Instructional Rounds
CFN 107 believes that if you want to improve learning, you have to improve teaching. As Michael Blanding, from the Harvard Graduate School of Education writes: "Outside of the teacher in a particular classroom, few people know much about what it going on inside that room. As a result, a school might have excellent teaching in one classroom, and lackluster teaching just next door. In part, that stems from a tradition of teacher autonomy, and in part, from a deeper separation of powers in the American education system: administrators who flee from the classroom are rewarded with higher social status and dramatically higher pay. The result is that most principals and superintendents lose touch with the classroom...
Elmore's efforts to change this began during his work in a New York City school district, where professional development for principals included spending time every day inside classrooms to re-familiarize themselves with the teaching environment. Each month, these principals would get together to talk about what they had seen and how they could improve quality of instruction in their schools. While the practice was helpful, it lacked a certain amount of rigor.
Elmore expanded this concept--similar to the medical rounds used in teaching hospitals--into a more formal practice of "instructional rounds" when asked to consult for a group of Connecticut superintendents who were meeting informally to talk about school performance. Since then, he and the other authors of the book have expanded the approach in different forms to the Cambridge, MA, district schools, as well as statewide in Ohio and Iowa.
The basic process of Instructional Rounds is relatively simple. A network of superintendents, principals, teachers, and central office staff agree to meet at regular intervals, usually monthly, each time at a different school. They spend the morning circulating around classrooms, observing the teaching and learning that takes place there. Then, in an afternoon meeting, they debrief what they have seen. To prime their observations, they are asked to address a "problem of practice" the school has committed to solve, such as improving math proficiency or literacy, within the context of a "theory of action" the school has identified to achieve the goal. Theories of action might include increasing teacher knowledge, upping the complexity of the material students are asked to learn, and/or changing the way students are asked to learn that material. In the debriefing meeting, members are further asked to take four steps:
Though the concept of rounds may seem straightforward, in reality, it is an extremely difficult program for participants to execute. The difficult starts with the challenge of describing what they see without being judgmental. "In order to learn how to do it, they have to unlearn certain other things," says Elmore. "People are used to making snap judgments and saying what they like and don't like." Stepping back and determining what is actually happening in a classroom before judging what should be happening, however, is a crucial step to changing instruction for the better."
The results can be surprising. In one example presented in Instructional Rounds, four teachers were struggling to explain the difference in student achievement in their various classes. Because they were all teaching the same material, they figured the difference lay in variation in student preparation. After observing classrooms, however, it became clear the four teachers weren't "teaching the same thing" at all--in fact, they differed substantially in how much time they spent explaining the task, how they assigned roles to students in groups, and how they provided follow-up support to students facing difficulty. Observing those interactions made it clear that students in some classes were genuinely absorbing the material, while others were blindly following teacher instructions."
CFN 107 had adapted the Instructional Rounds process to meet the needs of our network schools. We launched an Instructional Rounds study group in January 2010, working with 13 schools in various locations across our network. These teachers and administrators read and studied Elmore's book, developing their own problems of practice and school-wide theories of action. In 2011, schools participated in "internal" rounds of their own schools, and we hope to expand this to a series of network-wide rounds in the coming year.
Instructional Rounds Study Group Supplemental Materials
Elmore's efforts to change this began during his work in a New York City school district, where professional development for principals included spending time every day inside classrooms to re-familiarize themselves with the teaching environment. Each month, these principals would get together to talk about what they had seen and how they could improve quality of instruction in their schools. While the practice was helpful, it lacked a certain amount of rigor.
Elmore expanded this concept--similar to the medical rounds used in teaching hospitals--into a more formal practice of "instructional rounds" when asked to consult for a group of Connecticut superintendents who were meeting informally to talk about school performance. Since then, he and the other authors of the book have expanded the approach in different forms to the Cambridge, MA, district schools, as well as statewide in Ohio and Iowa.
The basic process of Instructional Rounds is relatively simple. A network of superintendents, principals, teachers, and central office staff agree to meet at regular intervals, usually monthly, each time at a different school. They spend the morning circulating around classrooms, observing the teaching and learning that takes place there. Then, in an afternoon meeting, they debrief what they have seen. To prime their observations, they are asked to address a "problem of practice" the school has committed to solve, such as improving math proficiency or literacy, within the context of a "theory of action" the school has identified to achieve the goal. Theories of action might include increasing teacher knowledge, upping the complexity of the material students are asked to learn, and/or changing the way students are asked to learn that material. In the debriefing meeting, members are further asked to take four steps:
- Describe what they observed in class
- Analyze any patterns that emerge
- Predict the kind of learning they might expect from the teaching they observed
- Recommend the next level of work that could help the school better achieve their desired goal
Though the concept of rounds may seem straightforward, in reality, it is an extremely difficult program for participants to execute. The difficult starts with the challenge of describing what they see without being judgmental. "In order to learn how to do it, they have to unlearn certain other things," says Elmore. "People are used to making snap judgments and saying what they like and don't like." Stepping back and determining what is actually happening in a classroom before judging what should be happening, however, is a crucial step to changing instruction for the better."
The results can be surprising. In one example presented in Instructional Rounds, four teachers were struggling to explain the difference in student achievement in their various classes. Because they were all teaching the same material, they figured the difference lay in variation in student preparation. After observing classrooms, however, it became clear the four teachers weren't "teaching the same thing" at all--in fact, they differed substantially in how much time they spent explaining the task, how they assigned roles to students in groups, and how they provided follow-up support to students facing difficulty. Observing those interactions made it clear that students in some classes were genuinely absorbing the material, while others were blindly following teacher instructions."
CFN 107 had adapted the Instructional Rounds process to meet the needs of our network schools. We launched an Instructional Rounds study group in January 2010, working with 13 schools in various locations across our network. These teachers and administrators read and studied Elmore's book, developing their own problems of practice and school-wide theories of action. In 2011, schools participated in "internal" rounds of their own schools, and we hope to expand this to a series of network-wide rounds in the coming year.
Instructional Rounds Study Group Supplemental Materials
| large_or_fine_grained.doc |
| theory_of_action_model_graphic.doc |
| 5_principles_graphic_org.doc |
| edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf |
| ladder_of_inference_article.doc |
| ladder_of_inference_diagrams-_use_pages_4_and_8_only.pdf |
| low_inference_info_and_protocol.doc |
| low_inference_noticings.doc |
| the_seven_principles_of_the_instructional_core.doc |
| building_a_better_teacher_nytimesarticle.pdf |
