http://edge.ascd.org/service/getFeed.kickAction?mediaType=BLOG&quantity=25&as=127586 New blogs from Mamzelle_Adolphine on ASCD EDge Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:36:45 GMT Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:36:45 GMT website@ascd.org (ascdAdmin) website@ascd.org (ascdAdmin) KickApps Feed Builder 2013-02-28T02:36:45Z 10 http://edge.ascd.org/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=127586&sortType=recent&tags=null 0 http://edge.ascd.org/_Use-Emotional-Intelligence-as-an-Effectiveness-Tool/blog/6514045/127586.html This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum. Scenario:  the principal hires a consultant to observe teachers.  The consultant observes one teacher and reports to the principal.  Dissatisfied with the consultant's findings, the principal storms into the teacher's classroom and yells at her while informing her that she is displeased with the consultant’s report. The teacher learns for the first time that she has not met expectations for the past four months.  The teacher is in tears.  Knowledge of the incident spreads throughout the school.   Could the principal have handled the situation differently?  Daniel Goleman’s framework for Emotional Intelligence (EI) is instructive in this regard.  (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, to control and to evaluate one’s emotions.  Goleman's framework consists of five elements, which when employed, can result in more effective leadership and a higher level of managerial prowess.  The five elements are: 1.     1.  self-awareness - being aware of your emotion 2.     2.  self- regulation - controlling emotions and impulses 3.     3.  motivation - reason for acting in a particular way/willingness to do something 4.     4.  empathy - understanding others emotions 5.     5.  social skills - how one communicates with others  Here is how these elements might play out with regard to the scenario described above. First, the principal embraces how she feels when she receives the consultant's feedback (self-awareness).  Pausing to acknowledge her feelings helps restrain the desire to rush immediately to speak to the teacher (self-regulation).  Next comes self-questioning; what gave rise to the feelings?  Given that the principal knew of the teacher's poor performance months before receiving the consultant's report, are the feelings more a result of guilt from not intervening to assist the teacher earlier than of discontent with the teacher's performance, or due to another matter that is unrelated to the teacher?  Why the teacher was not given help the first time the principal realized that her performance was poor?  What can be done to prevent this from happening again (motivation)? Such questioning moves the principal to examine her managerial and leadership practices.   The final step is damage control.  Keeping in mind that the entire school is now aware of the incident and that such knowledge can affect morale, what can the principal do to counter this possibility?  Having done her introspection the principal can now have an honest conversation with the teacher.  One in which she (a) acknowledges her shortcomings in terms of  lack of support and the manner in which she conveyed her views about the teacher’s performance (b) states her willingness to hear about and from the teacher regarding her performance and (c) conveys in a positive, non-threatening manner what she expects from the teacher (empathy and social skills). Of course, putting the “self” on the spot in this way is not easy to do but doing so promotes an enduring self-development.  However, using EI to ensure effective leadership and management, is highly dependent on whether the principal views her role as that of a sole proprietor, or, as a member of a cooperative.  If it is the latter, then EI would be embraced. Source: Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence:  Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books: New York. This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum. Scenario:  the principal hires a consultant to observe teachers.  The consultant observes one teacher and reports to the principal.  Dissatisfied with the consultant's findings, the principal storms into the teacher's classroom and yells at her while informing her that she is displeased with the consultant’s report. The teacher learns for the first time that she has not met expectations for the past four months.  The teacher is in tears.  Knowledge of the incident spreads throughout the school.   Could the principal have handled the situation differently?  Daniel Goleman’s framework for Emotional Intelligence (EI) is instructive in this regard.  (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, to control and to evaluate one’s emotions.  Goleman's framework consists of five elements, which when employed, can result in more effective leadership and a higher level of managerial prowess.  The five elements are: 1.     1.  self-awareness - being aware of your emotion 2.     2.  self- regulation - controlling emotions and impulses 3.     3.  motivation - reason for acting in a particular way/willingness to do something 4.     4.  empathy - understanding others emotions 5.     5.  social skills - how one communicates with others  Here is how these elements might play out with regard to the scenario described above. First, the principal embraces how she feels when she receives the consultant's feedback (self-awareness).  Pausing to acknowledge her feelings helps restrain the desire to rush immediately to speak to the teacher (self-regulation).  Next comes self-questioning; what gave rise to the feelings?  Given that the principal knew of the teacher's poor performance months before receiving the consultant's report, are the feelings more a result of guilt from not intervening to assist the teacher earlier than of discontent with the teacher's performance, or due to another matter that is unrelated to the teacher?  Why the teacher was not given help the first time the principal realized that her performance was poor?  What can be done to prevent this from happening again (motivation)? Such questioning moves the principal to examine her managerial and leadership practices.   The final step is damage control.  Keeping in mind that the entire school is now aware of the incident and that such knowledge can affect morale, what can the principal do to counter this possibility?  Having done her introspection the principal can now have an honest conversation with the teacher.  One in which she (a) acknowledges her shortcomings in terms of  lack of support and the manner in which she conveyed her views about the teacher’s performance (b) states her willingness to hear about and from the teacher regarding her performance and (c) conveys in a positive, non-threatening manner what she expects from the teacher (empathy and social skills). Of course, putting the “self” on the spot in this way is not easy to do but doing so promotes an enduring self-development.  However, using EI to ensure effective leadership and management, is highly dependent on whether the principal views her role as that of a sole proprietor, or, as a member of a cooperative.  If it is the latter, then EI would be embraced. Source: Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence:  Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books: New York. Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:13:16 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Use-Emotional-Intelligence-as-an-Effectiveness-Tool/blog/6514045/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2013-02-28T02:36:45Z Blogs ASCD EDge This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum. Scenario:  the principal hires a consultant to observe teachers.  The consultant observes one teacher and reports to the principal.  Dissatisfied with the consultant's findings, the principal storms into the teacher's classroom and yells at her while informing her that she is displeased with the consultant’s report. The teacher learns for the first time that she has not met expectations for the past four months.  The teacher is in tears.  Knowledge of the incident spreads throughout the school.   Could the principal have handled the situation differently?  Daniel Goleman’s framework for Emotional Intelligence (EI) is instructive in this regard.  (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, to control and to evaluate one’s emotions.  Goleman's framework consists of five elements, which when employed, can result in more effective leadership and a higher level of managerial prowess.  The five elements are: 1.     1.  self-awareness - being aware of your emotion 2.     2.  self- regulation - controlling emotions and impulses 3.     3.  motivation - reason for acting in a particular way/willingness to do something 4.     4.  empathy - understanding others emotions 5.     5.  social skills - how one communicates with others  Here is how these elements might play out with regard to the scenario described above. First, the principal embraces how she feels when she receives the consultant's feedback (self-awareness).  Pausing to acknowledge her feelings helps restrain the desire to rush immediately to speak to the teacher (self-regulation).  Next comes self-questioning; what gave rise to the feelings?  Given that the principal knew of the teacher's poor performance months before receiving the consultant's report, are the feelings more a result of guilt from not intervening to assist the teacher earlier than of discontent with the teacher's performance, or due to another matter that is unrelated to the teacher?  Why the teacher was not given help the first time the principal realized that her performance was poor?  What can be done to prevent this from happening again (motivation)? Such questioning moves the principal to examine her managerial and leadership practices.   The final step is damage control.  Keeping in mind that the entire school is now aware of the incident and that such knowledge can affect morale, what can the principal do to counter this possibility?  Having done her introspection the principal can now have an honest conversation with the teacher.  One in which she (a) acknowledges her shortcomings in terms of  lack of support and the manner in which she conveyed her views about the teacher’s performance (b) states her willingness to hear about and from the teacher regarding her performance and (c) conveys in a positive, non-threatening manner what she expects from the teacher (empathy and social skills). Of course, putting the “self” on the spot in this way is not easy to do but doing so promotes an enduring self-development.  However, using EI to ensure effective leadership and management, is highly dependent on whether the principal views her role as that of a sole proprietor, or, as a member of a cooperative.  If it is the latter, then EI would be embraced. Source: Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence:  Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books: New York. blogs, effectiveness, principal nonadult false Use Emotional Intelligence as an Effectiveness Tool text blog blogs,effectiveness,principal 501 0 0.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 Blogs 0 6514045 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Both-Sides-of-the-Scale/blog/6512203/127586.html This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum, or join the ASCD Forum group on ASCD EDge.   It is often said that teachers teach the way that they themselves were taught.  That they should be cognizant of this and filter their teaching practice to exclude ineffective strategies, strengthen the positive aspects and be opened to new ways of teaching.  Likewise, our “educational worldview” determines what type of teacher evaluation system we embrace.  Hence, here too, we need to examine our worldview so that we can shift our thinking and practice to exclude negative impacts, strengthen what works well and embrace innovative systems. Worldview could be described as a set of fundamental beliefs that governs a society’s culture in terms of norms, value systems and ways of living.  