Peer Consultancy: Observation, Debrief, Analysis

Background

Session Objectives: To understand and agree with the goals of Peer Consultancy To practice and develop comfort with the evidence collection, scoring of evidence and analysis of the evidence that forms the basis of Peer Consultancy To be excited for the implementation of Peer Consultancy

Consultancy Objectives To develop and establish an on-going process of peer observations and constructively critical feedback to improve our practice To collaboratively refine the Peer Consultancy process over time To evolve this process of Peer Consultancy together to the point that it is a key characteristic of our professional development to cultivate our professional community and ourselves as learners and educators

Consultancy Sources The Annenburg Foundation Bay Area Coalition of Essential Schools Pacific Education Group National School Reform Faculty Principal Leadership Institute North Oakland Community Charter Mandela High School (Oakland) Leeds University Instructional Rounds in Education, Richard Elmore

Peer Consultancy: The Process 1. Teacher invites observer to their classroom with a specific focus question 2. Observer visits for a full lesson (approx. 30 to 40 minutes) and takes down evidence on the topic of the focus question 3. Teacher and observer reflect separately

Peer Consultancy: The Process 4. Teacher invites the observer to meet to consult regarding the observation 5. Teacher and Observer use Consultancy Protocol to have a conversation about the evidence from the observation 6. Teacher and Observer use the Consultancy to inform their future planning

Individual Reflection: Teacher What new learning was on display during this lesson? What did it take to get you to this point? Is there anything that happened during the lesson that the observer could use some background to understand? What worked well in class? What didn’t work well? What lessons will you take from this observation to use in future lessons?

Reflection: Observer What practices (2 to 3) appeared particularly effective (warm feedback)? What questions (2 – 3) do you have of the observed teacher regarding the background to or set up of the lesson? What did this observation make you think about regarding your own practices in your own classroom? What ideas or practices could you borrow? What issues does what you saw bring up for you?

Peer Consultancy: The Protocol Teacher thanks the observer for having observed and for meeting with her/ him. The teacher then presents their lesson (reviewing the goal and particular aspects of the new learning that were on display) and her/ his reflection on the lesson Step 1 (5 min) Observer shares warm feedback, asks clarifying questions about the lesson, and shares their own reflections on the lesson). Step 2 (5 min.)

Peer Consultancy: The Protocol Teacher asks the observer if s/he will share the collected evidence with the teacher. Observer presents the evidence and then the pair uses the TCRP rubric to jointly score each piece of evidence. Note, this is not coming up with an overall score, but rather a score for each of the pieces of evidence collected. The pair will take notes on the justification of the scores assigned. Step 3: 15 min. The teacher invites the observer to jointly discuss how the practices led to high scores (scores of 3 or 4) and how practices could be amended to raise the score of that particular evidence (scores of 1, 2, or 3). Step 4: 15 min.

Peer Consultancy: The Protocol The teacher will reflect on what her/ his next steps will be in regard to her/ his practices on this topic, identifying specific steps that s/he will take. Observer will identify her/ his own “take away’s”. Step 5: 5 min. Teacher and observer will reflect on the process together. They will identify what went well and what could have gone better. This may also include requests for another observation, questions about the rubric, or questions/ suggestions about this process. Step 6: 5 min.

Important Caveat The only piece of this process that the teacher will specifically need to share with their administrators is the feedback on the process and verification that they faithfully completed the process. Teachers and observers can chose to share any aspect of the process that they wish, as it will help the administrator provide support, but will not be used to evaluate the teacher in any way.

Practice with Evidence Indicator: 3.3 Implement instructional strategies, A)Questioning Level 1: The teacher poses low--‐level, rote recall questions that require little cognitive challenge wait time is not utilized. Level 2: The teacher poses a combination of low and mid- level questions that require inconsistent levels of cognitive challenge. Wait time is used inconsistently. Level 3: The teacher poses scaffolded questions to move student thinking towards mastery of the learning objective. Wait time is used consistently. Students have opportunities to process the question before answering; teacher requires students to fully answer questions, and uses probing questions to extend students’ ideas. Level 4: The teacher and students pose questions that require consistent cognitive challenge. Wait time is used consistently. Students respond to questions in a way that engages one another and respond to questions without prompting from the teacher. Students initiate questions to further their understanding of the content.

Review evaluation v. non-biased evidence

Practice Observation

Scoring of Evidence Use “common” (pre-scripted) evidence In Peer Consultancy, we will score each piece of evidence, in contrast to the TCRP process where we score the collection of evidence holistically Review evidence as partners, to score each piece (take notes on reasoning)

Analyzing evidence as pairs Review coding as pairs Identify what were effective practices for creating college ready questioning (3’s and 4’s) Identify practices that could have resulted in higher scores for evidence (1’s, 2’s and 3’s) Share out/ discuss as group

self participationpartner/ group protocol/ comfort with protocol facilitation of protocol and PD session Reflection/ Feedback