Bernice

Johnson hung up the phone. She had just told the parent of one of her third grade students that it was 8:30 a.m.-- time to close her open office hours reserved for parents and greet the students as they entered school for the day. She laughed to herself, remembering how only last year she would joke that she felt like she walked around with a sign around her neck that read: Complain to me. The principal is always in! With the help of her Instructional Leadership Director (ILD), Brian Jones, she turned her calendar upside down. Last year, her calendar had her in classrooms, and otherwise working on teacher development, a small fraction of each month. Now she spends 60% of her time each week on activities such as observing the quality of classroom teaching, talking with teachers one-on-one and in small groups about the observation data and next steps, and supporting her team of teacher leaders in their leadership of teacher professional learning communities. During this time, she also strategizes with her human resources case manager about how to evolve her teaching staff so that all her teachers are the right fit for her and her school. She works with ILD Jones on improving her own practice in supporting teachers. Principal Johnson said she hopes to increase that time to 75% within the next year. She reflected:
Changing my calendar was tough. For years I have been putting out firesresponding to parents, finding out where is that facilities request I put in months ago, you know, but then there were other things like why was I spending 90 minutes a day or more on cafeteria and recess? Jones asked me some hard questions in my one-on-ones like, Why are you doing that? Who else can be on the yard to free you up for other things you need to do to move instruction in this school. I was like, I dont know. Which really bothered me. Thats not why I became a principal. I always thought Id be the principal who was all about my teachers. But then the phone rings and fires start. One thing leads to another and you are in your office dealing with this one student all day or whatever else.

Central Office Transformation Case Study Series Principal Johnson & Her Instructional Leadership Director

Johnson went on to explain that she realized she had to create a better team at her school. With no assistant principal, she operated as though she were a one-woman show. ILD Jones helped her build a team so she could focus on instruction. Now, the school secretary fields many phone calls, helps track down requisitions in the central office, and handles much of the budget management. The secretarys role as budget assistant is expanding thanks to a new
1

service provided by her central office that helps schools build out their technological and staffing infrastructure for budget and operational management. Principal Johnsons teacher leadership team meets twice a month to review various school data, to discuss how each member is doing with their leadership of their professional learning communities, and to help her monitor the quality of instruction. With the help of a neighborhood non-profit organization, screened and trained parent volunteers supervise during recesses and lunch. When we asked her to describe her relationship with ILD Jones, Principal Johnson said:
At first I wasnt sure about Jones. He wasnt a principal himself very long. But Ive had coaches before, you know, retired principals, that kind of thing. Jones really has the time to work with me on what I need to be a better leader. The others were good too but they would kind of drop in and give me some advice now and then. I see Jones at least once a week and we talk on the phone all the time. I dont think that man sleeps. He really understands our students. He keeps us focused on instruction, instruction, and instruction! He keeps me focused on the classrooms and the kids, which is his focus too. I never thought Id say this about someone from downtown but I look forward to his visits. We are in it together.

ILD Jones and Principal Johnson kicked off the last academic year with a series of intensive meetings focused on Johnsons use of evidence to inform her leadership. Jones brought to one of those conversations several sources of evidence: Johnsons teacher evaluation ratings, students growth scores on interim and end-of-year assessments, and his own classroom observations. Johnson had rated ninety percent of her teachers at the top of the teacher rating scale. But student performance data revealed that only half of her students were reading at grade level and that student achievement in mathematics was hovering just below the statewide average and not keeping pace with growth across the state. Jones and Johnson had hard conversations in those one-on-one meetings, with Jones pressing Johnson to consider the discrepancies between the teacher ratings and student growth. During their initial classroom observations, which they conducted together, Jones helped Johnson see that students were generally compliant but not learning at deep levels. Through these conversations, Jones and Johnson together identified sharpening Johnsons skills at observing mathematics instruction as an area for Johnsons growth and one that could help the school significantly strengthen the quality of teaching overall. The two developed a shared theory of action that if they could strengthen instruction in mathematics, that work with teachers could have carry-over effects to other subject areas. Jones too had mathematics content knowledge as a growth area for himself and viewed this focus as an opportunity for
2