Writers Richard Gabriel and Richard Allington contend that the United States educational worldview is chiefly defined by test scores and that this focus is what influences the popular practice of using test scores to determine teacher effectiveness.   Others echo the same view. For instance, Peterson’s (2000) observes that despite the varied types of evaluation documentation that have been proposed, standardized test scores have matured as the primary measure used to determine student achievement mainly because of a prevailing public view that teacher learning should result in student achievement and also because tests are less costly to produce than tests that seek to measure complex skills such as critical thinking. He joined Danielson and McGreal (2000) in denouncing the use of standardized test scores as the exclusive/primary unit used to measure student achievement.  Additionally, Stiggins (2002) argues that most of the standardized tests only determine the status of learning rather than promote learning and that this does not measure how students’ learning is affected during the process.  And perhaps above all else, the emphasis on accountability has been heightened by the   No Child Left Behind Law of 2001 and the Race to the Top initiative of 2009. Both have catapulted test scores to preeminence on the measurement side of the teacher evaluation scale. These are some of the same criticisms that we hear today about the role of standardized test scores when we consider whether teacher evaluation systems should emphasize measurement or development.  Have we fallen victim to what Edward Hall, author of Beyond Culture refers to as being stuck with the program that culture imposes?  In other words, have we internalized this belief in test scores as the only true valid and reliable form of measuring teacher effectiveness so deeply that we are blind to any other options? In his article, “A Tale of Two Districts,” Mark Simon notes that the education bureaucracy has a proclivity to embrace teacher evaluation systems that use test scores to sort, rank and rate teachers as oppose to embracing systems that focus on promoting professional growth.  Perhaps agreements such as the initial agreement between the New York City Teachers Union and the New York City Department of Education to not have test scores predominate the teacher evaluation system, portends well for the movement towards a balanced approach that consists of both measurement and development. Indeed, the findings of the final research of  the Measure of Effective Teaching (MET) project, evidences to some extent that a balanced approach is the best strategy for determining teacher effectiveness. What gets included on both sides of the scale and in what measure, will have to be worked out.  However, doing so with an understanding of the underlying assumptions formed by our educational worldview and being open to try different/new strategies means that we stand a chance to put together evaluation systems that will promote effective teaching and learning. Sources: Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alxeandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday Gabriel, R., Allington, R. (2012). The MET Project: The Wrong $45 Million Question.  Educational Leadership, 70(3), 44. Patton, M. Q. (1997).  In  (Ed.), Utilized-focused evaluation: the new century text (3rd ed.,) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.   Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.   Simon, M. (2012). A Tale of Two Districts. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 58. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.   This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum, or join the ASCD Forum group on ASCD EDge.   It is often said that teachers teach the way that they themselves were taught.  That they should be cognizant of this and filter their teaching practice to exclude ineffective strategies, strengthen the positive aspects and be opened to new ways of teaching.  Likewise, our “educational worldview” determines what type of teacher evaluation system we embrace.  Hence, here too, we need to examine our worldview so that we can shift our thinking and practice to exclude negative impacts, strengthen what works well and embrace innovative systems. Worldview could be described as a set of fundamental beliefs that governs a society’s culture in terms of norms, value systems and ways of living.  Writers Richard Gabriel and Richard Allington contend that the United States educational worldview is chiefly defined by test scores and that this focus is what influences the popular practice of using test scores to determine teacher effectiveness.   Others echo the same view. For instance, Peterson’s (2000) observes that despite the varied types of evaluation documentation that have been proposed, standardized test scores have matured as the primary measure used to determine student achievement mainly because of a prevailing public view that teacher learning should result in student achievement and also because tests are less costly to produce than tests that seek to measure complex skills such as critical thinking. He joined Danielson and McGreal (2000) in denouncing the use of standardized test scores as the exclusive/primary unit used to measure student achievement.  Additionally, Stiggins (2002) argues that most of the standardized tests only determine the status of learning rather than promote learning and that this does not measure how students’ learning is affected during the process.  And perhaps above all else, the emphasis on accountability has been heightened by the   No Child Left Behind Law of 2001 and the Race to the Top initiative of 2009. Both have catapulted test scores to preeminence on the measurement side of the teacher evaluation scale. These are some of the same criticisms that we hear today about the role of standardized test scores when we consider whether teacher evaluation systems should emphasize measurement or development.  Have we fallen victim to what Edward Hall, author of Beyond Culture refers to as being stuck with the program that culture imposes?  In other words, have we internalized this belief in test scores as the only true valid and reliable form of measuring teacher effectiveness so deeply that we are blind to any other options? In his article, “A Tale of Two Districts,” Mark Simon notes that the education bureaucracy has a proclivity to embrace teacher evaluation systems that use test scores to sort, rank and rate teachers as oppose to embracing systems that focus on promoting professional growth.  Perhaps agreements such as the initial agreement between the New York City Teachers Union and the New York City Department of Education to not have test scores predominate the teacher evaluation system, portends well for the movement towards a balanced approach that consists of both measurement and development. Indeed, the findings of the final research of  the Measure of Effective Teaching (MET) project, evidences to some extent that a balanced approach is the best strategy for determining teacher effectiveness. What gets included on both sides of the scale and in what measure, will have to be worked out.  However, doing so with an understanding of the underlying assumptions formed by our educational worldview and being open to try different/new strategies means that we stand a chance to put together evaluation systems that will promote effective teaching and learning. Sources: Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alxeandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday Gabriel, R., Allington, R. (2012). The MET Project: The Wrong $45 Million Question.  Educational Leadership, 70(3), 44. Patton, M. Q. (1997).  In  (Ed.), Utilized-focused evaluation: the new century text (3rd ed.,) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.   Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.   Simon, M. (2012). A Tale of Two Districts. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 58. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.   Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:29:15 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Both-Sides-of-the-Scale/blog/6512203/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2013-02-17T04:51:34Z Blogs ASCD EDge This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum, or join the ASCD Forum group on ASCD EDge.   It is often said that teachers teach the way that they themselves were taught.  That they should be cognizant of this and filter their teaching practice to exclude ineffective strategies, strengthen the positive aspects and be opened to new ways of teaching.  Likewise, our “educational worldview” determines what type of teacher evaluation system we embrace.  Hence, here too, we need to examine our worldview so that we can shift our thinking and practice to exclude negative impacts, strengthen what works well and embrace innovative systems. Worldview could be described as a set of fundamental beliefs that governs a society’s culture in terms of norms, value systems and ways of living.  Writers Richard Gabriel and Richard Allington contend that the United States educational worldview is chiefly defined by test scores and that this focus is what influences the popular practice of using test scores to determine teacher effectiveness.   Others echo the same view. For instance, Peterson’s (2000) observes that despite the varied types of evaluation documentation that have been proposed, standardized test scores have matured as the primary measure used to determine student achievement mainly because of a prevailing public view that teacher learning should result in student achievement and also because tests are less costly to produce than tests that seek to measure complex skills such as critical thinking. He joined Danielson and McGreal (2000) in denouncing the use of standardized test scores as the exclusive/primary unit used to measure student achievement.  Additionally, Stiggins (2002) argues that most of the standardized tests only determine the status of learning rather than promote learning and that this does not measure how students’ learning is affected during the process.  And perhaps above all else, the emphasis on accountability has been heightened by the   No Child Left Behind Law of 2001 and the Race to the Top initiative of 2009. Both have catapulted test scores to preeminence on the measurement side of the teacher evaluation scale. These are some of the same criticisms that we hear today about the role of standardized test scores when we consider whether teacher evaluation systems should emphasize measurement or development.  Have we fallen victim to what Edward Hall, author of Beyond Culture refers to as being stuck with the program that culture imposes?  In other words, have we internalized this belief in test scores as the only true valid and reliable form of measuring teacher effectiveness so deeply that we are blind to any other options? In his article, “A Tale of Two Districts,” Mark Simon notes that the education bureaucracy has a proclivity to embrace teacher evaluation systems that use test scores to sort, rank and rate teachers as oppose to embracing systems that focus on promoting professional growth.  Perhaps agreements such as the initial agreement between the New York City Teachers Union and the New York City Department of Education to not have test scores predominate the teacher evaluation system, portends well for the movement towards a balanced approach that consists of both measurement and development. Indeed, the findings of the final research of  the Measure of Effective Teaching (MET) project, evidences to some extent that a balanced approach is the best strategy for determining teacher effectiveness. What gets included on both sides of the scale and in what measure, will have to be worked out.  