| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Operation of Teacher-Based Teams

Page history last edited by Aimee Howley 11 years ago

Module 15, ALL: Teacher Based Teams (TBTs): What Districts Need to Know

 

P. 3-- The What and Why of TBTs

Districts and their schools that demonstrate sustained improvement in instructional practice and achievement for all students are intentional in creating the conditions for such improvement to occur. These districts establish structures and provide the necessary supports that foster shared leadership and accountability by facilitating professional collaboration and the effective use of relevant data at all levels of the system. Doug Reeves reminds us that developing collaborative teams must be a purposeful endeavor, requiring time, practice, and accountability (2009, p. 46).  

 

Similarly, Rick DuFour and Bob Marzano (2011) - both well-known proponents of professional learning communities - advocate for a collaborative effort to improve student achievement, arguing that no single person has all the required knowledge, skills, and talents to meet the needs of all children. The notion that the collective wisdom of the group is "smarter than the elite few" is explored by New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki in his work, The Wisdom of Crowds, and lends support for the development of leadership teams whose members strategically and collectively make decisions about teaching and learning based on the evidence reviewed. 

 

Using team structures to facilitate shared learning for instructional improvement has been encouraged by an increasing number of authors (McNulty, B.A., & Besser, L., 2011; Darling-Hammond, L., 2010; Wahlstrom, 2010; Schmoker, M., 2006), and is reflective of the growing body of evidence in support of teachers working together to inform each other's instructional practice. For example, David (December 2008/January 2009, p. 87) notes that "when teachers collaborate to pose and answer questions informed by data from their own students, their knowledge grows and their practice changes." A five-year investigation demonstrated that grade-level teams in nine Title 1 schools that used an inquiry-focused protocol to address instructional problems significantly increased student achievement and began to attribute increased student performance to their teaching rather than to external causes (Gallimore, R., et al., 2009). The sustainability of teacher teams, according to Gallimore, et al., was dependent on having (1) stable school-based settings, distributed leadership, and explicit protocols; and (2) coherent and aligned district policies and practices.

 

The critical role of the district in supporting instructional leadership was also highlighted in a major Wallace Foundation-commissioned study conducted by Karen Seashore Louis, Kenneth Leithwood, Kyla Wahlstrom, Stephen Anderson, and colleagues in 2010, which found that "district policies and practices focused on instruction are sufficiently powerful that they can be felt by teachers as an animating force behind strong, focused leadership by principals" (p. 203). "Simply increasing pressure on principals is unlikely to bring about real improvements..." (p. 52). Instead, the report suggests that a better strategy would be to develop the capacity for instructional leadership through the development of instructional teams, lending further support for a collective, collaborative approach to improving professional practice. A summary of findings as well as the full report, Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning, can be downloaded from The Wallace Foundation at www.wallacefoundation.org.

 

In his book, All Systems Go, Michael Fullan (2010) proposed the "big ideas" necessary for whole system reform. One such idea is collective capacity, which Fullan calls the "hidden resource we fail to understand and cultivate," (p. 4). He notes that with "focused collective capacity building, accountability to a large extent gets internalized in the group and in its individuals," (p. 44).  Fullan (2011) further outlines crucial elements for whole system reform, suggesting they be used as criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a driver or set of drivers. Drivers are defined by Fullan as "policy and strategy levers that have the least and best chance of driving successful reform." These necessary elements for whole system reform include:

 

  •  Fostering intrinsic motivation of teachers and students;
  •  Engaging educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning;
  •  Inspiring collective or team work; and
  •  Affecting all teachers and students (allness).

 

Developing collective capacity through collaborative teams, sometimes referred to as professional learning communities, gets results because "peers are supporting and pressuring each other to do better" (Fullan, as quoted in Dufour, R., and Marzano, R., 2011, Leaders of Learning, p. 65).

McNulty and Besser (2011) emphasized the importance of developing leadership capacity at every level through "shared inquiry grounded in data" (p. 65). Their work on data teams encourages districts to establish collaborative teams that use a structured process coupled with data to support continuous learning and improvement. According to Reeves (2009), "data teams are the single best way to help educators and administrators move from drowning in data to using information to make better instructional decisions. What makes the Data Teams process distinctive is that we are not just looking at student scores, but at the combination of student results, teaching strategies, and leadership support."

 

Monitoring implementation and providing feedback on what does and doesn't work in improving student learning are essential activities of district, building, and teacher-based teams. The district and its schools must set clear expectations for the use of collaborative teams at the teacher level, establish a common language with regard to the important terms used by the district to define and support high quality instructional practice, model the use of required team structures and protocols, and provide needed supports and ongoing opportunities to collaboratively and deliberately reflect on collective practice.

 

Districts and their schools that embrace the sense of "allness" described by Fullan (2011) understand that their work is about improving instruction and learning for all students. Frattura and Capper (2007) urge districts and schools to rethink their longstanding focus on roles and programs and instead, develop the leadership capacity of teachers and school and district administrators to work together to meet the instructional needs of all students.  In Data Teams: The Big Picture - Looking at Data Teams Through a Collaborative Lens, Linda Gregg describes how collaborative teacher teams can effectively use response to intervention (RtI) to answer what Reeves (2009) poses as the essential question, "What can we do tomorrow to help teachers and students achieve their goals?"

 

This module provides support for the development of teacher-based teams (TBTs) as part of an aligned leadership team structure used by districts and their schools to continually improve instructional practice and student learning. The purpose of TBTs, suggestions for TBT membership, structures and processes to support effective TBTs, implications for district and building leadership teams, and suggestions for incorporating cyclical communication in ways that support system learning are also addressed in this module.

 

P. 4-- The Ohio Context

In recent years, there has been growing awareness that sustainable improvement in student learning requires districts to make systemic reforms in the core business of instructional practice. Michael Fullan (2007) describes the challenges associated with sustaining any kind of change in his book The New Meaning of Educational Change. He says, "The main reason that change fails to occur in the first place on any scale, and does not get sustained when it does, is that the infrastructure is weak, unhelpful, or working at cross purposes" (p. 18).  Fullan maintains that for change to be sustained at the classroom level, other levels of the system  - the school, district, region, and state - must act to enhance coherence, alignment, connectedness, and capacity for continuous improvement.

