Case Study #2
keysean28
Peerresponseforcasestudy2.docxPeer 1
The root cause in Case Study 1 (Martin, 2019) was that Landon High School did not have a mission to provide students with an education that would prepare them for higher education of some sort. I decided on this root cause because the primary problem is that the community and stakeholders of Landon High School (LHS) do not advocate for a higher level of learning for their students. Since the community and stakeholders had lower expectations for the students, the teaching met that minimum expectation and it had been okay for the time being. When the King Community College administrator shared his thoughts about LHS graduates’ college preparation, it embarrassed the newer LHS principal Mr. Rogers, which we would all hope he would see as an opportunity for improvement. With time and mentoring Mr. Rogers will get better about seeing these as opportunities instead of strictly embarrassments.
References
Managing Group Processes
Mr. Kelly had identified formal and informal groups prior starting the school year. He noticed that five teachers consistently produced over a year of student growth annually (Martin, 2019). After the first 6-weeks, he does not noticed any evidence of the literacy initiative in classrooms so it seems that these groups are now one combined group. Since they are all working hard and consistently not implementing the literacy initiative, one would think they are working collaboratively. Since Mr. Kelly does expect the literacy initiative to be implemented but the teachers are not implementing it, the goals are not understood. Mr. Kelly giving teachers negative feedback and moral declining (Martin, 2019) is proof that trust is not the norm. Even though, there may be a pattern of teacher collaboration that is not following the expectation, they are possibly collaborating, however the meetings are not effective since the goal has been misunderstood.
Supporting Other with Appropriate Leadership Style
Mr. Kelly schedules a 2-day training on the new literacy program, but there is no evidence that he follows up with teachers before the 6-week observation. I did not see evidence of any of the leadership styles within Case Study #2 (Martin, 2019). Mr. Kelly does attend a two-week training on the literacy program they plan to implement in his district so one would think he has the necessary knowledge or expertise to be a directive, participative, collaborative or even coaching leader, but he just schedules a two-day training for the teachers and observes them after six weeks then gives them negative feedback because they are not implementing the initiative.
Since Mr. Kelly does have extensive training on the literacy program and is aware of the literacy initiative, he should be a directive leader to all the teachers and make it clear that he has not seen evidence of teaching strategies he originally expected. Kelly is going to have to be sure to make it clear to the teachers that this is an expectation, not a suggestion. After this directive, he should turn to coaching. Mr. Kelly should let the teachers know he sees their hard work, but give them a starting point to some changes in order to implement the literacy initiative more effectively. He should also attend planning meetings and hold Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) weekly to check in with teachers and collaborate on how to better implement the initiative so the teachers are not feeling overworked for nothing.
Using Power Ethically
In Case Study #2 (Martin, 2019), Mr. Kelly is the expert since he attended a two-week training on the literacy program. Before the school year starts, he schedules a two-day training for the teachers. The case study gives no evidence that the teachers work with Mr. Kelly on the vision of implementing the literacy program or the district’s literacy initiative. There is also no evidence that the teachers worked with Mr. Kelly to determine how to achieve the goal of the literacy initiative. After the observations and feedback to the teachers, they do not feel empowered. Mr. Kelly does not delegate power or duties or utilize coercive or reward power.
Creating and Managing a Positive Culture and Climate
Evidence of assessments on Bayview Elementary culture and climate is not apparent in Case Study #1 (Martin, 2019), however after the observations the moral is rapidly declining. This rapid decline should be concerning to Mr. Kelly and other administrators within the district. Since the teachers and Mr. Kelly have been trained on the literacy program, Mr. Kelly should determine if he was clear of the vision of the literacy initiative, and clarify himself. Since Kelly sees the teachers working hard, he should tell them! Even though the feedback was initially negative, he should find anything positive and tell the teachers. Mr. Kelly could also find a specific example of change he would like the see within each classroom, for example a specific teaching strategy for teachers to implement.
Initiating Change
In Case Study #2 (Martin, 2019), the assistant superintendent asks Mr. Kelly to attend the literacy program training. Following the training, Mr. Kelly agrees to implement it at his school. No teachers were involved in this decision. The purpose of the change is to increase Bayview Elementary School’s reading scores and reading instruction and learning. Case Study #2 does not give specific evidence that everyone at the school understands the change process, but it does state that after the first round of observations, Mr. Kelly gives only negative feedback. This would lead me to believe that Mr. Kelly does not fully understand the change process has lots of steps. There is no evidence of positive relationships between Mr. Kelly and the teachers, however Mr. Kelly should recognize he has many opportunities to change this. Mr. Kelly does not share his realizations of the school’s reading scores being significantly lower than the district and state averages. He also did not share that five of the 24 teachers were producing great student growth while others were not (Martin, 2019). There is no evidence that the teachers were given any “warning” or time to digest the fact that they were now implementing a new literacy program before their first days of inservice. In fact, the teachers were not involved in any part of this change other than attending the training at the beginning of the school year. Steps to reduce resistance and factors that produce success have not been implemented.
