Critical Friends in Action

1
Critical Friends in Action

• Dr. Allison K. Harley, Principal
• Mr. James B. DeWitt, Assistant Principal
• Ms. Gladys M. Jones, Teacher Leader
• Ms. Cecilia Hunter, Professional Partner
• Robert Renick Educational Center
• Superintendents Urban Principal Initiative
• August, 2007-June 2008

2
Abstract

• Robert Renick Educational Center is a special
  education center providing academics and therapy
  for students who are labeled Emotionally
  Behaviorally Disturbed (EBD) in grades K through
  12. An area that was identified as needing
  improvement was in instructional strategies.
  Professional development in instructional
  strategies was delivered through peer coaching
  and Critical Friend Groups comprised of teachers,
  paraprofessionals and student service personnel.

3
Introduction

• Education is the only profession in which the
  professional is required to implement, analyze,
  research and test the results on a continuous
  basis. Many teachers spend large portions of
  their summers attending workshops and conferences
  to hone their skills (Bambino, 2002). Minimal
  credit is given to valuing teacher knowledge,
  what teachers have to offer, what teachers can
  teach other and dedication not only to the
  profession but to their students as well.

4
Introduction (continued)

• Critical friends is a strategy that can be
  used to alleviate teacher isolation, building
  collegiality through positive feedback and
  assistance, boosting professionalism and skills,
  helping teachers to feel better about the service
  they provide, assists in the transference of
  skills acquired from meaningful staff development
  to classroom use and can raise student
  achievement level through improved teaching
  (NWREL, 2005). Peer coaching is a way to
  encourage teachers to observe each other in a
  non-judgmental, non-threatening setting. Peer
  coaching is a process through which trust among
  colleagues is nurtured and collaboration and
  communication key (Bambino, 2002).

5
Background/Context

• Robert Renick Educational Center is a self
  contained center which serves students who are
  Emotional Behavioral Disturbed from grades
  Kindergarten through twelfth grade. The
  ethnical/racial make-up of the student population
  is 60 percent African American, 32 percent
  Hispanic American and 18 percent Anglo American.
• The school employs a total of 112 full time
  faculty members. Eighty-five faculty members
  participated in the project. Sixty percent have
  Masters degrees and 8 percent have Doctoral
  degrees.

6
Research Questions

• How will collegial coaching between special
  education educators (teachers, paraprofessionals,
  and student services) impact their attitudes
  towards teamwork?
• What affect will collegial coaching have on
  teacher efficacy?

7
Literature Review

• Martimore and Sammons (1987) found that teaching
  had 6 to 10 times as much impact on achievement
  as all other factors combined.
• Robert Marzano (2003) points to numerous studies
  demonstrating that two teachers working with the
  same socioeconomic population can achieve starkly
  different results on the same test.
• William Sanders, known for his value added
  studies, found that just three years of effective
  teaching accounts on average for an improvement
  of 35 to 50 percentile points.

8
Literature Review (Continued)

• Erick Hanushek has found that five years of
  instruction from an above-average teacher could
  eliminate the achievement gap on some state
  assessments (Haycock, 2005).
• One recent study shows that the best teachers in
  a school have six times as much impact as the
  bottom third of teachers (Haycock Huang, 2001).
• Allen Odden and his colleague conclude that
  improved classroom instruction is the prime
  factor to produce student achievement gains
  (Odden Wallace, 2003, p. 64).

9
Methodology/Intervention

• Faculty members comprised of teachers,
  paraprofessionals and student service personnel
  were divided into groups of eight.
• Groups met monthly for professional development
  delivered by the principal and teacher leader.
• Professional development focused on Critical
  Friends Groups as a means for each group of
  individuals to learn from each other.

10
Methodology (continued)

• Meetings were monthly lasting from 45 minutes to
  2 hours, including one whole day of activity.
• Each month a different best practice strategy was
  featured.
• Team building activities were included in every
  meeting.
• Data was collected by means of surveys and
  observation.

11
Methodology (continued)

• The culminating activity was a Teacher Share
  Fair.
• Team members observed one another teaching a
  lesson using a best practice that had been
  previously covered in the professional
  development.
• Groups were given a protocol to use for the
  observation.
• Groups debriefed afterwards with one another.

12
Data Collection

• Data collection was obtained through a teacher
  attitude survey as it references teaching a
  subject area and comfort level with their own
  performance as a teacher.
• The teachers met within their Critical Friends
  Group to discuss the process and anecdotal
  information was obtained from each group member
  using a four question quadrant titled What Are
  You Thinking?
• The researchers also used their own on-going
  observations as data.
• A final ten question survey of the participants
  attitudes towards the Critical Friends Groups
  process was collected.

13
Data Analysis

• What Are You Thinking Responses
• It is important for us to work together and
  agree to disagree.
• I would definitely like to visit more of
  colleagues rooms to further enhance my skills and
  teaching strategies with regard to behavioral and
  instructional components.
• I appreciate these workshops because they bring
  the staff to a new level of cooperation in an
  exciting way.
• I felt a little out of place in the beginning
  being in groups but that all changed as the time
  continued.
• I learned the significance of empowering the
  students.

14

• Data Analysis

15

• Data Analysis

16

• Data Analysis

17
Findings/Results

• Survey results indicated teachers were more
  willing to share with each other but did not know
  how.
• Student service personnel were less willing to
  share due to minimal knowledge in content area.
• Paraprofessionals wanted to participate and share
  but felt that opportunities to share were not
  available.

18
Findings/Results (Continued)

• We learned a great deal about our staff and
  educators in general. The results of the What
  Are You Thinking Survey? indicated that
  initially the participants felt intimidated to
  work in groups but slowly embraced the process
  over time.
• The final Critical Friends survey indicated that
  by the end most participants really found working
  with others and participating in reflective
  practices was beneficial and most likely will
  have a lasting affect on their teaching practices.

19
Implications/ Recommendations

• Collaborative teams will be maintained for
  professional development activities for the
  following school year.
• Needs assessment of professional development will
  be administered.
• Each team will be assigned a professional
  development topic to present utilizing high yield
  instructional strategies.

20
References

• Bambino, D. (2002). Critical Friends.
  Association for Supervision and Curriculum
  Development.
• National Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005).
  Teachers Working Together. Retrieved from
  http//www.nwrel.org/nwedu/11-01/cfg/.
• National School Reform Faculty. (2006). Critical
  Friends Groups Frequently Asked Questions.
  Retrieved from http//www.nsrfharmony.org/faq.html
  .
• Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Association
  for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. Hyde, A. (2005) Best
  Practice Todays Standards for teaching
  Learning in Americas Schools. Heinemann
  Publishing.