 

In 2007, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), working in partnership with the Buckeye Association of School Administrators (BASA), established OLAC as a major change effort designed to redefine leadership for instructional improvement.  OLAC's work was grounded in the belief, borrowing from Harvard Graduate School of Education professor Richard Elmore, that the "purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional practice and student performance, regardless of role." The outcome of OLAC's initial phase of work was Ohio's Leadership Development Framework, which articulated essential leadership practices for improving instruction and student learning on a district-wide basis.

 

At the same time, ODE embarked on another large-scale change effort designed to create a viable statewide system of support that was both statewide in scope and systemic in nature - a system that redefined the work of the state, regional providers, districts, schools, and teachers to be about improving the capacity of those at other levels of the system. From a state and regional perspective, the statewide system of support needed to be able to provide guaranteed high-quality services to all districts based on a commonly understood and implemented approach that used a consistent set of tools and protocols. That approach - called the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) - was designed to help all districts, regardless of improvement status, examine their degree of implementation of essential leadership practices, as defined by OLAC in Ohio's Leadership Development Framework

 

These two interrelated change efforts - OIP and the work of OLAC - were intended to work together by helping districts focus their work around essential practices related to teaching and learning, and use a structured process to implement, monitor, and continually evaluate the degree to which implemented practices were having the desired effect in improving district-wide practice and student learning.

 

In Building a New Structure for School Leadership, Richard Elmore (2000) noted that "privacy of practice produces isolation; isolation is the enemy of improvement." OLAC-OIP provides the tools and resources to move from isolated practice, which is still the norm in many districts and schools, to collective practice. Shared accountability and leadership provide the foundation for OLAC-OIP and are operationalized through the use of an aligned leadership team structure involving district leadership teams (DLTs), building leadership teams (BLTs), and teacher-based teams (TBTs).  

 

In Ohio's model, collaborative teams at the teacher level (i.e., TBTs) set common instructional targets, use collaboratively developed common classroom formative assessment to assess student progress against those targets, make decisions about and adapt instruction based on what is/is not working, and report progress to BLTs. BLTs, in turn, monitor TBT implementation, use the data provided to make decisions about the kind of professional development and supports needed by schools and teacher teams, and report building data to the DLT. The DLT monitors implementation across all schools within the district and determines the level of district-wide and/or building-level supports needed to ensure that goals are being met. This ongoing culture of inquiry, based on the flow of information across the district, is the hallmark of a learning organization.

 

P. 5-- Purpose of TBTs

The purpose of TBTs is to continuously strengthen teaching and learning for all students through collaborative planning based on the collective use of formative assessment data. According to McNulty and Besser (2011), instructional data teams are "small grade-level, department, course, or like-content teams that examine work generated from a common formative assessment." In data team meetings, "teachers disaggregate data, analyze student performance, set incremental goals, engage in dialogue around explicit and deliberate instruction, and create a plan to monitor student learning and teacher instruction" (p. 5).

 

Team functions. While virtually all of the functions of instructional data teams are performed by TBTs, Ohio TBTs are part of an aligned district-wide leadership team structure (see The Ohio Context). As such, Ohio TBTs do not develop goals independent of their district's goals, but rather connect their work to the goals and strategies developed by the district and the related action steps established by their school. OLAC identified the "frequent use of collaboratively developed common formative classroom assessments to gauge student progress and guide instructional planning toward meeting district goals" as an essential leadership practice (Ohio's Leadership Development Framework, p. 22). Not only do TBTs gauge student progress, but also guide instructional planning at the team level toward meeting district goals.

 

Like data teams, Ohio TBTs serve to shift the focus from a single individual to a team of teachers that can function as a purposeful community. And, like data teams, Ohio TBTs are not book clubs, study groups, or traditional grade-level or departmental teams.

 

For data teams and TBTs to function effectively as designed, certain conditions need to be in place. An extensive review of research conducted by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (June 2010), identified characteristics of highly effective learning teams. Of particular note, the report found that highly effective teams do not function within dysfunctional schools. Instead, stable settings and strong leadership support are needed for the full benefit of data teams/teacher-based teams to be realized. Go to NCTAF at http://nctaf.org/research/research-papers/ for a copy of the report, Teaming Up for 21st Century Teaching & Learning.

 

Strengthening core instruction for all students. The work of Ohio TBTs focuses on strengthening the provision of effective core instruction to all children using a five-step process (see Structures & Processes to Support Effective TBTs) that involves collaboratively developing and administering standards-based formative assessments, developing and using common pre/post assessments aligned with units of study to continually assess progress and adjust the delivery of instruction, collaboratively analyzing student results, differentiating instruction to meet learner needs, and implementing interventions, when needed, to ensure student success.

 

Ohio TBT planning starts with all students and is designed to ensure that each child masters essential standards-based skills and concepts as defined by the district's core instructional program. A commitment to ensuring each child's success means that team members must establish and follow through on shared expectations in addressing the learning needs of all children through the delivery of strong core instruction to children who are above proficiency, at or close to proficiency, and below or far from proficiency, including those students who need additional and, at times, intensive supports to acquire essential skills/concepts.

 

Integral to developing shared expectations and following through on shared work, TBT members must:

         

  •  Establish clear learning objectives, aligned with the district instructional program, for what they want students to learn and be able to do;
  •   Identify how they'll know when each student has learned/acquired the skills being taught; and
  •  Determine how they'll respond when a student experiences difficulty.

 

Key components of effective core instruction, as described by Carolyn Denton in Classroom Reading Instruction That Supports Struggling Readers: Key Components for Effective Teaching (RTI Action Network, 2009, p. 2) involve:

 

  1. Teaching essential skills and strategies;
  2. Providing differentiated instruction based on assessment results and adapting instruction to meet students' needs;
  3. Providing explicit and systematic instruction with lots of practice - with and without teacher support and feedback, and including cumulative practice over time;
  4. Providing opportunities to apply skills and strategies in reading and writing meaningful text with teacher support; and
  5. Monitoring student progress regularly and re-teaching as necessary to be sure students learn the content (i.e., don't just "cover" critical content).