Evaluating Student, Personnel, and Program Performance
Case Study #2 (Martin, 2019) does not show evidence of effective personnel evaluations. Mr. Kelly only realized most of his students are on average two years behind in reading after reviewing the reading test scores. He has worked at Bayview Elementary for a full year and just now realizes this? There was also no evaluation of the literacy program other than the assistant superintendent and Mr. Kelly knew the program was new and highly regarded (Martin, 2019). Case Study #2 (Martin, 2019) states that Mr. Kelly does evaluations after the first six-weeks of school and the new literacy program. These evaluations are the only ones mentioned and are summative to the first six-weeks period. Formative evaluations were not done. There is no evidence that the data from the evaluations was used at all.
Peer 2
Last week, I identified the primary problem in Case Study #1 (Martin, 2019a) as being the students graduate from Landon High School unprepared for college. After utilizing the root cause analysis (Lamar University, 2020b), I concluded that the root cause is that teachers were relying on lectures, providing few hands-on activities, and were possibly unwilling to use equipment if funding could be acquired. Although low funds was a real issue, similar problems occur in other schools that see more student success. An analysis of the report Mr. Rogers distributed could possibly confirm that. Although lack of science lab equipment could cause students to be less skilled or knowledgeable in science, that does not lead to overall lack of success in community college. Similarly, minimal computer lab equipment does not mean there is not any computer lab equipment. It could cause a deficit in the technological skillset, but that would be an obstacle in college and not a reason that students were not finishing a two-year program. The teaching practices, however, affect student engagement and student learning. Additionally, the teachers have the knowledge to help both the students and the parents who do not understand the process and possibly the importance of earning a college degree. After reading the teachers’ reactions to Mr. Rogers’s initial suggestion and the responses during the second faculty meeting in Martin’s Case Study #1 (2019), I concluded that the teachers were used to their ways, were not seeing the possibilities, and were holding too low of expectations. All of these could be addressed and improved using the right essential competencies.
For this week’s case study, there is no evidence of a group process, so there is no evidence of sharing goals, responsibilities, and decision making (Martin et al., 2016). Instead, teachers are working hard, but this is observed during class visits (Martin, 2019b), which implies individual rather than group effort. There is also no mention of a follow up to the initial training—other than the principal’s classroom observations.
For the eighth essential competency, there is no evidence of Mr. Kelly’s taking leadership style into consideration. According to this second case study by Martin (2019), Mr. Kelly provides mostly negative feedback. Instead, perhaps he should use a coaching leadership style (Martin et al., 2016) to help the teachers collaborate since the literacy program is new, indicating none of the teachers are experts at implementing it.
For using power ethically, the judgmental rather than supportive approach exhibited through negative feedback during walkthroughs (Martin, 2019b) demonstrates unethical power usage. Mr. Kelly neither works with his followers to determine how to accomplish the vision (Martin et al., 2016) nor provides guidance as an expert (if he even is one) of the new literacy program. Also, rather than making his followers feel empowered, he makes them feel defeated. This is evidenced in the rapidly declining faculty morale.
The school’s culture in Martin’s second case study (2019) appears to be positive, but the climate appears to be negative. The evidence that the culture seems positive is the work ethic of the teachers. Four already show tremendous student growth, no negativity about implementing the new program is mentioned, and teachers are “working very hard” (Martin, 2019b). In contrast, the low staff morale means a poor climate exists. There is no indication that Mr. Kelly is aware or seeks to become aware of the poor climate that he has caused. He also does not seem to be cognizant that improving the climate is his responsibility (Lamar University, 2020a).
Concerning initiating change, the implementation of a new literacy program is a major change for a school Although the fact that the teachers work hard to make the change, the process to bring about that change seems to be lacking or poorly communicated. There is no evidence, for example, that the program will involve steps that may take two to three years to see the full results (Martin et al., 2016). There is not a creation and sharing of information other than the initial training and the negative feedback from classroom observations (Martin, 2019b).
Lastly, one of the biggest failures of Mr. Kelly to lead his staff effectively in this new program is his focus on evaluating the personnel rather than the program. If teacher after teacher does not use effective strategies, as is stated in Martin’s second case study (2019), then there is a disconnect regarding how the program should be implemented. There is no indication that Mr. Kelly uses the information he gains through classroom observations to plan or to decide where to go from there (Martin et al., 2016)—a key in the evaluation process.
