1. A DIFFERNET VIEW OF LEADERSHIP The Self-Evaluating Middle Manager
The LCS approach
Notes Made from presentation by Dr Shevlin ETI

2. Hearts and minds
What is the difference between a department/school aspect that is led mechanistically by “monitoring and evaluation “ or lead effectively by “self evaluation “ ? ?
THE CULTURE IS THE DIFFERENCE !
OWNED BY middle managers and TEACHERS!
“Hearts and Minds”
How is this the responsibility of the Middle Manager?
What does LCS mean? How are they linked by effective people skills utilised by the middle manager?

3. MOST IMPORTANT Hearts and Minds!
Has to be an integral embedded part of the departmental/ school aspect culture
Effective middle manager - Minimum of paperwork – maximum of IMPACT – but measure outcomes and challenge assertively on these if needed
Seen as professional development – not accountability
Your priorities are owned by teachers in your area of responsibity and valued by teachers

4. What is an effective self evaluative Head of Department/Middle manager
A good people person
A good coach – who doesn’t have a fixed view T+L
A good “ challenger” who uses first hand evidence in a collegiate and involving way – not easy
REMEMBER:
Focus all of this on measuring THE IMPACT OF YOUR LEADERSHIP WORK
NOT THE INPUT/OUTPUT/PROCESS

5. Effective self-evaluation is about
Gathering good quality first-hand evidence on the progress you are making on your school priorities.
Using that evidence to make changes in learning and teaching if needed.
But remembering that ownership and identification with the process by staff at all levels is critical and central in 1 and 2 above.

6. What is first hand evidence?
1. Pupils’ Books
2. Lesson observation – “trusted colleague” observation – work with a “ critical mass” of volunteers and go from here. Trusted colleague networking a version of this TCN
3. Pupil/teacher/BOG/parent voice – use of questionnaires
4. Quantitative and benchmarked data
BUT THERE IS A HIERARCHY TO THIS EVIDENCE
Often Need to do no 4 first and then to 1 to 3 – often challenge
No 4 gives the strengths and challenges but have to use 1-3 to find the reason why and take action – in a COLLEGIATE WAY

7. The self evaluation within your department/area
Collectively Audit first hand evidence Make a collegiate decision with dept – decide an action point- on teaching and learning- implement Wait a period of time – audit again – show improvement – I call this “ closing the loop” TRUST IS IMPORTANT

8. CLOSE THE LOOP
REMEMBER CLOSE THE LOOP. (1. Baseline from joint evidence (or not/) 2. Discussion/Joint action on T and L – no paper 3. Wait – audit again using same evidence source – 4. See improvement Minimum paper/maximum action. This is about professional development not accountability – focus on learning – trust dept members – but clear learning goals
DON’T STOP AFTER THE AUDIT. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ?
TAKING ACTION – COLLEGIATIVELY CHECKING AND SHOWING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IS THE REAL CHALLENGE

9. Three specific suggestions to get us started
CBM for written work in books
TCN for lessons
THE VOICE – Closing the loop here

11. TCN proforma Strengths (6) Suggested adjsts to learning (1)
Focus of lesson:
Quality Indicators:
The pupils will be well
The pupils will be accurately
The pupils will be
Strengths (6) Suggested adjsts to learning (1)
The pupils could be ----
Tear up after use

12. Other side of TCN learning log
TURN THE MIRROR
Observer
On reflection after jointly participating in TCN I will
So the pupils will

13. CLOSE THE LOOP AUDIT DECIDE AND IMPLEMENT ACTION AUDIT AGAIN
SHOW THAT IMPROVEMENT HAS OCCURRED
COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR FELLOW TEACHERS AT ALL STAGES ABOUT THE IMPACT – WHAT IS CHANGING KEEP PAPERWORK AT A MINIMUM . THE DYNAMIC IS THE KEY

14. THE POINT OF QA WITHIN YOUR DEPARTMENT
IMPACT
NOT PROCESS
NOT WRITING A REPORT – KEEP THE WRITING TO A MINIMUM
THIS IS NOT A PHD THESIS

15. ALL DONE IN A COLLEGIATE BUT RIGOROUS WAY

16. Strategies for improvement A CHECKLIST FOR HOD/MM
Are self-evaluative procedures rigorous and effective, do they lead to improvement and are they underpinned by effective analysis of qualitative and quantitative data?
Does the HOD/MM set, share and review realistic targets and are these underpinned by rigorous self-evaluation?
Has the departmental/school aspect plan been agreed and contributed to by all departmental members and is this supported by an action planning process MEASURING IMPACT ?
Does the HOD/MM promote effective and innovative strategies to raise standards and improve the quality of teaching and learning?
Does the HOD/MM ensure that departmental objectives align with the SDP?
Is first hand evidence being gathered/used collegially?

17. MM Leadership- WHAT IS IMPORTANT ?
The extent to which clear and realistic targets are set for the department?
HOD/MM Inspires confidence/ respect of departmental colleagues – goals met?
Channels of communication – effective?.
Learner/teacher/SLT involved in discussion/implementation of departmental priorities – open and inclusive ?
The standards and expectations set for staff and pupils – are they clear, challenging and most importantly are they met ( only know through collegiate examination of first hand evidence – this is challenging and needs the middle managerto have excellent people skills and provide a effective challenge and coaching role ?

18. Middle manager – a different view
I am a(n)
Involver
Example setter
Evidence gatherer – user of first hand evidence evidence
“Close the looper”
Persuader
Bottom liner but have solutions
Target setter and target “meeter” but all from “first hand evidence” – four types

19. LCS? LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE SUPPORT COLLEGIATE APPROACH – ALL INVOLVED
But
EVIDENCE BASED – 4 TYPES SO NOTHING OVERLOOKED
PAPER CAN OVERLOOK THINGS
THIS IS CHALLENGING!