Transcript Peer Review - Cedar Rapids Community School District

PEER REVIEW
2013-2014
“Quality teaching is not an individual accomplishment, it is the result
of a collaborative culture that empowers teachers to team up to
improve student learning beyond what any one of them can
achieve alone.”
- Carroll, “The Next Generation of Learning Teams”
- Phi Delta Kappan (2009). P. 13
“The most powerful form of learning, the most sophisticated form of
staff development, comes not from listening to the good works of
others but from sharing what we know with others… By reflecting on
what we know with others…By reflecting on what we do, by giving it
coherence, and by sharing and articulating our craft knowledge,
we make meaning, we learn.” – Roland Barth
PEER REVIEW
Collaborative process to support professional growth
Extension of PLC work with intent being conversations and
reflection focused on continuous improvement
Part of Education Reform Legislation Iowa Code 284.6(8)
and 284.8(1)
Already doing with Individual Professional Development
Plan (IPDP) – now a structured action plan and time to
collaborate
Non evaluative annual review of every teacher, every year,
conducted by other teachers.
Not tied to summative evaluation.
PEER REVIEW TEAM
• All certified
teachers
• 3-5 professional
colleagues
• Common grade
level, content or
certification
• Administrator
helps identify
team if needed
Team
Goals
• Teachers
choose their
own area of
growth aligned
with SIP and IA
Teaching
Standards
• Multiple
authentic
sources of data
such as
classroom visits,
videotaped
lessons, review
of course
materials and
reflective
conversations
Collaborate
COLLABORATION LANGUAGE
What would it
look like if…
I’ve noticed
when you…
the students…
How do you
think the
lesson went
and why?
How did you
decide…
What did you
do to make
the lesson so
successful?
I’m curious to
know more
about…
CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE
INSTRUCTION
Student Centered Classrooms
Teaching For Understanding
Assessment For Learning
Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum
Teaching for Learner Differences
RESEARCH BASED
If practitioners collaborate in a constructive and meaningful way
by:
• Focusing on improving teaching and student learning;
• Meeting regularly with thoughtfully planned agendas, minutes,
and concise follow-up actions;
• Planning lessons, practicing lessons, debriefing lessons; organizing,
analyzing, and summarizing data to plan instruction; solving
problems related to student learning, reading, reflecting, and
sharing articles that support learning goals;
And
• School leaders monitor, support, and participate in the
collaborative process to ensure that efforts are focused on
student learning and on district and building goals;
Then teaching and student learning will improve.
Source: Iowa Department of Education www.educateiowa.gov
RESEARCH BASED
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital:
Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Harvard Graduate School of Education (n.d). A User’s Guide to
Peer Assistance and Review. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Goldstein, J. (2004). Making Sense of Distributed Leadership: The
Case of Peer Assistance and Review. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 173-197 (ERIC Journal Number
EJ737147)
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ737147
The intent of Peer Review is not to add one more thing
but to embed professional development into what we
are already doing. Working in PLC’s we will continue to
refine and reflect in a more formal manner with
supports in place. As a district, Cedar Rapids
continually strives to be leaders in doing what we
know is best practice and keeping the focus on
impacting student learning.