However, doing so with an understanding of the underlying assumptions formed by our educational worldview and being open to try different/new strategies means that we stand a chance to put together evaluation systems that will promote effective teaching and learning. Sources: Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alxeandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday Gabriel, R., Allington, R. (2012). The MET Project: The Wrong $45 Million Question.  Educational Leadership, 70(3), 44. Patton, M. Q. (1997).  In  (Ed.), Utilized-focused evaluation: the new century text (3rd ed.,) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.   Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.   Simon, M. (2012). A Tale of Two Districts. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 58. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.   blogs, evaluation's, purpose nonadult false Both Sides of the Scale text blog blogs,evaluation's,purpose 1085 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 1 Blogs 0 6512203 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Empowerment-Is-Still-Key/blog/6417961/127586.html   Just as flour strengthens the base of pastries and breads, empowerment lays a solid foundation for building strong buy-in, which promotes continuous improvement. Empowerment was a prominent business management strategy during the 1980s and 1990s. It involves the transfer of decision making authority and responsibility from management to employees (Waterman, 1987).  The premise is that when employees are given a meaningful voice in workplace decisions and given interesting work, motivation and productivity increases (McGregor, 1990).  Additionally, it is argued that worker’s proximity to their work make them better able to effect work improvements than managers who are not directly involved in workers’ tasks (Bass & Shackleton,1979).    School reform measures have included empowerment in the form of School Based Management/School Empowerment, which gives educators at the school level greater decision making in exchange for greater accountability.  A recent example that denotes this exchange is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers states have received allowing them to decide how to meet required standards.  However, calls “to let teachers teach,” such as those voiced by Mike Feinberg and the top down high-stakes testing requirements that schools are asked to adhere to, suggest that there is a need to move beyond having “empowerment initiatives” to implementing initiatives that truly empower (Wilkerson, 1998).  The increased focus on accountability provides a good opportunity to do this. Though there is no consensus on the effectiveness of high-stakes standardized testing to promote student learning, it is widely held that emphasis on these tests results in cheating, admission restriction of low-performing students, the lowing of the passing grade, a narrowing of content covered which prevents the acquisition and continued development of skills such as problem solving and critical thinking (Falk 1996; McNail 2000; Lashway 2001, Ravitch 2010).  These occurrences point to the need for another course of action: the development of an assessment cache that constitutes a balance mix of standardized tests and teacher assessments (Volante and Jaafar, 2010). The Learning-Focused Accountability (LFA) approach, recommended by Volante and Jaafar is worth exploring. With this approach, teachers’ ability to effectively promote transfer of learning and show student demonstration of authentic learning are emphasized. An integral aspect of this strategy is the recognition that teachers are unlikely to truly embrace the use of assessment results when they are not involved in the development and interpretation of same. This corresponds with Waterman’s view that “the person doing the job knows far better than anyone else the best way of doing that job and therefore is the one person best fitted to improve it” (74).  A balance mix of standardized tests and teacher assessment necessitates the need for teacher training in assessment literacy so that teachers can develop appropriate assessments.  Here too, empowerment is essential.  Assessment literacy training must be based on informed needs via participative decision making, which Ford (1995) states enables workers to make and execute decisions about both work tasks and organizational planning.  Hence, principals need to have conversations with teachers to (a) find out what they already know, (b) find out what they need to know and (c) find out how they think they can go about attaining what they need to know.  Professional development is then tailored to meet these needs.  And, outcomes of what teachers know, learned and how they used the learning acquired to improve student performance can be employed to hold them accountable.  Failure to consult teachers about their training needs is one of the major reasons why schools’ professional development offerings remain a hodgepodge affair.  When teachers are not consulted about what they already know, schools miss the opportunity to tap into their craft-knowledge which is a valid source of knowledge-based practices (Burney, 2004) to build teacher capacity and to help sustain school improvement efforts (Dufour, 2004). Taping into and building human capacity has always been and continues to be the most essential ingredient for organizational success.  Empowerment is key to unlocking and sustaining this success. Works Cited:       Bass, B. M., & Shackleton, V. J. (1979). Industrial democracy and participative management: A case for synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 393-404.   Burney, Deanna. (2004). The best staff development is in the workplace, not in a workshop. Journal of Staff Development, 25 (2). Dufour, Rick. (2004). Craft Knowledge:  The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7). 526-531. Falk, B (1996). Issues in designing a Learner-Centered assessment system in New York State: Balancing reliability with flexibility, authenticity and consequential validity.  American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Brains, heart, courage: Keys to empowerment and self- directed leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(2), 17-22.    Jaafar, S; Volante, L. (2010). Assessment reform and the case for learning-focused accountability. The Journal of Educational Thought. 44(2). 167.   McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGrawhill Book Company.   McNail, L. (2000).  Contradictions of school reform:  Educational cost of standardized testing. New York, Routledge. Ravitch, D. (2010).  The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.  New York: Basic Books. Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1), 40-56.    Waterman, R. H. (1987). The renewal factor. United States: Bantam.     Just as flour strengthens the base of pastries and breads, empowerment lays a solid foundation for building strong buy-in, which promotes continuous improvement. Empowerment was a prominent business management strategy during the 1980s and 1990s. It involves the transfer of decision making authority and responsibility from management to employees (Waterman, 1987).  The premise is that when employees are given a meaningful voice in workplace decisions and given interesting work, motivation and productivity increases (McGregor, 1990).  Additionally, it is argued that worker’s proximity to their work make them better able to effect work improvements than managers who are not directly involved in workers’ tasks (Bass & Shackleton,1979).    School reform measures have included empowerment in the form of School Based Management/School Empowerment, which gives educators at the school level greater decision making in exchange for greater accountability.  A recent example that denotes this exchange is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers states have received allowing them to decide how to meet required standards.  However, calls “to let teachers teach,” such as those voiced by Mike Feinberg and the top down high-stakes testing requirements that schools are asked to adhere to, suggest that there is a need to move beyond having “empowerment initiatives” to implementing initiatives that truly empower (Wilkerson, 1998).  The increased focus on accountability provides a good opportunity to do this. Though there is no consensus on the effectiveness of high-stakes standardized testing to promote student learning, it is widely held that emphasis on these tests results in cheating, admission restriction of low-performing students, the lowing of the passing grade, a narrowing of content covered which prevents the acquisition and continued development of skills such as problem solving and critical thinking (Falk 1996; McNail 2000; Lashway 2001, Ravitch 2010).  These occurrences point to the need for another course of action: the development of an assessment cache that constitutes a balance mix of standardized tests and teacher assessments (Volante and Jaafar, 2010). The Learning-Focused Accountability (LFA) approach, recommended by Volante and Jaafar is worth exploring. With this approach, teachers’ ability to effectively promote transfer of learning and show student demonstration of authentic learning are emphasized. An integral aspect of this strategy is the recognition that teachers are unlikely to truly embrace the use of assessment results when they are not involved in the development and interpretation of same. This corresponds with Waterman’s view that “the person doing the job knows far better than anyone else the best way of doing that job and therefore is the one person best fitted to improve it” (74).  A balance mix of standardized tests and teacher assessment necessitates the need for teacher training in assessment literacy so that teachers can develop appropriate assessments.  Here too, empowerment is essential.  Assessment literacy training must be based on informed needs via participative decision making, which Ford (1995) states enables workers to make and execute decisions about both work tasks and organizational planning.  Hence, principals need to have conversations with teachers to (a) find out what they already know, (b) find out what they need to know and (c) find out how they think they can go about attaining what they need to know.  Professional development is then tailored to meet these needs.  And, outcomes of what teachers know, learned and how they used the learning acquired to improve student performance can be employed to hold them accountable.  Failure to consult teachers about their training needs is one of the major reasons why schools’ professional development offerings remain a hodgepodge affair.  When teachers are not consulted about what they already know, schools miss the opportunity to tap into their craft-knowledge which is a valid source of knowledge-based practices (Burney, 2004) to build teacher capacity and to help sustain school improvement efforts (Dufour, 2004). Taping into and building human capacity has always been and continues to be the most essential ingredient for organizational success.  Empowerment is key to unlocking and sustaining this success. Works Cited:       Bass, B. M., & Shackleton, V. J. (1979). Industrial democracy and participative management: A case for synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 393-404.   Burney, Deanna. (2004). The best staff development is in the workplace, not in a workshop. Journal of Staff Development, 25 (2). Dufour, Rick. (2004). Craft Knowledge:  The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7). 526-531. Falk, B (1996). Issues in designing a Learner-Centered assessment system in New York State: Balancing reliability with flexibility, authenticity and consequential validity.  American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Brains, heart, courage: Keys to empowerment and self- directed leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(2), 17-22.    Jaafar, S; Volante, L. (2010). Assessment reform and the case for learning-focused accountability. The Journal of Educational Thought. 44(2). 167.   McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGrawhill Book Company.   McNail, L. (2000).  Contradictions of school reform:  Educational cost of standardized testing. New York, Routledge. Ravitch, D. (2010).  The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.  New York: Basic Books. Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1), 40-56.    Waterman, R. H. (1987). The renewal factor. United States: Bantam.   Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:52:25 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Empowerment-Is-Still-Key/blog/6417961/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2012-10-22T23:52:25Z ASCD EDge   Just as flour strengthens the base of pastries and breads, empowerment lays a solid foundation for building strong buy-in, which promotes continuous improvement. Empowerment was a prominent business management strategy during the 1980s and 1990s. It involves the transfer of decision making authority and responsibility from management to employees (Waterman, 1987).  The premise is that when employees are given a meaningful voice in workplace decisions and given interesting work, motivation and productivity increases (McGregor, 1990).  Additionally, it is argued that worker’s proximity to their work make them better able to effect work improvements than managers who are not directly involved in workers’ tasks (Bass & Shackleton,1979).    School reform measures have included empowerment in the form of School Based Management/School Empowerment, which gives educators at the school level greater decision making in exchange for greater accountability.  A recent example that denotes this exchange is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers states have received allowing them to decide how to meet required standards.  However, calls “to let teachers teach,” such as those voiced by Mike Feinberg and the top down high-stakes testing requirements that schools are asked to adhere to, suggest that there is a need to move beyond having “empowerment initiatives” to implementing initiatives that truly empower (Wilkerson, 1998).  The increased focus on accountability provides a good opportunity to do this. Though there is no consensus on the effectiveness of high-stakes standardized testing to promote student learning, it is widely held that emphasis on these tests results in cheating, admission restriction of low-performing students, the lowing of the passing grade, a narrowing of content covered which prevents the acquisition and continued development of skills such as problem solving and critical thinking (Falk 1996; McNail 2000; Lashway 2001, Ravitch 2010).  These occurrences point to the need for another course of action: the development of an assessment cache that constitutes a balance mix of standardized tests and teacher assessments (Volante and Jaafar, 2010). The Learning-Focused Accountability (LFA) approach, recommended by Volante and Jaafar is worth exploring. With this approach, teachers’ ability to effectively promote transfer of learning and show student demonstration of authentic learning are emphasized. An integral aspect of this strategy is the recognition that teachers are unlikely to truly embrace the use of assessment results when they are not involved in the development and interpretation of same. This corresponds with Waterman’s view that “the person doing the job knows far better than anyone else the best way of doing that job and therefore is the one person best fitted to improve it” (74).  A balance mix of standardized tests and teacher assessment necessitates the need for teacher training in assessment literacy so that teachers can develop appropriate assessments.  Here too, empowerment is essential.  Assessment literacy training must be based on informed needs via participative decision making, which Ford (1995) states enables workers to make and execute decisions about both work tasks and organizational planning.  Hence, principals need to have conversations with teachers to (a) find out what they already know, (b) find out what they need to know and (c) find out how they think they can go about attaining what they need to know.  Professional development is then tailored to meet these needs.  And, outcomes of what teachers know, learned and how they used the learning acquired to improve student performance can be employed to hold them accountable.  Failure to consult teachers about their training needs is one of the major reasons why schools’ professional development offerings remain a hodgepodge affair.  When teachers are not consulted about what they already know, schools miss the opportunity to tap into their craft-knowledge which is a valid source of knowledge-based practices (Burney, 2004) to build teacher capacity and to help sustain school improvement efforts (Dufour, 2004). Taping into and building human capacity has always been and continues to be the most essential ingredient for organizational success.  Empowerment is key to unlocking and sustaining this success. Works Cited:       Bass, B. M., & Shackleton, V. J. (1979). Industrial democracy and participative management: A case for synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 393-404.   Burney, Deanna. (2004). The best staff development is in the workplace, not in a workshop. Journal of Staff Development, 25 (2). Dufour, Rick. (2004). Craft Knowledge:  The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7). 526-531. Falk, B (1996). Issues in designing a Learner-Centered assessment system in New York State: Balancing reliability with flexibility, authenticity and consequential validity.  American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Brains, heart, courage: Keys to empowerment and self- directed leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(2), 17-22.    Jaafar, S; Volante, L. (2010). Assessment reform and the case for learning-focused accountability. The Journal of Educational Thought. 44(2). 167.   McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGrawhill Book Company.   McNail, L. (2000).  Contradictions of school reform:  Educational cost of standardized testing. New York, Routledge. Ravitch, D. (2010).  The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.  New York: Basic Books. Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1), 40-56.    Waterman, R. H. (1987). The renewal factor. United States: Bantam.   nonadult false Empowerment Is Still Key text blog 955 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 1 0 6417961 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-DO/blog/6379069/127586.html   All across the nation, schools are developing teacher evaluation plans in response to the Race to the Top initiative.  In many of these plans, observations by principals and assistant principals account for more than half of a teacher’s rating.  This is the case for New York teachers whose observations count for up to 60 percent of a teacher’s score.  Are principals and assistant principals sufficiently equipped to conduct these evaluations? In the field of training, there is a popular saying, “Telling Ain’t Training.”  This saying is easily applicable to the type of “support” that teachers often receive:  they are told what they should do but are not provided with any examples of the task or given demonstrations.  Teachers are told that they are responsible for their students’ learning but at the same time they are told that they are solely responsible for their own learning.  Teachers are expected to identify the needs of their students and meet these needs whereas they are told that “if” they need help they must ask for it and they are berated for continuing to do something poorly when they received no prior warning.  Teachers are charged with developing clear expectations for their students and asked to make sure that expectations are achievable and that all students are aware of them.  However, the expectations that teachers receive are often confusing and are, given the sea of circumstances that are beyond their control, not attainable.  Not having the skills needed to conduct effective teacher evaluations results in judgments made based on personal likes and dislikes (despite being armed with criteria), ineffective teacher practice and in student learning that is stunted. Charlotte Danielson notes that evaluators need to be able to assess accurately, provide meaningful feedback, and engage teachers in productive conversations about practice. One other item needs to be added to this list, the need for principal and assistant principal evaluators to have a sense of responsibility in order to ensure sustainable growth for both teachers and students.   All across the nation, schools are developing teacher evaluation plans in response to the Race to the Top initiative.  In many of these plans, observations by principals and assistant principals account for more than half of a teacher’s rating.  This is the case for New York teachers whose observations count for up to 60 percent of a teacher’s score.  Are principals and assistant principals sufficiently equipped to conduct these evaluations? In the field of training, there is a popular saying, “Telling Ain’t Training.”  This saying is easily applicable to the type of “support” that teachers often receive:  they are told what they should do but are not provided with any examples of the task or given demonstrations.  Teachers are told that they are responsible for their students’ learning but at the same time they are told that they are solely responsible for their own learning.  Teachers are expected to identify the needs of their students and meet these needs whereas they are told that “if” they need help they must ask for it and they are berated for continuing to do something poorly when they received no prior warning.  Teachers are charged with developing clear expectations for their students and asked to make sure that expectations are achievable and that all students are aware of them.  However, the expectations that teachers receive are often confusing and are, given the sea of circumstances that are beyond their control, not attainable.  Not having the skills needed to conduct effective teacher evaluations results in judgments made based on personal likes and dislikes (despite being armed with criteria), ineffective teacher practice and in student learning that is stunted. Charlotte Danielson notes that evaluators need to be able to assess accurately, provide meaningful feedback, and engage teachers in productive conversations about practice. One other item needs to be added to this list, the need for principal and assistant principal evaluators to have a sense of responsibility in order to ensure sustainable growth for both teachers and students. Wed, 03 Oct 2012 01:54:11 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-DO/blog/6379069/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2012-10-03T01:54:11Z ASCD EDge   All across the nation, schools are developing teacher evaluation plans in response to the Race to the Top initiative.  In many of these plans, observations by principals and assistant principals account for more than half of a teacher’s rating.  This is the case for New York teachers whose observations count for up to 60 percent of a teacher’s score.  Are principals and assistant principals sufficiently equipped to conduct these evaluations? In the field of training, there is a popular saying, “Telling Ain’t Training.”  This saying is easily applicable to the type of “support” that teachers often receive:  they are told what they should do but are not provided with any examples of the task or given demonstrations.  Teachers are told that they are responsible for their students’ learning but at the same time they are told that they are solely responsible for their own learning.  Teachers are expected to identify the needs of their students and meet these needs whereas they are told that “if” they need help they must ask for it and they are berated for continuing to do something poorly when they received no prior warning.  