A “standards-based girl” is evaluated using a “standard” rubric.

I wouldn’t say we were excited, but we certainly understood this opportunity would be beneficial for our growth as educational leaders.  So although it was a Thursday night and we had a two hour 45 min class ahead of us, my fellow doctoral classmates and I settled in to hear the guest speaker for the evening.  The superintendent would be there by 5:30PM.

I sat in the front among my peers, a room full of aspiring leaders, eager for the opportunity to gain insight and experiences from the boss of the 9^th largest school district in Florida, one of the 50 largest districts in the nation.

Interesting fact: The average school district in the United States has 5.6 schools compared to the 100 largest school districts, which average 155.6 schools per district.

Translation: Dr. Nancy Graham, Superintendent of Lee County Schools, runs a huge organization and she has a ton of experience.

Unfortunately, what we got that evening was an hour and a half recollection of the superintendent’s life story told by her.

At one point she referred to herself as a “standards based girl”.  So, I thought I would evaluate her instructional practice for the evening against the standardized Danielson Rubric, a tool required by the district she leads.

As a former assistant principal in Lee County Schools, I used the Danielson Framework on a daily basis to evaluated teacher performance.

Interesting Fact: Lee County mandated the Danielson Framework to satisfy the rigorous evaluation model necessary to obtain large sums of money from the Race to the Top grant.

The rubric has 4 domains and countless subdomains you can see more of it here.

I chose domain 3.  This domain is worth double the evaluation points because it has to do with instruction, the essence of schooling according to this measure.  I used domain 3a-3c, as this part of the rubric was most applicable to her presentation.  However, if I were evaluating her all year, I would use the entire 10page rubric at some point.

Domain 3a – Communicating with Students (click the picture below for more detail)

Using this measure, I would say the superintendent falls somewhere between requires action and developing.  She did have a positive presence; she was funny and we were temporarily interested.  However, she did not go over any objectives or tell us what we would learn as a result of her story.

To be accomplished and even exemplary, more communication regarding objectives is needed.  She was given our Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for our class before she came in (to be fair, this is not enough time to prepare an effective lesson in my opinion).  However, teachers are often faced with similar, ‘fly by the seat of their pants’ situations when being evaluated.

Furthermore, to be exemplary the superintendent would have to effectively develop our understanding by explaining the importance of the SLOs.

For example, one of our SLOs is High Quality Instruction: 

Educational leaders model and evaluate the delivery of effective and innovative instruction aligned with theory, and ensuring that knowledge is accessible to all. Educational leaders build on prior knowledge, emphasize connections, and value high expectations for all.

Sorry to say, prior knowledge wasn’t used.  In fact, we were simply talked at for over an hour.

Evaluator Feedback: do a better job in modeling what you expect from your teachers and administrators. Perhaps tell us how your entire life story is relevant in making connections with real world experience.  Maybe ask us something about ourselves and then build on that prior knowledge.

Domain 3b – Using questioning and Discussion Techniques (click the picture below for more detail)

The superintendent would fall in the first column, requires action, because she never checked for understanding while talking at us for an hour and a half.

She took only one question on recess. My distinguished colleague, who asked the recess question, is passionate about the benefits of play.  Her son is currently in an elementary school where recess has been halted for all grades with the exception of kindergarten.

When the superintendent was asked about this she explained recess decisions were site-based, meaning the principal of that particular school was responsible for that dilemma.  I thought the circumvention of responsibility was an interesting response considering her entire speech up until that point was about what a great leader she is.

In terms of questioning techniques, the superintendent not only failed to check for understanding (see above rubric), she outright avoided questions altogether.  Many of us had questions ready for her and we were itching to ask. However, she acted oblivious to any raised hands.

I was going to ask about the amount of testing the district mandates that is not required by the state.  “Why is Lee County a test-obsessed district, testing far more than the feds or state require?” I wanted to ask her, “do you have a plan to scale back some of these tests taking up valuable instructional time and stressing out teachers and students?”

I sat politely and raised my hand. When the superintendent looked at me I thought she would call on me, but then she looked over at my professor.  At which point he said, “I would love for Dr. Graham to answer more questions, but I cannot take up any more of her time.” I thought to myself, take up her time? This woman just held us hostage for an hour and a half to tell us her entire life story.  But we’re taking up her time?

So my hand raised in the front row was avoided.  On the Danielson rubric, blatantly ignoring a raised hand, will land you in the requires action column.

Evaluator feedback: When the professor expressed he couldn’t take up any more of your time, interject and say, “that’s ok, I can take some questions. Considering I used up all the time talking about myself.  I am sure you all being doctoral students probably have some great policy questions to ask me. Ask away!”

Not only does that show leadership but you would also be using questioning and discussion techniques essential in promoting critical thinking and engagement..

Finally, Domain 3c – Engaging Students in Learning (click the picture below for more detail)

Although her speech could be loosely applied to our student learning outcomes (SLOs) she missed the boat in terms of being sensitive to our culture as indicated in the rubric above.

Our doctoral cohort culture is informed.  Not to sound obtuse, but we are grad students who regularly analyze complicated achievement data and make decisions base on that data.  Two days before she arrived, we ran regressions and correlations using standardized test data.  We interpreted descriptive statistics and other really complicated stuff (technical term).

I desperately wanted to ask about assessment, but wasn’t given the opportunity.

When testing came up in the recess question (there is no time for recess because there are tests to get ready for) Dr. Graham said and I quote, “This emphasis on testing was really the teachers’ doing.  When teachers started obsessing about the FCAT, that’s when all this stress about testing increased.  If you just teach the standards, you’re fine.  Stop worrying about the test.”

Evaluator feedback: If you have never taught during the age of accountability (Dr. Graham had already become an administrator by the time accountability had taken up such a large part of instructional practice) do not pass judgment on teachers who are “obsessed with the test”.

In addition, consider abandoning the, “I was born in…” approach and instead start with a conversation that will engage your audience. For example start with, “Tell me a little about yourselves and your leadership goals.”

Rather than seeking compliance from those who will be asking you for a job in the next six months, elicit engagement.

Final comments to all instructional leaders including myself:

Avoid being insulated as you rise to the top. Ditch the sound bites and political jargon.

When you surround yourself by yes people, it can cause you to be unaware of pressing issues and missed opportunities to engage those who understand your practice and craft.  Sometimes you need a mirror.

Rarely does opposition make its way into the cabinet or policy chambers of the Superintendent’s office of such a large organization. There are no mirrors.

Instead of telling people your life story, ask people about theirs.