him to build his own expertise in the process. They then together developed and implemented what Jones called a learning plan to put that focus into practice. For example, following the learning plan, Jones, Johnson, and a district math coach observed mathematics instruction together every other week. Early in the execution of the plan, the coach and Jones held intensive pre-observation discussions with Principal Johnson, talking through what they intended to model such as checking with students about their level of understanding of the task and watching how the teacher used questions to press for understanding. From these conversations, Johnson developed observation rubrics to help her notice and study the moves ILD Jones and the coach made in classrooms as well as the teacher and student moves. After each observation, they debriefed and discussed next steps for Jones to take with each teacher. Jones helped Principal Johnson develop a system for her classroom observation data. He based this system on one he used as an ILD to record and retrieve observational data on his principals. He then modeled for Johnson how to bring observation data into conversations with teachers and how to use that evidence to develop individual learning plans for each teacher. In addition, when Jones met with all 12 principals of his in their monthly learning network meetings, he strategically grouped Johnson with other principals more ably working with evidence to help her learn from her peers. This year, Jones and Principal Johnson decided that Johnson was ready for less hands-on assistance with observations and feedback. Now, Jones and Johnson conduct observations together once a month. Their current learning plan involves more intensive supports for Johnson on how she leads her teacher leaders in planning professional development using observation and other data. They also work closely with Principal Johnsons case manager from the Human Resources department. This new position within the district works in tandem with the ILDs. While the ILDs help principals develop the teachers they have, the HR case managers assist principals with the strategic movement of teachers in and out of their buildings. The HR case manager helps Principal Johnson ensure she has the right teachers given her schools needs, her capacity for teacher development, and other factors. We asked ILD Jones how he manages such intensive, hands-on work with his principals and how he keeps his focus on principal learning, especially when he also juggles the districts new principal evaluation system that includes over 30 elements. Jones explained that his superintendent is committed to each ILD having a manageable number of principals. With 12 principals, he could spend intensive time in each school weekly, though sometimes he varied his allocation of time depending on his principals individual learning plans. But, Jones added, he sometimes has to discipline the system. He said, Its constant, but if you are going to do

this work you have to be able to say Sorry, cant come to that meeting, be on that task force, because Im in schools with my principals doing the work. He described the principal evaluation system as very imperfect and reported:
All those elements. They are just unworkable. The rubric does identify important areas for growth. But from an adult learning perspective, you want to focus on a few key areas that we [the principal and I] agree on, knowing that going deep on those will have broader effects. So I keep my principals focused on their growth. Just doing my work supporting principals, I have enough data to fill out the evaluation paperwork. The principals and I discuss my write ups and their scores. But by then we are so deep in the work that they are just yeah, yeah. Theres no gotcha since we are talking all the time about how they are doing. The key is for principals learning to drive our work and to get the evaluation done along the way, instead of the other way around. You cant let the evaluation drive the work.
Facilitator Note: This case study has been developed to provide an example of a principal and Instructional Leadership Director working at a relatively high level of effectiveness, according to research conducted on such partnerships by the director and staff of the District Leadership Design Lab, located at the University of Washington College of Education. This case study is a composite picture of an ILD-principal relationship based on multiple research-based cases in which researchers found increases in principals reported and observed engagement in instructional leadership. We recommend facilitators use this case study to help central office staff and others deepen their understanding of such topics as: (1) The role of ILDs as master teachers of principal instructional leadership, (2) the principal-ILD relationship as a learning partnership, and (3) how other central office staff support the principal-ILD relationship. The Central Office Transformation Case Study Series is produced by the District Leadership Design Lab at the University of Washington (UW). The case, Principal Johnson & Her Instructional Leadership Director, was authored through a partnership between The Lab and the UW Center for Educational Leadership. Suggested citation: District Leadership Design Lab & The Center for Educational Leadership (2013, May 12). Principal Johnson & Her Instructional Leadership Director, Central Office Transformation Case Study Series. Seattle, WA: District Leadership Design Lab. 4