Teachers are charged with developing clear expectations for their students and asked to make sure that expectations are achievable and that all students are aware of them.  However, the expectations that teachers receive are often confusing and are, given the sea of circumstances that are beyond their control, not attainable.  Not having the skills needed to conduct effective teacher evaluations results in judgments made based on personal likes and dislikes (despite being armed with criteria), ineffective teacher practice and in student learning that is stunted. Charlotte Danielson notes that evaluators need to be able to assess accurately, provide meaningful feedback, and engage teachers in productive conversations about practice. One other item needs to be added to this list, the need for principal and assistant principal evaluators to have a sense of responsibility in order to ensure sustainable growth for both teachers and students. nonadult false Do As I Say, Not As I DO text blog 403 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 0 6379069 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Cultural-Change/blog/5698070/127586.html   When cultural change factors attitudes and behaviors are included in a school's improvement process, changes are more likely to take root.   Culture refers to the values, beliefs and norms that influence how and why things are done.  Hence, attitudes and behaviors, which deal with the human aspect of cultural change and   processes, procedures and policies, which have to do with the technical aspects of change, are all determined by a school's culture.  Perhaps because they are more easily identifiable, the technical aspects of cultural change are usually what are addressed when schools set out to make changes. However, these three Ps are heavily impacted by attitudes and behaviors. A good example of this is Idaho’s teachers’ resistance to statewide plans that dictate how computers should be used in schools. The inclusion of attitudes and behaviors as part of a school’s cultural change process requires three steps. The first step is for the school leadership to undertake a self-assessment to determine how its attitudes and behaviors influence school culture.  To wit, these questions must be addressed.  How do we define our school culture? Have we modeled expected attitudes and behaviors?  What do we need to change and how do we do it?  Edward Lawler’s high involvement management model is a useful tool for framing responses to these questions.  The model directs how information, knowledge, rewards and power can be used to effectively communicate with and support faculty and staff.   The second step of the process requires that the same questions be posed to the school-wide community and responses be compared and contrasted with the school leadership’s responses.  A consensus process that ensures that all stakeholders’ feelings and ideas are explored is then employed to form agreement on a definition for the school’s culture and agreement also on what and how attitudes and behaviors need to be changed. For the final and third step, a team that consists of individuals from the school leadership, faculty and staff is formed and given the responsibility to implement and evaluate the changes that have been proposed. Given strong commitment and ample time for implementation, this type of cultural change process can result in a more healthy and robust learning environment.       When cultural change factors attitudes and behaviors are included in a school's improvement process, changes are more likely to take root.   Culture refers to the values, beliefs and norms that influence how and why things are done.  Hence, attitudes and behaviors, which deal with the human aspect of cultural change and   processes, procedures and policies, which have to do with the technical aspects of change, are all determined by a school's culture.  Perhaps because they are more easily identifiable, the technical aspects of cultural change are usually what are addressed when schools set out to make changes. However, these three Ps are heavily impacted by attitudes and behaviors. A good example of this is Idaho’s teachers’ resistance to statewide plans that dictate how computers should be used in schools. The inclusion of attitudes and behaviors as part of a school’s cultural change process requires three steps. The first step is for the school leadership to undertake a self-assessment to determine how its attitudes and behaviors influence school culture.  To wit, these questions must be addressed.  How do we define our school culture? Have we modeled expected attitudes and behaviors?  What do we need to change and how do we do it?  Edward Lawler’s high involvement management model is a useful tool for framing responses to these questions.  The model directs how information, knowledge, rewards and power can be used to effectively communicate with and support faculty and staff.   The second step of the process requires that the same questions be posed to the school-wide community and responses be compared and contrasted with the school leadership’s responses.  A consensus process that ensures that all stakeholders’ feelings and ideas are explored is then employed to form agreement on a definition for the school’s culture and agreement also on what and how attitudes and behaviors need to be changed. For the final and third step, a team that consists of individuals from the school leadership, faculty and staff is formed and given the responsibility to implement and evaluate the changes that have been proposed. Given strong commitment and ample time for implementation, this type of cultural change process can result in a more healthy and robust learning environment.     Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:26:08 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Cultural-Change/blog/5698070/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2012-01-07T22:26:08Z ASCD EDge   When cultural change factors attitudes and behaviors are included in a school's improvement process, changes are more likely to take root.   Culture refers to the values, beliefs and norms that influence how and why things are done.  Hence, attitudes and behaviors, which deal with the human aspect of cultural change and   processes, procedures and policies, which have to do with the technical aspects of change, are all determined by a school's culture.  Perhaps because they are more easily identifiable, the technical aspects of cultural change are usually what are addressed when schools set out to make changes. However, these three Ps are heavily impacted by attitudes and behaviors. A good example of this is Idaho’s teachers’ resistance to statewide plans that dictate how computers should be used in schools. The inclusion of attitudes and behaviors as part of a school’s cultural change process requires three steps. The first step is for the school leadership to undertake a self-assessment to determine how its attitudes and behaviors influence school culture.  To wit, these questions must be addressed.  How do we define our school culture? Have we modeled expected attitudes and behaviors?  What do we need to change and how do we do it?  Edward Lawler’s high involvement management model is a useful tool for framing responses to these questions.  The model directs how information, knowledge, rewards and power can be used to effectively communicate with and support faculty and staff.   The second step of the process requires that the same questions be posed to the school-wide community and responses be compared and contrasted with the school leadership’s responses.  A consensus process that ensures that all stakeholders’ feelings and ideas are explored is then employed to form agreement on a definition for the school’s culture and agreement also on what and how attitudes and behaviors need to be changed. For the final and third step, a team that consists of individuals from the school leadership, faculty and staff is formed and given the responsibility to implement and evaluate the changes that have been proposed. Given strong commitment and ample time for implementation, this type of cultural change process can result in a more healthy and robust learning environment.     nonadult false Cultural Change text blog 746 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 0 5698070 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Quality-of-Quality-Reviews/blog/5514126/127586.html   The school quality review process would be more reliable and the results more valid if the process included an unannounced visit and a follow-up by the reviewer. Quality reviews are done to determine a school’s performance with regard to organization for and effectiveness of instruction.   The process usually involves (a) the completion of a self-evaluation by the school, (b) an observation, (c) feedback and (d) some sort of appeal process.  The school is notified of the review date, given time to prepare for the observation and is required to submit documentation that supports the self-evaluation.  In the same way that a teacher’s evaluation determines overall performance, a quality review influences a school’s overall rating.  As such, a review is considered a “high stake assessment.”  What this means is that the school moves heaven and earth to ensure a positive outcome.  Teachers who have not been observed for years are suddenly observed.  Normal school activities such as picture taking day, which generates a lot of excited noise, are rescheduled and replaced with more subdued activities that give an aura of quiet learning.  Faculty meetings once dormant are held every week.  Professional development activities increase.  And the list goes on.  This type of response exemplifies what Richard P. Rumelt, author of Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, refers to as “look busy doorknob polishing.”  Only an astute reviewer, and or one who is unaffiliated with the school’s system (who therefore does not have a stake in the outcome) would be able to look beneath the appearance of these efforts to determine and record that there is really no effective coherent instructive system of people, process and procedure.   For instance, though professional development activities have increased, transfer of knowledge and skills from such activities are not evident in practice. If the review process begins with an unannounced visit, the reviewer has the opportunity to see the school “as is.”  Armed with more reliable evaluative results, the reviewer can better determine the validity of the school’s self-evaluation, can prescribed more appropriate action in the feedback stage after the observation and can better determine through follow-up, the gap between school expectations and actual school performance.  The reviewer would also be able to provide further direction that addresses improvement needs.   The school quality review process would be more reliable and the results more valid if the process included an unannounced visit and a follow-up by the reviewer. Quality reviews are done to determine a school’s performance with regard to organization for and effectiveness of instruction.   The process usually involves (a) the completion of a self-evaluation by the school, (b) an observation, (c) feedback and (d) some sort of appeal process.  The school is notified of the review date, given time to prepare for the observation and is required to submit documentation that supports the self-evaluation.  In the same way that a teacher’s evaluation determines overall performance, a quality review influences a school’s overall rating.  As such, a review is considered a “high stake assessment.”  What this means is that the school moves heaven and earth to ensure a positive outcome.  Teachers who have not been observed for years are suddenly observed.  Normal school activities such as picture taking day, which generates a lot of excited noise, are rescheduled and replaced with more subdued activities that give an aura of quiet learning.  Faculty meetings once dormant are held every week.  Professional development activities increase.  