 

Elements of effective core instructional decision-making were operationalized by Iowa City Schools in 2008 as part of their work on Instructional Decision Making in Core Instruction. These elements included the use of evidence-based strategies for ensuring the use of curriculum and instructional approaches that have a high probability of success for most (i.e., about 80 percent) students, delivering instructional approaches with fidelity, and using instructional time efficiently and effectively. The use of available resources to teach ALL students was at the heart of the Iowa model, which encouraged an examination of the learning environment and the instruction being delivered, as well as the use of a multi-tiered model of service delivery.

 

Tiered service delivery models. A tiered delivery model has been used in Ohio districts and schools for several years as a strategy for reinforcing the need to provide strong core academic and behavioral instruction to all students, thereby reducing the number of students who need more targeted or intense interventions, while ensuring that each child receives the support he/she needs to access and progress through the general curriculum. Support for the use of tiered intervention to support academic and behavioral instruction for all learners was provided through the statewide Ohio Integrated Systems Model (OISM). That work, now integrated into the OIP, used a response to Response to Intervention (RtI) framework for identifying and addressing student instructional needs.

 

More recently, the national movement in support of Response to Intervention (RtI) provided added impetus to ensure that the instructional needs of individual children are first addressed through strong core instruction provided to all children. Defined by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2008, p. 1), RtI is "the practice of providing high quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and applying student response data to important educational decisions."

Whereas school buildings are the unit of change in RtI with district-level supports intended to reinforce building-level implementation, the OIP uses a district-wide process that aligns core work related to instruction and achievement across the district (i.e., in/across all classrooms within all schools within the district), thus embedding the systemic and systematic use of RtI practices as part of the OIP at the TBT level.

 

Torgesen (2007) notes that proper implementation of the RtI model requires strong instruction by regular classroom teachers coupled with effective interventions when they are needed, providing a "safety network" for children. Supplemental instruction/intervention is provided to students who need it in addition to - not in lieu of - the core instruction provided to all students.

 

In Response to Intervention Joins Data Teams (see Data Teams: The Big Picture - Looking at Data Teams Through a Collaborative Lens, Lead and Learn Press, 2010), Linda Gregg described the relationship between RtI and processes used by data teams. Characterizing RtI as a "dynamic complement to Data Teams," she noted that RtI and data teams should not be used as independent initiatives, but rather as "interdependent processes."  As part of the data team process, team members "should consider the importance of a strong Tier 1 program of high-quality, research-based instruction and differentiation to meet the needs of all students. Students who do not respond as expected to Tier 1 intervention strategies may require targeted interventions at Tier 2, and students who do not respond as expected in Tier 2 may require intensive interventions at Tier 3" (p. 62). 

 

RtI processes (i.e., giving a common assessment, analyzing results, grouping students by needs, providing intervention/enrichment, and re-assessing/evaluating), as described by Gregg, are subsumed within the Ohio TBT 5-Step Process (see Structures & Processes to Support Effective TBTs). In addition, Ohio TBTs address district goals and strategies, and building action steps for improving instruction and student learning for all students. As such, TBT members continually monitor student learning against indicators set at the district and school level, as well as the performance of each child and group of children (i.e., above proficiency, at or close to proficiency, below proficiency, far from proficiency) using collaboratively developed and administered common classroom formative assessments.

 

TBT members - through the collective, frequent, and ongoing use of formative data - address the instructional needs of all students, as well as each student's responsiveness to the instruction being delivered, paying special attention to the progress of students with disabilities and other students at higher risk for learning difficulties. At the same time, TBTs provide a forum for team members to share ideas, experiences, and methods, increasing the expertise of individual team members and the combined capacity of the team, school, and district to support higher levels of student learning.

 

For TBTs to function effectively, the DLT and BLTs must make the work of TBTs a priority for the district, set clear expectations and requirements for how TBTs should operate, and provide the necessary supports and direction over time. See Implications for DLTs and BLTs for additional information about the role of the district and its schools in supporting TBTs.

 

P. 6-- TBT Membership

Every teacher should be a member of one or more TBTs. While TBTs are most often comprised of teachers and other education professionals who teach the same grade or content area, there are variations in TBT membership depending on the level and size of the school. At the elementary level, for example, TBTs may exist at each grade level assuming there are multiple teachers at each grade, or at grade ranges (e.g., K-2, 3-5). At the secondary level, TBTs may be organized around content areas (e.g., biological science) and/or departmental structures (e.g., Science Department). TBTs might also be structured vertically across grade levels or disciplines to provide for greater continuity of focus in the instruction being delivered.

 

Regardless of the particular structure used to support TBTs, intervention specialists assigned to support the delivery of instruction to students with disabilities should be regular members of the team. Other individuals who deliver or support the delivery of instruction may also be represented on TBTs and might include early childhood teachers, representatives from community preschool programs (e.g., Head Start, child care providers); literacy and math coaches; Title I instructors, teachers of English Language Learner (ELLs); art, music, and physical education teachers; and others (e.g., school counselors, related services specialists such as school psychologists and occupational/physical therapists).

 

A variety of teams usually exists in most schools, many of which use their team time to plan events (e.g., Fall Festival); discuss administrative issues, policies, or procedures; and arrange schedules or calendars. For TBT members to learn from each other in ways that improve the collective instructional practice of the group, a singular focus on improving teaching and learning must guide the work of the team.

 

See Structures & Processes to Support Effective TBTs for information and suggestions for defining roles and responsibilities, finding time for TBTs, and the use of Ohio's structured 5-Step Process.

 

P. 7-- Structures and Processes to Support Effective TBTs 

Defined roles and responsibilities and formalized structures assist TBTs in making the best use of available time, supporting the development of a collaborative culture where team members rely on established processes to:

 

  •  Facilitate effective data review;
  •  Promote constructive dialogue about effective instructional practice;
  •  Monitor the implementation of agreed-on strategies and actions; and
  •  Evaluate the effects of the implementation of shared work on student performance.

