makes impacts every other one from that point onward, so sharing data is important.

How a Master Schedule impacts teaching and learning

My conversations with Mr. H yielded the most interesting findings about the relationship between schedules and learning. First and foremost, school leadership is about the management of resources and putting students in the same room with a teacher who is prepared to teach a class effectively is the best way to ensure that learning occurs. Unfortunately this is not simple. Since every scheduling decision affects every other, compromise is the name of the game; but, as he taught me, we simply can’t compromise on our students’ learning opportunities. This humbled me.

The process taught me to recognize how critical it is to plan a complete course of study for students, thinking years ahead in order to make sure they complete required courses without sacrificing too many chances for elective study and creative expression. Effective school scheduling is a fine balancing act which requires a dedication to a clear, mission-based action plan. With that understanding in place, the specific scheduling software tool one uses is almost beside the point as long as the mission is clear.

.