And the list goes on.  This type of response exemplifies what Richard P. Rumelt, author of Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, refers to as “look busy doorknob polishing.”  Only an astute reviewer, and or one who is unaffiliated with the school’s system (who therefore does not have a stake in the outcome) would be able to look beneath the appearance of these efforts to determine and record that there is really no effective coherent instructive system of people, process and procedure.   For instance, though professional development activities have increased, transfer of knowledge and skills from such activities are not evident in practice. If the review process begins with an unannounced visit, the reviewer has the opportunity to see the school “as is.”  Armed with more reliable evaluative results, the reviewer can better determine the validity of the school’s self-evaluation, can prescribed more appropriate action in the feedback stage after the observation and can better determine through follow-up, the gap between school expectations and actual school performance.  The reviewer would also be able to provide further direction that addresses improvement needs. Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:23:22 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Quality-of-Quality-Reviews/blog/5514126/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2011-11-25T16:23:22Z ASCD EDge   The school quality review process would be more reliable and the results more valid if the process included an unannounced visit and a follow-up by the reviewer. Quality reviews are done to determine a school’s performance with regard to organization for and effectiveness of instruction.   The process usually involves (a) the completion of a self-evaluation by the school, (b) an observation, (c) feedback and (d) some sort of appeal process.  The school is notified of the review date, given time to prepare for the observation and is required to submit documentation that supports the self-evaluation.  In the same way that a teacher’s evaluation determines overall performance, a quality review influences a school’s overall rating.  As such, a review is considered a “high stake assessment.”  What this means is that the school moves heaven and earth to ensure a positive outcome.  Teachers who have not been observed for years are suddenly observed.  Normal school activities such as picture taking day, which generates a lot of excited noise, are rescheduled and replaced with more subdued activities that give an aura of quiet learning.  Faculty meetings once dormant are held every week.  Professional development activities increase.  And the list goes on.  This type of response exemplifies what Richard P. Rumelt, author of Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, refers to as “look busy doorknob polishing.”  Only an astute reviewer, and or one who is unaffiliated with the school’s system (who therefore does not have a stake in the outcome) would be able to look beneath the appearance of these efforts to determine and record that there is really no effective coherent instructive system of people, process and procedure.   For instance, though professional development activities have increased, transfer of knowledge and skills from such activities are not evident in practice. If the review process begins with an unannounced visit, the reviewer has the opportunity to see the school “as is.”  Armed with more reliable evaluative results, the reviewer can better determine the validity of the school’s self-evaluation, can prescribed more appropriate action in the feedback stage after the observation and can better determine through follow-up, the gap between school expectations and actual school performance.  The reviewer would also be able to provide further direction that addresses improvement needs. nonadult false Quality of Quality Reviews text blog 653 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 0 5514126 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Evaluating-Non-Classroom-Teachers/blog/5476544/127586.html   In many schools, teachers who teach technology are often evaluated using instruments that do not reflect their expertise.   As a result, no information is available to determine if and how teachers promote students’ technology literacy.  Such a practice runs counter to the need to prepare students for a world of work that increasingly demands 21st century technology skills. A two-pronged approach that includes pertinent areas of professional practice with technology integration added is a better approach to gauge teachers’ growth and to determine how they have helped their students gain technology skills. What would such an approach look like?  Pertinent areas of professional practice include items that have traditionally being used to evaluate teachers but which have been developed into frameworks such as Charlotte Danielson’s framework for teaching.  This framework in particular, includes four evaluation domains: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities.  Add technology integration to this list and use the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students and the Profile for Technology (ICT) Literate Students as measuring tools.  The profile provides examples of learning activities on various grade levels, which are linked to the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S).  Combing the Standards, the Profile and a traditional evaluation list will necessitate a stream lining of all three items in order to weed out repetition, or, merge items. Indeed, both the Profile and the Standards offer an opportunity to develop student assessments that are truly authentic, that is, assessments that are examples of real world products and allow for real personalization and differentiation of learning.   For instance, grade two students fulfill the requirements of Profile 1 (communicate original ideas and stories using digital tools) by creating videos using iMovie.   These videos are likely to be about different topics and use various forms of illustration. As artifacts, they can in turn be used as evidence of student learning and teacher performance. Furthermore, this approach can be used for other subject areas like music and art for which there is an available body of knowledge and upon which standards can be based and merged with traditional evaluation factors.    In many schools, teachers who teach technology are often evaluated using instruments that do not reflect their expertise.   As a result, no information is available to determine if and how teachers promote students’ technology literacy.  Such a practice runs counter to the need to prepare students for a world of work that increasingly demands 21st century technology skills. A two-pronged approach that includes pertinent areas of professional practice with technology integration added is a better approach to gauge teachers’ growth and to determine how they have helped their students gain technology skills. What would such an approach look like?  Pertinent areas of professional practice include items that have traditionally being used to evaluate teachers but which have been developed into frameworks such as Charlotte Danielson’s framework for teaching.  This framework in particular, includes four evaluation domains: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities.  Add technology integration to this list and use the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students and the Profile for Technology (ICT) Literate Students as measuring tools.  The profile provides examples of learning activities on various grade levels, which are linked to the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S).  Combing the Standards, the Profile and a traditional evaluation list will necessitate a stream lining of all three items in order to weed out repetition, or, merge items. Indeed, both the Profile and the Standards offer an opportunity to develop student assessments that are truly authentic, that is, assessments that are examples of real world products and allow for real personalization and differentiation of learning.   For instance, grade two students fulfill the requirements of Profile 1 (communicate original ideas and stories using digital tools) by creating videos using iMovie.   These videos are likely to be about different topics and use various forms of illustration. As artifacts, they can in turn be used as evidence of student learning and teacher performance. Furthermore, this approach can be used for other subject areas like music and art for which there is an available body of knowledge and upon which standards can be based and merged with traditional evaluation factors.  Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:03:39 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Evaluating-Non-Classroom-Teachers/blog/5476544/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2011-11-15T19:03:39Z ASCD EDge   In many schools, teachers who teach technology are often evaluated using instruments that do not reflect their expertise.   As a result, no information is available to determine if and how teachers promote students’ technology literacy.  Such a practice runs counter to the need to prepare students for a world of work that increasingly demands 21st century technology skills. A two-pronged approach that includes pertinent areas of professional practice with technology integration added is a better approach to gauge teachers’ growth and to determine how they have helped their students gain technology skills. What would such an approach look like?  Pertinent areas of professional practice include items that have traditionally being used to evaluate teachers but which have been developed into frameworks such as Charlotte Danielson’s framework for teaching.  This framework in particular, includes four evaluation domains: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities.  Add technology integration to this list and use the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Students and the Profile for Technology (ICT) Literate Students as measuring tools.  The profile provides examples of learning activities on various grade levels, which are linked to the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S).  Combing the Standards, the Profile and a traditional evaluation list will necessitate a stream lining of all three items in order to weed out repetition, or, merge items. Indeed, both the Profile and the Standards offer an opportunity to develop student assessments that are truly authentic, that is, assessments that are examples of real world products and allow for real personalization and differentiation of learning.   For instance, grade two students fulfill the requirements of Profile 1 (communicate original ideas and stories using digital tools) by creating videos using iMovie.   These videos are likely to be about different topics and use various forms of illustration. As artifacts, they can in turn be used as evidence of student learning and teacher performance. Furthermore, this approach can be used for other subject areas like music and art for which there is an available body of knowledge and upon which standards can be based and merged with traditional evaluation factors.  nonadult false Evaluating Non-Classroom Teachers text blog 388 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 0 5476544 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Looking-to-Business-for-Answers/blog/5389864/127586.html Looking outside of the educational toolbox for solutions is not a bad thing.  However, as educators are encouraged to look to business for strategies to help improve education, it is important to remember that the business industry’s singular focus on results was one of the chief causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis.  