 

Roles & Responsibilities. Defining the roles and responsibilities of TBT members is an important first step that fosters a common understanding among team members of the individual functions they serve and the collective work of the team. Such roles, which may rotate among team members, include serving as the team data organizer, timekeeper, focus monitor, and recorder.

 

The TBT chair/co-chair serves a critical role. According to McNulty and Besser (2011), the team leader should be someone who is data literate, respected by peers/colleagues as an instructional leader, and believes he/she can affect change. These characteristics remain the same, regardless of the nature of the team (e.g., content area team, grade-level team). Investing in the professional development of TBT chairs/co-chairs, as well as all members of the team, is essential for effective functioning of all teams.

 

As important as the functions served through specialized roles is the role common to all team members of being an engaged contributing member of the team, one who asks relevant questions and actively listens while respecting the norms and processes of the team, and following through on team decisions. In the Wisdom of Crowds (see Setting the Stage - The What & Why of TBTs), Surowiecki identifies four attributes of team composition that contribute to deeper, more fruitful discussion through the diversity of opinion, strengths, and backgrounds that individual team members bring to the group. At the same time, these differences result in a more robust collective decision when there are structures and processes used to support shared decision making.

 

Scheduling Time. Equally important as supporting the development of team members (see Implications for DLTs and BLTs) is making time for frequent TBT meetings. Making the work of TBTs a priority means scheduling regular team meetings and establishing a calendar that outlines meeting dates and times well in advance. Teams should meet no less than every three weeks and, ideally, at least every two weeks; the more frequently teams meet, the better results they get (McNulty & Besser, 2011).

Involving teachers and teacher union/association leadership in developing TBT meeting schedules will increase the likelihood of joint teacher leader/administrator support for the work of the teams, sending a clear message that team time is a priority and should be used productively and in accordance with established processes.

 

A variety of creative strategies have been used by districts and schools to schedule regular and frequent TBT meetings, including designating regular delayed-start or early-release days; using teacher planning time; using traditional professional development days/blocks and breaking that time into designated hours for team meetings; eliminating staff meetings by conducting administrative business via email and using the staff meeting time for TBT meetings; using electives/specials classes times for TBT meetings; providing release time for teachers by having their classes taught or covered by administrators, specialist teachers, or student teachers; and/or paying teachers for team time after school (McNulty & Besser, 2011, p. 156-157).

 

Additional strategies for modifying schedules and/or sharing resources to create additional TBT meeting time are noted in Implementing Teacher-Based Teams (OIP Resources, September 2010) and include:

 

  •  Using block scheduling to provide additional flexibility for building in team meeting time;
  •  Merging classes for common activities (e.g., assemblies, films) with fewer adults assigned to supervise students;
  •  Schedule a common planning time per week for all teachers at a given grade level;
  •  Schedule back-to-back sessions where teachers are released on a scheduled basis;
  •  Lengthen the student lunch hour and build in more time for collaborative teams;
  •  Rotate several substitute teachers through the building and/or use substitute teachers to provide lessons with paraprofessionals providing small group/individual support;
  •  Organize shared classes where one team takes responsibility for teaching an entire grade or course so the members of the other team can meet; and
  •  Establish linkages with colleges/universities to provide opportunities for student teachers or clinical faculty to cover class time, allowing more time for teachers to meet.

 

Structures Increase Productivity. Using established protocols to support effective collaborationhelps all teams, and particularly those that are newly formed, stay focused on teaching and learning, and use their time well. Protocols, as used in the OIP Facilitator's Guide (2010), consist of agreed upon guidelines that facilitate in-depth, insightful conversations about teaching and learning.

 

The National School Reform Faculty (NSRF), a professional development initiative that focuses on increasing student achievement through professional learning communities called Critical Friends Groups (CFGs), also supports the use of protocols to facilitate meaningful and efficient communication, problem solving and learning. According to NSFR, Critical Friendship is best achieved through applying protocols, structured ways to work and communicate that promote adult growth and are directly linked to student learning (www.nsrfharmony.org).

 

Garmston and Welch (2007) described how the use of a results-oriented agenda template helped team members at the International School Bangkok refocus their energy on teaching and learning. Prior to the use of agenda templates, which served as protocols for guiding team discussion, groups spent more than 60% of their time on administrative issues, rather than on discussion of instructional practice.

 

A TBT agenda template, similar to the one described by Garmston and Welch (2007), sets the stage for the identification of meeting outcomes focused on results. The team uses the agenda template to clearly articulate the relationship between the meeting outcomes and the specific strategies and indicators being addressed by the school and district, and to provide written documentation of the decisions made by the team, including task assignments and associated timelines for following up on decisions made. Use of a common agenda template across TBTs within all schools in the district provides for a consistent way to gauge how teams are functioning and to monitor implementation of agreed-upon work.

 

The TBT 5-Step Process Meeting Agenda and Minutes Template, available as part of the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP) Resources developed through the Ohio Department of Education, provides a structured template for TBTs to use that is directly aligned with the 5-step process. Click here for a copy of this template.

 

Surgeon and writer Atul Gawande (2009) described the power of using ordinary checklists in various professions, such as medicine, investment banking, aviation, and disaster response in his work, Checklist Manifesto. Unlike longer training and advanced technology, checklists, according to Gawande, help professionals deal with increasingly complex tasks, allowing them to make immediate improvements that prevent errors and save time and money.

 

Applying Protocols: Using Ohio's 5-Step Process. The 5-step process developed as part of Ohio's OIP-OLAC work is a protocol for anchoring the work of Ohio TBTs. The steps, which are repeated on an ongoing basis, include:

 

  •  Collecting and charting relevant data;
  •  Analyzing student work specific to the data;
  •  Establishing shared expectations for implementing specific effective changes in the classroom;
  •  Implementing changes consistently across all classrooms; and
  •  Collecting, charting, and analyzing post data.

