Over the past several years we have facilitated or observed instructional improvement cycles with hundreds of teachers. This is a process that unfolds over the course of a couple weeks after each progress monitoring diagnostic, during which teachers are provided their current student outcomes, have time for personal reflection, meet one-on-one with their school leader, and problem solve with their grade-level team.
Through this experience, we have learned that when student outcomes are lower than teachers hoped, it elicits an emotional response. While reactions are unique to individuals, many follow a pattern that is reminiscent of the grieving process. Not the classical “5 stages” exactly, but something similar.
It usually begins with denial. Most humans, when confronted with evidence that paints a less desirable picture of their performance than what they believed to be true, have an initial instinct to find fault with the evidence. We point out the flaws, poke holes, point to other data sources, anything to deflect from confronting the reality before us. This is a healthy first response, I think. We should question where data comes from, how it was compiled, and whether it’s reliable. But there is a real danger in remaining in this stage for too long. After working through some of the data validity questions, we often will ask the teacher to set aside their doubts for a moment and consider what it means if the outcomes are real. “What if this was the situation in your classroom? Would you want to do something about it?”
This kind of imagining tends to pull them into the next stage, which is anger. Usually, it takes the form of righteous indignation, often directed at us, the messengers. “Do you know how hard I work already? What more do you want from me?!”
Blame tends to follow quickly on the heels of anger, and takes one of two forms:
1) The results are due to a million reasons that have nothing to do with my instruction (e.g., “This is because the second-grade teacher didn’t do her job last year.” Or “The new curriculum is terrible.” Or “If you knew the kinds of situations my kids are dealing with at home.”)
2) The results are totally my fault. (e.g., “I obviously don’t know how to teach.” Or “I’ve failed my kids.”)
The good thing about this stage is it implies acceptance of the data, a step in the right direction. And it provides an opportunity to reinforce that their student outcomes are not an indictment of them as people, but an invitation to reflect on practice.
If you are going to present teachers with clear evidence that most students in their classrooms are not growing quickly enough, you have to be willing to stick with them through this part. It can be hard to stomach. But, when we can get people to show themselves some grace…to see the opportunity to improve—not to work harder, but differently—now we’re talking. This is when true reflection and finding meaning (to borrow from David Kessler) begins.
At this point, and not a moment sooner, we encourage teachers to talk out loud with their teams about their Tier 1 instruction (i.e., the grade-level standards, content, tasks and interactions all students encounter routinely). What does it look like? Who is responding best, and why? Who is not well served by the approach, and why? Were results different last year than this year? Why might that be? What else is different?
This is the fun part. So often, there are aha moments and ideas for small tweaks that bubble to the surface, things the teacher can commit to trying the next day. Other times, the problems are more nuanced, and the changes needed are unclear. Often, the best next step is to schedule a time to watch and learn from other teachers who have better results under similar circumstances.
Confronting and reflecting on what the data suggest about the quality of our work requires vulnerability and should be approached with a large measure of humanity. But we can’t let the discomfort keep us from identifying opportunities to better serve our students. The goal for any leader when providing student outcomes data to teachers should be to elicit meaningful insights that lead to action. To this end, we coach principals to help teachers land on specific answers to three questions—
- What do you know now that you didn’t know before you wrestled with your latest outcomes?
- What are (or will you be) doing about it? (Just one or two things, not a 64-point plan!)
- What support do you need?
To learn more about how K12 Lift prepares leaders to facilitate instructional improvement cycles that empower teachers, click here.
Read Next: Practicing the Art of the Data Chat