Such an emphasis appeared to have blinded even Alan Greenspan to the dysfunctional process of financial transactions. A situation existed where focus on results (e.g. the maximizing of shareholders’ value) kept up the appearance of a healthy financial system while all along the system was malfunctioning. The crisis further resulted in an economic downturn that trickled down to schools in the form of less funding. The ever present emphasis on standardized scores as the main factor that determines teachers’ and students’ performance is a strategy adopted from this business model that over stresses results.  In the same way that this strategy caused major dysfunction in the financial system, it has also wreaked havoc in the throes of educational reform.  This is evident in the lack of learning retention, creative thinking and problem-solving skills (twenty-first century skills that we hear so much about) that so many college bound students do not possess and the remediation classes that students have to take.   The effects are also noticeable in teacher quality.  For, it is not always the case that teachers do not have the necessary expertise, but often their environment limits the use, or, acquisition of such expertise.  Testing environments tend to limit the exercise of full potential because every aspect of learning is geared towards the test.  An example of such a situation is when a teacher is asked to forego a project that culminates with the creation of an authentic product for drill and practice activities in order to ensure that students pass their test.  New knowledge and strategies that the teacher intended to use to engage students rest dormant while mind numbing test strategies come to the fore. It is okay for business to be a stakeholder in the school reform process. However, business must recognize that teaching is indeed a profession and as such educators’ views and proposed solutions must be considered to be of equal value.   As “business” writer A. Wilkinson notes, workers who are doing the job are in a better position to improve their task than those who are on the outside looking in. Keeping this in mind and the fact that business has yet to put its own house in order, educators should continue to view and review solutions proposed by business with a critical eye. Looking outside of the educational toolbox for solutions is not a bad thing.  However, as educators are encouraged to look to business for strategies to help improve education, it is important to remember that the business industry’s singular focus on results was one of the chief causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis.  Such an emphasis appeared to have blinded even Alan Greenspan to the dysfunctional process of financial transactions. A situation existed where focus on results (e.g. the maximizing of shareholders’ value) kept up the appearance of a healthy financial system while all along the system was malfunctioning. The crisis further resulted in an economic downturn that trickled down to schools in the form of less funding. The ever present emphasis on standardized scores as the main factor that determines teachers’ and students’ performance is a strategy adopted from this business model that over stresses results.  In the same way that this strategy caused major dysfunction in the financial system, it has also wreaked havoc in the throes of educational reform.  This is evident in the lack of learning retention, creative thinking and problem-solving skills (twenty-first century skills that we hear so much about) that so many college bound students do not possess and the remediation classes that students have to take.   The effects are also noticeable in teacher quality.  For, it is not always the case that teachers do not have the necessary expertise, but often their environment limits the use, or, acquisition of such expertise.  Testing environments tend to limit the exercise of full potential because every aspect of learning is geared towards the test.  An example of such a situation is when a teacher is asked to forego a project that culminates with the creation of an authentic product for drill and practice activities in order to ensure that students pass their test.  New knowledge and strategies that the teacher intended to use to engage students rest dormant while mind numbing test strategies come to the fore. It is okay for business to be a stakeholder in the school reform process. However, business must recognize that teaching is indeed a profession and as such educators’ views and proposed solutions must be considered to be of equal value.   As “business” writer A. Wilkinson notes, workers who are doing the job are in a better position to improve their task than those who are on the outside looking in. Keeping this in mind and the fact that business has yet to put its own house in order, educators should continue to view and review solutions proposed by business with a critical eye. Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:07:30 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Looking-to-Business-for-Answers/blog/5389864/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2011-10-27T00:07:30Z ASCD EDge Looking outside of the educational toolbox for solutions is not a bad thing.  However, as educators are encouraged to look to business for strategies to help improve education, it is important to remember that the business industry’s singular focus on results was one of the chief causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis.  Such an emphasis appeared to have blinded even Alan Greenspan to the dysfunctional process of financial transactions. A situation existed where focus on results (e.g. the maximizing of shareholders’ value) kept up the appearance of a healthy financial system while all along the system was malfunctioning. The crisis further resulted in an economic downturn that trickled down to schools in the form of less funding. The ever present emphasis on standardized scores as the main factor that determines teachers’ and students’ performance is a strategy adopted from this business model that over stresses results.  In the same way that this strategy caused major dysfunction in the financial system, it has also wreaked havoc in the throes of educational reform.  This is evident in the lack of learning retention, creative thinking and problem-solving skills (twenty-first century skills that we hear so much about) that so many college bound students do not possess and the remediation classes that students have to take.   The effects are also noticeable in teacher quality.  For, it is not always the case that teachers do not have the necessary expertise, but often their environment limits the use, or, acquisition of such expertise.  Testing environments tend to limit the exercise of full potential because every aspect of learning is geared towards the test.  An example of such a situation is when a teacher is asked to forego a project that culminates with the creation of an authentic product for drill and practice activities in order to ensure that students pass their test.  New knowledge and strategies that the teacher intended to use to engage students rest dormant while mind numbing test strategies come to the fore. It is okay for business to be a stakeholder in the school reform process. However, business must recognize that teaching is indeed a profession and as such educators’ views and proposed solutions must be considered to be of equal value.   As “business” writer A. Wilkinson notes, workers who are doing the job are in a better position to improve their task than those who are on the outside looking in. Keeping this in mind and the fact that business has yet to put its own house in order, educators should continue to view and review solutions proposed by business with a critical eye. nonadult false Looking to Business for Answers text blog 339 0 0.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 1 0 5389864 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Linking-School-Leadership-to-Teachers39-Performance/blog/5316695/127586.html Teacher quality is only half of the performance equation.  The other half is principal quality, which we must also consider in our quest to promote the budding and full fruition of young minds. Linking School leadership to Teachers’ Performance In this age of “linkages”, where teachers’ performance is being linked to students’ test scores, pay is being linked to performance, and plans are afoot for teachers’ preparation to be linked to students’ performance, not enough is said about linking a principal’s support to teacher performance.     Like many educational strategies, this is not new, just a recycled one.  Indeed, we have heard over and over again that one of the most important factors that influence teachers’ effectiveness is the kind of support they receive.  Authors such as N. Protheroe, G. D. Glickman, R. Dufour, K. D. Peterson  and C. Danielson and T. McGreal have identified areas of support that involve the principal’s ability to: ·         conduct effective clinical supervision ·         understand and communicate with each teacher ·         create a safe environment for peers to operate ·         ensure that the physical environment is conducive to the teacher and that she has the necessary instructional materials ·         ensure that the teacher receives the appropriate professional development. This list of support items, which is not conclusive, can in fact be used as a tool to conduct both teachers’ and principals’ evaluations.   Principals can use it to demonstrate how they have helped their teachers to grow and develop and this can be used as part of a teacher’s evaluation.   Teachers, who are usually not involved (though they are direct stakeholders) in evaluating their principals, can also use it to determine principals’ effectiveness.   However, to ensure the integrity of the process, teachers’ evaluations must be anonymous. The results of both sets of evaluations will then need to be compared and contrasted and used to determine what works well and why and what needs to be improved and how.  Hence, the results will be part of the school’s continuous improvement plan.  Once again, to safeguard the integrity of the process, the analysis of the evaluations should be done by an outside source, perhaps by one of the school’s community partners.   Teacher quality is only half of the performance equation.  The other half is principal quality, which we must also consider in our quest to promote the budding and full fruition of young minds. Linking School leadership to Teachers’ Performance In this age of “linkages”, where teachers’ performance is being linked to students’ test scores, pay is being linked to performance, and plans are afoot for teachers’ preparation to be linked to students’ performance, not enough is said about linking a principal’s support to teacher performance.     Like many educational strategies, this is not new, just a recycled one.  Indeed, we have heard over and over again that one of the most important factors that influence teachers’ effectiveness is the kind of support they receive.  Authors such as N. Protheroe, G. D. Glickman, R. Dufour, K. D. Peterson  and C. Danielson and T. McGreal have identified areas of support that involve the principal’s ability to: ·         conduct effective clinical supervision ·         understand and communicate with each teacher ·         create a safe environment for peers to operate ·         ensure that the physical environment is conducive to the teacher and that she has the necessary instructional materials ·         ensure that the teacher receives the appropriate professional development. This list of support items, which is not conclusive, can in fact be used as a tool to conduct both teachers’ and principals’ evaluations.   Principals can use it to demonstrate how they have helped their teachers to grow and develop and this can be used as part of a teacher’s evaluation.   Teachers, who are usually not involved (though they are direct stakeholders) in evaluating their principals, can also use it to determine principals’ effectiveness.   However, to ensure the integrity of the process, teachers’ evaluations must be anonymous. The results of both sets of evaluations will then need to be compared and contrasted and used to determine what works well and why and what needs to be improved and how.  