 

Step 1: Collect and chart data. In collecting and charting data at Step 1, it is important for TBT members to use common reporting forms in gathering the formative assessment data to be reviewed by the team. To that end, team members agree on the specific data that should be brought in a common summary form to the TBT meetings. Such data might include the results of teacher-created assessment, end-of-unit assessments, commercial assessments, and/or curriculum-based measurement (CBM). The team compiles the data - following the administration of common formative assessment  - for all students as well as for subgroups of students (e.g., students receiving special education services, students identified as economically disadvantaged, students identified as gifted/talented). In addition to student performance data aligned with the particular learning target(s) being assessed, the team also reviews a summary of adult implementation data provided by the BLT.

Using step 1 of the TBT protocol, team members identify the number and names of students that: (a) have mastered the content being assessed and need enriched learning activities, (b) are proficient on the content assessed and could use reinforcement to reach mastery, (c) need additional supports to reach proficiency on the content assessed, and (d) need a greater level of support through the use of intensive interventions and additional time to reach proficiency. This information is needed for team members to efficiently and effectively address Step 2 of the process.

 

Step 2: Analyze strengths and obstacles. At Step 2, TBT members analyze questions from common assessment by identifying strengths (e.g., by identifying the three highest scoring questions in a teacher's class), identifying obstacles (e.g., the three lowest scoring questions), and prioritizing student needs across four levels: advanced, benchmarked, targeted, intensive (see Step 1/page 1 of TBT protocol). The assessment questions used should be formative in nature, providing insight into students' thinking processes and why they chose a specific answer. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses includes identifying patterns related to common errors, misconceptions about concepts/skills, urgent needs, and trends in student responses, including patterns related to subgroups of students. Following this review, team members prioritize needs that must be addressed at Steps 3 and 4.

 

Step 3: Establish shared expectations for implementing specific effective changes in the classroom. At Step 3, TBT members identify learner-centered problems of understanding that appear to be common to many students. A pre-requisite to this step is having a good understanding of what the target skill or behavior looks like when demonstrated by the student. In other words, team members should be able to articulate what they want each student to learn and how they want each student to behave, and how they will know when students have learned/acquired the skill/behavior.

Team members should also be able to describe how they will respond when students experience difficulty in learning the target skill/behavior.

 

At Step 3, TBT members determine the appropriate instructional strategies shown most effective addressing student needs. They discuss their experiences in using particular strategies, sharing materials and ideas, and make decisions about the:

 

  1. Delivery method(s), including co-teaching models, that will best support the chosen instructional strategies the team will use;
  2. Differentiated instructional strategies that will be used to support all students in acquiring common core knowledge/skills;
  3. Intervention/enrichment strategies that will be used to supplement core instruction;
  4. Duration and frequency of instruction (minutes/days/weeks) needed to address student needs;
  5. Additional training/modeling/coaching needed by team members to support their use of particular strategies; and the
  6. Type of post-assessment (i.e., following the use of agreed-on strategies) to be administered to students.

 

Step 4: Implement changes consistently across all classrooms. Following the decision-making process used at Step 3, TBT members agree to and follow through on the consistent implementation of instructional strategies that have been prioritized and learned by the team. Members commit to using agreed-on strategies in every classroom within a pre-determined time line that specifies how frequently the strategy will be used, as well as how much time will be spent during each implementation of the strategy.

At Step 4, TBT members might visit each other's classrooms, learning from each other and working toward a greater consistency and quality of implementation. At the same time, BLT members visit classrooms to identify exemplars that can be used to support ongoing and targeted professional development (PD) to all team members. District monitoring of the degree and effects of implementation of designated strategies through observation (e.g., walk-throughs, learning rounds, implementation audits) and the review of BLT and TBT data further assist in differentiating PD to support consistent, high-level implementation and ongoing learning across the district. More information on DLT-BLT-TBT feedback loops is provided in Cyclical Communication to Support System Learning.

 

Step 5: Collect, chart, and analyze post data. At Step 5, team members administer a post-assessment to determine student progress following team implementation of the agreed-on strategies. The team honestly considers the level of implementation of such strategies to determine whether strategies were fully or partially implemented, or not implemented at all, understanding that a high level of implementation (i.e., about 90%) is needed for improvements to be made.

 

The needs of individual students are discussed and their level of progress determined using pre- and post-test data. Team members identify successes and obstacles, and develop recommendations for the continuation of the strategy being implemented, the adaptation of the strategy, or the elimination of the strategy in favor of an alternate approach. In analyzing post data, team members also identify classrooms where there was greater student progress, investigating potential causes for such differences, as well as implications for the continuing work of the team.

 

Ongoing Learning. As the name suggests, the 5-Step Process is not an event, but rather a process that is used to structure the ongoing work and learning of TBTs, and provide for district-wide implementation of strategies related to adult professional practice and student learning. It is a process that is repeated, not completed.

Rubrics offer an explicit set of criteria for assessing the work or performance of the team and can assist TBT, BLT, and DLT members by providing valuable feedback on areas of team performance and the effects of that performance on organizational and student learning. The TBT 5-Step Process Rubric for Self-Assessment and Monitoring can be used by teams to benchmark their performance across each step aligned with the Ohio 5-Step Process, gauging critical practices across a continuum from "beginning" to "exemplary." This rubric can be used by DLTs/BLTs to determine which TBTs require additional support and/or professional development, and to identify TBTs that are effectively implementing the 5-Step Process so that such practice can be replicated within a building and across the district.

 

Another rubric, the Assessing Teacher-Based Team Effectiveness Checklist, can be used by the TBT, or by the DLT or BLT, to evaluate the degree to which TBTs are performing across important areas such as data use, decision making, communication, clarity of roles, and others.  Using a four-point scale, TBTs are rated (or rate themselves) across 34 items within eight dimensions, resulting in a score that can be used for team reflection, discussion, and improvement.

Requiring the use of a consistent set of protocols and rubrics, as well as a common process, is an important role of the district and its schools in operating as a learning organization. See Implications for DLTs and BLTs for more information.

 

P. 8-- Implications for DLTs and BLTs 

 

Implementing the consistent use of highly effective collaborative teams across the system is a district strategy that should be undertaken in an intentional and focused way with clearly articulated expectations and supports. As noted in The Ohio Context, shared accountability and leadership for improved student learning are operationalized through the use of an aligned leadership team structure involving district leadership teams (DLTs), building leadership teams (BLTs), and teacher-based teams (TBTs). When implementing such a model, districts should attend to six conditions that support the effective use of TBTs, as well as BLTs and the DLT. These include:

 

  •  Preparing to work collaboratively by deepening a culture of inquiry;
  •  Creating schedules and routines for teams;
  •  Making meetings purposeful; and
  •  Communicating plan indicators and providing data.

 

Role of the DLT and BLTs. The district must define what and how often adult implementation and student performance data will be collected from and provided to teams. To that end, the district or building leadership teams establish the schedule for TBTs to use in reporting on progress. Open and honest discussion about what is and is not working in terms of reaching district goals is the foundation for a culture that supports continuous learning and growth of both adults and students. In communicating expectations across the district, it is critical for administrators and teachers in leadership positions to establish a climate of trust through their actions and the messages they send. Following through on commitments must be a priority at the district and school level if the work of TBTs is to be valued and validated.

All staff members should understand the importance of using data as feedback for continuous learning and improvement, not as punishment for or evaluation of individual performance.

 

Balancing accountability and support. Like the 5-Step Process described in Structures & Processes to Support Effective TBTs, a variety of protocols can be used by the DLT and BLTs to increase the level of consistency and alignment of the work across the district, and the likelihood that teachers will learn from each other. The use of protocols, checklists, and rubrics (e.g., Implementation Effectiveness Survey: Conditions to Support Successful Collaborative Teams - BLT and DLT/CSLT versions) can aid BLTs and the DLT in attending to important aspects of effective TBT team functioning, such as forming or repurposing existing groups to function as TBTs.

Sample sections of the Implementation Effectiveness Surveys are provided in this module. Note that excerpts are provided, rather than the full rubric. Click on the following links for downloadable versions of the full rubrics at the DLT/CSLT and BLT levels.

 

The DLT and BLTs should consider the ways in which they're supporting TBTs in key areas, such as data use (e.g., to what degree do TBTs and all members have ready access to data and information consistent with the district goals and strategies, and school-level action steps, as identified in the district and school plans?). The DLT and BLTs can support TBTs by modeling the effective use of the 5-Step Process and supporting TBTs by being clear about roles, responsibilities, and participation; effectively supporting individual TBTs that need additional assistance; and addressing underperforming teams in helpful ways.

 

School/BLT role. At the school level, the work of TBTs must be made a priority, with the resources required for effective functioning and follow through provided. Making TBTs the priority may require the elimination of other selected initiatives or team activities, and the corresponding repurposing of already-established groups to focus on instructional improvement and the learning of all students. As TBTs are formed, the relationship to the BLT should be clearly articulated to all faculty and staff. The primary job of the BLT is to monitor the work of TBTs, making clear the requirements for team functioning (e.g., roles and responsibilities, use of time, reporting data to the BLT) and, at the same time, identifying and providing the supports (e.g., PD, coaching, additional time for peer observation, etc.) needed by TBT members to learn and improve.

District/DLT role. Meredith Honig and Michael Copland (2010, 2008), in their work on how central office can directly support district-wide teaching and learning, assert that district-wide improvements in teaching and learning do not happen without substantial engagement by the central office in helping all schools build their capacity for improvement. They offer the following key questions for district central office leadership to consider if their goal is to more meaningfully support learning improvements across the district:

 

  •  Are we adequately investing in our people within the central office to forge the kinds of new school-partnership relationships that seem fundamental to district-wide learning improvements?
  •  Are we reinforcing those partnership relationships with new work structures and accountability systems that promise to seed and grow learning improvements? 
  •  Are we providing our central office administrators with the resources and freedom to invent new ways of participating in learning support? 
  •  re we engaged in strategic partnerships with external organizations not only to provide knowledge and other resources to schools but also to bolster the work of central office reinvention? (Honig & Copland, September 2008, p. 8).

 

In addition to the DLT/CSLT and BLT Implementation Effectiveness surveys, district and building teams can use the TBT Conditions and Next Steps Inventory to gauge TBT effectiveness across the district, taking action to support TBTs that may need more support and assistance, while identifying effective TBT practices that should be in place across all schools within the district. Click here for a downloadable version of the full TBT Conditions and Next Steps Inventory.

 

In the report Central Office Transformation for District-wide Teaching & Learning Improvement (Honig, et al., April 2010), provide examples of urban districts that have changed the role of central office personnel to better support teaching and learning. Commissioned by The Wallace Foundation, the report lends additional support for the reorganization or reculturing of central office functions.

 

Facilitating interactions among networks of principals, coaches, or central office staff engaged in similar work; creating one-stop shopping systems for school principals to get the help they need with management issues; and giving visible support to staff occupying new and unfamiliar positions are among the strategies highlighted.

Realigning central office work (i.e., the work of individuals responsible for special education; curriculum, instruction, and assessment; federal programs; and other areas) to support instructional improvement, with effective implementation of TBTs as a top priority, is an important part of supporting continuous learning and improvement. Implementation task lists are helpful at the district level, just as they are at the school and TBT levels, for assessing district actions and their effects over time.

 

Districts demonstrate through the actions of central office personnel, the priorities they set, and the ways in which resources are used to support principals, BLTs, and TBTs. MacIver and Farley-Ripple (2008) found that "central office administrators are crucial in the school improvement process" (p. 8).

 

If central office personnel are working in isolation, providing conflicting directives and/or reinforcing competing priorities to schools, the progress of the entire district is negatively affected. The use of an aligned leadership team model to prioritize and focus the work across the district, and to monitor implementation and evaluate its effects, offers an effective way for districts to maintain a strong and unified focus on improving instruction.

 

P. 9-- Cyclical Communication to Support System Learning 

 

Districts committed to continuous improvement must frequently assess their progress in creating the kind of system that uses collaborative learning to improve adult professional practice and achievement for all students and student groups. Of primary importance for districts implementing the OLAC-OIP model is establishing the appropriate communication and feedback loops needed for effective decision making over time. Identifying the data and information needed to ensure that the DLT, BLTs, and TBTs are working together, determining how those data and information are shared and used between and among teams, and taking necessary action to address performance problems and replicate successes are critical steps in supporting system learning.