Hence, the results will be part of the school’s continuous improvement plan.  Once again, to safeguard the integrity of the process, the analysis of the evaluations should be done by an outside source, perhaps by one of the school’s community partners.   Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:45:05 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Linking-School-Leadership-to-Teachers39-Performance/blog/5316695/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2011-10-17T02:45:05Z ASCD EDge Teacher quality is only half of the performance equation.  The other half is principal quality, which we must also consider in our quest to promote the budding and full fruition of young minds. Linking School leadership to Teachers’ Performance In this age of “linkages”, where teachers’ performance is being linked to students’ test scores, pay is being linked to performance, and plans are afoot for teachers’ preparation to be linked to students’ performance, not enough is said about linking a principal’s support to teacher performance.     Like many educational strategies, this is not new, just a recycled one.  Indeed, we have heard over and over again that one of the most important factors that influence teachers’ effectiveness is the kind of support they receive.  Authors such as N. Protheroe, G. D. Glickman, R. Dufour, K. D. Peterson  and C. Danielson and T. McGreal have identified areas of support that involve the principal’s ability to: ·         conduct effective clinical supervision ·         understand and communicate with each teacher ·         create a safe environment for peers to operate ·         ensure that the physical environment is conducive to the teacher and that she has the necessary instructional materials ·         ensure that the teacher receives the appropriate professional development. This list of support items, which is not conclusive, can in fact be used as a tool to conduct both teachers’ and principals’ evaluations.   Principals can use it to demonstrate how they have helped their teachers to grow and develop and this can be used as part of a teacher’s evaluation.   Teachers, who are usually not involved (though they are direct stakeholders) in evaluating their principals, can also use it to determine principals’ effectiveness.   However, to ensure the integrity of the process, teachers’ evaluations must be anonymous. The results of both sets of evaluations will then need to be compared and contrasted and used to determine what works well and why and what needs to be improved and how.  Hence, the results will be part of the school’s continuous improvement plan.  Once again, to safeguard the integrity of the process, the analysis of the evaluations should be done by an outside source, perhaps by one of the school’s community partners.   nonadult false Linking School Leadership to Teachers' Performance text blog 605 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 0 5316695 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250 http://edge.ascd.org/_Another-Type-of-Bullying/blog/5287671/127586.html It is great that States and the Federal Government have taken serious steps to address student-to-student bullying; be it face-to-face, or, of the cyber variety.  However, sustained progress on this front could only result if equal attention is paid to adult-to-adult bullying. Why?  More often than not, children’s behaviors mirror those of adults.  This issue is not an easy one to discuss but it is important to discuss it because adult bullying has negative influences on the work environment.   Adult-to-adult bullying seems to have emerged as a management tool that is used either to control, or, to keep workers in a state of perpetual fear.  In her article “Bullying the Teacher”, Pricialla Hall, notes that while teachers speak out against student bullying, they seem at loss when it comes to identifying when they themselves are being bullied, or, when a colleague is being bullied.   One of the bullying tactics she mentions is verbal abuse.  Teachers charged with verbally abusing their students often lose their jobs.  Does this happen to principals or other teachers who verbally abused their colleagues?  Similar to the student variety, this type of bullying takes the form of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets often in the context of gossiping.  Another form of adult bullying is the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of work performance, which takes the form of withholding resources and information.  The teacher who is bullied is left out of the loop.  Information that he/she needs to execute successful instruction is withheld.  Imagine a teacher withholding pertinent information that students need to complete their assignments.  Yet another form of adult bullying is the subtle types of aggression such as ignoring a person’s work contributions.  While all other teachers are recognized for their hard work with the students, the bullied teacher remains unmentionable.   Bullying behaviors such as these are often amplified when mobbing is added to the mix.  Mobbing is group bullying where other workers are solicited to create and maintain a hostile working environment for the individual being bullied.  This results in the targeted individual being ostracized and anyone who sympathizes also receives the same treatment.   Allowing bullying to fester degrades morale, performance and an individual’s overall well-being.  As such, it is a human rights issue.  It is certain that students who witness these behaviors by the same adults, who tell them not to bully others, are less likely to take heed.   Hence, one of the best ways to truly combat student bullying is for districts and schools to ensure that policies about adult bullying are clear and are enforced.  As it is written, “example is better than precept.” It is great that States and the Federal Government have taken serious steps to address student-to-student bullying; be it face-to-face, or, of the cyber variety.  However, sustained progress on this front could only result if equal attention is paid to adult-to-adult bullying. Why?  More often than not, children’s behaviors mirror those of adults.  This issue is not an easy one to discuss but it is important to discuss it because adult bullying has negative influences on the work environment.   Adult-to-adult bullying seems to have emerged as a management tool that is used either to control, or, to keep workers in a state of perpetual fear.  In her article “Bullying the Teacher”, Pricialla Hall, notes that while teachers speak out against student bullying, they seem at loss when it comes to identifying when they themselves are being bullied, or, when a colleague is being bullied.   One of the bullying tactics she mentions is verbal abuse.  Teachers charged with verbally abusing their students often lose their jobs.  Does this happen to principals or other teachers who verbally abused their colleagues?  Similar to the student variety, this type of bullying takes the form of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets often in the context of gossiping.  Another form of adult bullying is the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of work performance, which takes the form of withholding resources and information.  The teacher who is bullied is left out of the loop.  Information that he/she needs to execute successful instruction is withheld.  Imagine a teacher withholding pertinent information that students need to complete their assignments.  Yet another form of adult bullying is the subtle types of aggression such as ignoring a person’s work contributions.  While all other teachers are recognized for their hard work with the students, the bullied teacher remains unmentionable.   Bullying behaviors such as these are often amplified when mobbing is added to the mix.  Mobbing is group bullying where other workers are solicited to create and maintain a hostile working environment for the individual being bullied.  This results in the targeted individual being ostracized and anyone who sympathizes also receives the same treatment.   Allowing bullying to fester degrades morale, performance and an individual’s overall well-being.  As such, it is a human rights issue.  It is certain that students who witness these behaviors by the same adults, who tell them not to bully others, are less likely to take heed.   Hence, one of the best ways to truly combat student bullying is for districts and schools to ensure that policies about adult bullying are clear and are enforced.  As it is written, “example is better than precept.” Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:54:58 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Another-Type-of-Bullying/blog/5287671/127586.html Mamzelle_Adolphine 2011-10-12T04:54:58Z ASCD EDge It is great that States and the Federal Government have taken serious steps to address student-to-student bullying; be it face-to-face, or, of the cyber variety.  However, sustained progress on this front could only result if equal attention is paid to adult-to-adult bullying. Why?  More often than not, children’s behaviors mirror those of adults.  This issue is not an easy one to discuss but it is important to discuss it because adult bullying has negative influences on the work environment.   Adult-to-adult bullying seems to have emerged as a management tool that is used either to control, or, to keep workers in a state of perpetual fear.  In her article “Bullying the Teacher”, Pricialla Hall, notes that while teachers speak out against student bullying, they seem at loss when it comes to identifying when they themselves are being bullied, or, when a colleague is being bullied.   One of the bullying tactics she mentions is verbal abuse.  Teachers charged with verbally abusing their students often lose their jobs.  Does this happen to principals or other teachers who verbally abused their colleagues?  Similar to the student variety, this type of bullying takes the form of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets often in the context of gossiping.  Another form of adult bullying is the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of work performance, which takes the form of withholding resources and information.  The teacher who is bullied is left out of the loop.  Information that he/she needs to execute successful instruction is withheld.  Imagine a teacher withholding pertinent information that students need to complete their assignments.  Yet another form of adult bullying is the subtle types of aggression such as ignoring a person’s work contributions.  While all other teachers are recognized for their hard work with the students, the bullied teacher remains unmentionable.   Bullying behaviors such as these are often amplified when mobbing is added to the mix.  Mobbing is group bullying where other workers are solicited to create and maintain a hostile working environment for the individual being bullied.  This results in the targeted individual being ostracized and anyone who sympathizes also receives the same treatment.   Allowing bullying to fester degrades morale, performance and an individual’s overall well-being.  As such, it is a human rights issue.  It is certain that students who witness these behaviors by the same adults, who tell them not to bully others, are less likely to take heed.   Hence, one of the best ways to truly combat student bullying is for districts and schools to ensure that policies about adult bullying are clear and are enforced.  As it is written, “example is better than precept.” abuse, adult-to-adult, behavior, bullying, mobbing nonadult false Another Type of Bullying text blog abuse,adult-to-adult,behavior,bullying,mobbing 685 10 5.0 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=27826722&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_14858124_127586_27826722_ap_160X120.jpg false United States NY Brooklyn 0 0 5287671 27826722 ASCD EDge Member 250