 

In Implications for DLTs and BLTs, conditions for supporting the effective use of TBTs were described. Condition D. involves communicating the plan through the ongoing use of relevant data aligned with district/school plans. The district must define what and how often adult implementation and student performance data will be collected from and provided to teams, specifying what the BLT needs to provide to and receive from TBTs, and what the DLT needs to provide to and receive from BLTs.

 

This two-way communication facilitates what McNulty and Besser (2011) describe as top-down and bottom-up learning. While there are many school improvement approaches, the most effective model involves collectively learning to use more effective research-based instructional strategies and simultaneously learning to be an effective data-based team member (McNulty & Besser, 2011, p. 24).

 

Top-down and bottom-up learning. Top-down learning focuses on supporting teachers as they learn specific teaching practices identified for district-wide implementation (e.g., use of clear learning outcomes, strategies associated with the district's literacy or math plan). In top-down learning, the district needs to ask three questions:

 

  •  What teaching or instructional practices should we all focus on to learn together?
  •  How well can we, or do we, implement and learn the practices? 
  •  Do the instructional practices make a difference in student learning?

 

As important as learning new strategies, teachers need to know how and in what context to use them. To that end, it's important for districts to develop an instructional framework that can be used to create a common understanding for what constitutes high-quality, effective practice. A focus on specific teaching strategies - organized within the district's instructional framework - supports consistency in implementation of identified strategies across the system.

 

In addition to helping teachers learn to implement new and more powerful instructional strategies, TBTs provide for bottom-up learning to occur. Bottom-up learning is described by McNulty and Besser (2011) as "ongoing, powerful collective learning" (p. 27). Using an aligned leadership team structure (i.e., DLT-BLTs-TBTs) provides a forum for groups of adults at all levels of the system to examine their individual and collective practice, identify ways to improve it, and learn together.

 

Effective data use facilitates communication and learning. According to McNulty and Besser (2011), BLTs and the DLT need to review two types of data in gauging the implementation and effect of agreed-on instructional strategies (i.e., top-down strategies). Implementation data should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to determine how well improvement strategies are being implemented. A variety of data sources (e.g., walk-throughs, reviews of work samples, lesson plans) can be used and data collected using rubrics or checklists. At the same time, effectiveness data (i.e., data that are reviewed to determine the effectiveness of implemented strategies on student performance) should be reviewed regularly using common formative assessments, quarterly or end-of-unit benchmark common assessments, and/or other data collected by the district.

In addition to reviewing data on top-down strategies, data on the effectiveness of TBTs (i.e., bottom-up strategies), also needs to be regularly collected and reviewed by BLTs. TBT meeting summaries, common assessment data, and documentation of the specific instructional strategies identified by TBTs, and data from the TBT Effectiveness Checklist and other similar rubrics/checklists provide sources of data for the BLT to use in assessing the effectiveness of TBTs.

 

General guidelines for developing formative assessments, offered in Ohio Improvement Process (OIP): Facilitating District-wide Improvement in Instructional Practice and Student Performance (February 2012), include the following steps:

 

  •  Select a topic to assess with a common formative assessment considering those topics identified in the district/school plan;
  •  Locate the standards that match the selected topic by grade level/course, defining the important concepts and focal skills/sub-skills;
  •  Write questions/items that are matched to the important concepts and focal skills/sub-skills in order to focus instruction and assessment;
  •  Design in collaborative teams the pre-and post-assessments, including selected (forced choice) and constructed response items;
  •  Create the scoring instruments (e.g., rubrics, multiple choice) ensuring the questions/items will provide data specific to the student performance indicators;
  •  Administer and score pre-assessments;
  •  Analyze results in collaborative teams;
  •  Use results to differentiate classroom instruction and provide appropriate interventions;
  •  Administer and score post-assessments; and
  •  Analyze results in collaborative teams and revise strategy, if needed.

 

Decisions about when to gather and submit data need to be made to facilitate DLT-BLT-TBT communication. Expectations for how frequently  data should be collected at each level (i.e., district, school, teacher team) and the ways in which such data should be submitted and to whom must be clearly articulated.

 

Communication between TBTs and their BLT. TBTs provide data to their BLT using a template provided by the DLT. BLTs, in turn, collect similar data from each TBT, aggregating it into a chart or form that can be used by the team to analyze results across the school and identify the level of progress being made in various grades or content areas. A report from each BLT is submitted and reviewed by the DLT. As noted above, the BLT might also gather and review TBT meeting minutes and lesson plans to determine the degree to which the TBT is meeting according to the established schedule, including all team members, following the Ohio 5-Step Process as prescribed from the district, and implementing district and/or school formative assessments at the appropriate time. In addition to reporting to the DLT, the BLT also provides feedback to individual TBTs, and communicates results to team members as well as all school faculty and staff.

 

Communication between BLTs and their DLT. In reporting to the DLT, BLTs can identify the format that makes the most sense to the team. Quarterly electronic submission is desirable to allow for action to be taken in a more timely manner if issues arise that need to be addressed. In submitting relevant data on the progress of the school's TBTs to the DLT, the BLT should include:

 

  •  The name of the school
  •  The date/monitoring period
  •  The plan focus area/goal/strategy(ies) being assessed
  •  A description of changes identified/to be implemented (during the monitoring period)
  •  The adult implementation indicator(s) progress by grade level (pre and post results)
  •  The student performance indicator(s) progress by grade level (number of students assessed by proficiency level (pre and post results)
  •  A summary narrative of findings with explanation of irregularities or variation in the data and how the BLT knew they were/were not implemented
  •  A summary of changes made - successes, obstacles, failures
  •  The building plan action steps that need to be revised, if any 

 

Copies of TBT agendas and minutes from meetings during this monitoring period may be attached to the report to illustrate a point.  The DLT will also want to know how student achievement is progressing for the school as a whole and what, if any, support is requested of the DLT. To that end, DLTs may provide common web-based and/or paper templates for recording monitoring data from BLTs for both student performance and adult implementation data, and prescribe reporting schedules (e.g., monthly) for all schools in the district. Click here to see the Recording and Reporting Monitoring Data Template: BLT to DLT as an example of a template that can be used to facilitate BLT-DLT communication.

Collecting common data in a consistent format allows the DLT to compare progress across schools, create graphs showing similarities or differences between schools, grade levels within schools, and specific groups of students.

 

DLTs might also require each BLT to submit an annual performance report that includes:

 

  1. Identifying information (name, student and teacher disaggregated data, and total population enrollment, staff attendance, etc.);
  2. Results on state assessment (proficiency levels by grade/subject across multiple years);
  3. Results on district assessments (proficiency levels by grade/subject across multiple years);
  4. Attendance rates;
  5. Promotion/retention rates;
  6. Teacher preparation/qualification data (licensed, certified, endorsements, professional development);
  7. Learning environment data (teacher, parent and student survey results, discipline incidents);
  8. Parent/business/community engagement data (volunteers, parent contacts regarding students, professional development for parents, outreach efforts);
  9. Plan indicator progress data (pre/post over multiple years);
  10. Narrative (to provide opportunity for other school-specific information).

Source: Ohio Improvement Process (OIP): Facilitating the District-wide Improvement of Instructional Practice and Student Performance (February 2012).

 

 

In addition to regular reporting from BLTs, the DLT may, at times, conduct observations of all classrooms in all buildings for a specific purpose, such as to monitor implementation of a specific strategy (e.g., use of graphic organizers). Such data would be collected and aggregated by grade level and school, and provided to the BLT for follow up action, as needed. Academic reviews of specific schools within the district is another form of monitoring implementation of the work of TBTs. The DLT may group schools by need based on a review of the data and visit particular schools more often than others.

For example, the Norfolk (VA) Public Schools' district team conducted full academic reviews, including bimonthly DLT visits, of Tier 1 schools, while Tier 2 schools received monthly visits. In large districts, this may be a useful way to target support based on the needs of schools. The Norfolk district team used a process to identify an academic content area (i.e., reading, math, science) for review. During the review, the district team met with the BLT, allowing the school to provide an overview and discuss logistics. The district team, using a pre-identified focus question, visited classrooms to observe students, teachers and/or student work.  Criteria for developing focused questions included using specific and clear wording, ensuring that questions would guide information or data collection, relate to something that could be addressed, and were meaningful and worthwhile.

 

In discussing its findings, the district team answered four questions and provides its summary information in response to these questions to the BLT that was reviewed:

 

  1. What evidence did you find to support the focus question?
  2. What evidence was not available to support the focus question?
  3. What would you suggest to student or adult learning related to the focus question?
  4. Are there any other suggestion related to the question?

 

The DLT, after providing its summary information to the BLT, asks the BLT to respond to the following questions:

 

  1. What have you learned from the feedback (strengths/opportunities)?
  2. What action will you take based on the feedback (brainstorming/reflection)?
  3. What additional support or resources do you need from the DLT?
  4. How will you share this information with the TBTs and continue the reflection/dialogue process?
  5. What changes will you make to the way in which you are monitoring TBTs and/or your building plan?

 

Promoting systemic and systematic implementation. As noted above, ensuring the systematic and systemic implementation of TBTs across the district is the responsibility of the DLT. Implementation task lists, such as the one created by regional providers in supporting DLTs to effectively use the OIP, can be extremely helpful in providing a framework for monitoring TBT implementation across the district. Effective and appropriate leadership, setting and reinforcing clear expectations for participation and performance, having clear roles and responsibilities, and ensuring timely and accessible data at all levels are critical tasks for the DLT in fostering the development of a culture of inquiry.

 

In managing data, the district must make the establishment of an accurate, relevant, and usable data/information system that includes student-specific information derived from a variety of sources including: state, district-wide, building-wide, and classroom assessments.  Overall results by content area are not sufficient to identify patterns and trends in student responses. In addition to total scores (e.g., reading), data on how students perform in skill-specific strands (e.g., reading comprehension) aligned with the common core state standards are needed. Non-academic area data, such as discipline data, attendance and graduation data, and mobility data; teacher data (e.g., teacher attendance, teacher turnover); and data from families and the community are also valuable to the team.

 

Districts that function as learning organizations continually evaluate the effects of the collective work of adults on student learning, and take action to address problems and replicate successes. Such districts understand that when adults in the system are learning, the students are also learning.

 

Progress Monitoring & Ongoing Evaluation. The DLT plays a pivotal role in setting the stage for continuous improvement by putting in place consistent processes for collecting, obtaining, interpreting, and communicating relevant data and information on student performance and adult implementation indicators, as well as the implementation of plan strategies and actions, including the implementation of PD. DLTs, in supporting learning across the TBT/BLT continuum, constantly ask and answer: "What did we learn related to our own/team's adult practice?" and "What did we do with that learning?"

 

This ongoing process of learning and taking action to make and sustain improvements based on that learning involves annual summative evaluation of progress made. The OIP Progress Monitoring & Ongoing Evaluation chart outlines the monitoring and evaluation functions teams should undertake to support continuous inquiry and learning.

 

P. 10-- Conclusion

This module provides a rationale for the development of teacher-based teams that function as part of a district-wide aligned leadership team structure used by districts to focus core work around instruction and achievement and fully implement that work across all classrooms within all schools within the district.

 

Requiring the use of a consistent set of protocols and rubrics, as well as a common process, is an important role of the district and its schools in operating as a learning organization - an organization that continually evaluates the effects of its core work on changes in adult professional practice and student learning, makes necessary adaptations or changes, and builds capacity at all levels of the system to make and sustain improvements.

 

Information and additional sample resources (e.g., templates, rubrics) are provided to give readers a foundational understanding of the purpose of TBTs, TBT membership, and structures and processes to support effective TBT functioning as part of Ohio's statewide improvement model - the Ohio Improvement Process (OIP). The Ohio context supporting TBT implementation, including related implications for DLTs and BLTs, is described, as are suggestions for supporting effective and ongoing communication between and across all levels (i.e., district, school, teacher team).

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.