Peer 3
Last week, I determined that the root cause of Case Study #1 was that there were no current resources or plans in place to help both teachers and students improve and help them see their potential for meeting goals. I believe this is the case because we learned that students were struggling in college; therefore, this means that they were not adequately prepared in high school. We also hear the negative excuses from the teachers and see their complacency in doing things the regular way and not seeking change. I believe there is a fear and lack of motivation because they may not know if they will succeed in the transition. This is why support and resources are needed. Trainings for teachers, counseling and direction for students, partnership with local college to ease the students’ transition into higher education, confidence in knowing that with knowledge things can happen, and leadership that is determined to see things through. All these things will help to establish trust and lead the school and community on the right path to success.
This week we read through Case Study #2, which tells the story of Mr. Kelly and his unsuccessful execution of a new literacy program. Competency 7 is “Managing Group Procesess,” which according to Martin et al. (2017) differs from the traditional school because it calls for faculty and adminstrators to collaborate and share responsibilities, thus building up individuals as well as the school. This is an area that lacks in Case Study #2. Mr. Kelly, who is beginning his second year as the principal of Bayveiw Elementary School, fails to work with his staff to successfully roll out the new literacy program. Instead he has his teachers attend a very short two-day training at the beginning of the next school year and expects them to put everything into practice right away. Furthermore, he is disappointed when he does not see the teaching strategies being implemented the first six weeks, and rather than empowering them by meeting together and discussing what has happened, which could help to rectify the issues that he sees, his feedback is “predominately negative and teacher morale is declining rapidly” (Martin, 2019). Throughout the first six weeks, there is no collaboration, no groups are set up, realistic goals are not set up, further training is not provided, and relationships are not strong enough for there to be openness about teachers’ probable concerns and feelings regarding the new literacy program and the administrator’s unrealistic expectations. What Mr. Kelly can do to change the course of this story is admit his error, build up his faculty’s confidence, and work with teachers to create a plan. It may mean that a small group, maybe the five teachers that were mentioned in the text as having “consistently produced 1.5 years of student learning growth annually for the previous 2 years” can help develop the plan and work with the other teachers to begin the program (Martin, 2019). In Breakthrough Principals, Desravines et al. (2016) share of one particular principal “[s]he showed teachers she respected them by empowering them with meaningful responsibilities that drew on their strengths.” This would give Bayview teachers an opportunity to grow as leaders. It is important that realistic goals are set up, and Mr. Kelly needs to recognize that in order for there to be successful change, time needs to be provided. Moreover, if it took two-weeks to train the administrators, then a two-day training is not nearly enough time to internalize what has been taught and be expected to be put into practice correctly without immediate feedback.
Comptency #8 “Supporting Others With Appropriate Leadership Style” is an area that Mr. Kelly needs to work on. In the study, we see Mr. Kelly utilizing a Directive style. He expects his faculty to make changes quickly and does not consider that what is needed is time and direction. In fact, the best style that Mr. Kelly could apply in this situation is the Collaborative one because although he attended a two-week training, the teachers will be the ones in the classrooms using the program, so it will be imperative that he collaborate with them. It should first be a conversation of everyone’s understanding of the program as well as everyone’s buy into it. After a much-needed initial conversation and a decision-making group has been formed, collaboration of a step-by-step plan should take place to decide how and when things will start taking place, with weekly check-ins on the calendar. Another style that would have been more effective or could probably be used in unison with the Collaborative style is the Affiliative. The text is not clear on Mr. Kelly’s relationship with his staff prior to this new school year, but the fact that the faculty did what they were told, even with all its drawbacks, tells us one of two things: they either do not feel comfortable enough to be open about what they really think, or Mr. Kelly has gained enough of their trust up to this point, which is now asking them to make a major change, for them to willingly try. We know that the teachers are working hard, but Mr. Kelly does not see effective teaching strategies, nor does he see the implementation of the new literacy program. It is unclear what the relationship was, but what we do know is how he responded to this situation, which shows a lack of trust and respect. His concern should be his teachers, who have not been given adequate training or time to successfully implement this program. Once the relationship has been built and the team mindset established, then a focus on the task can proceed.
Mr. Kelly’s use of Competency #9 “Using Power Ethically” is lacking. When given several opportunities to empower his staff, he instead chooses to belittle their efforts and does not seek to understand their situation. This form of Coercive power leads to a rapid decline in teacher morale (Marin, 2019). If Mr. Kelly applied the use of the other competencies, then this comptency would inspire him to exhibit the use of Referent power. A trusting relationship would be in place, allowing everyone to come together to find solutions and develop attainable goals. Martin et al. (2017) emphasize, “Empowering others builds support, buy-in, consensus, and the development of current and future leaders.”
What Martin et al. (2017) say of Competency #10 “Creating and Managing a Positive Culture and Climate” is that both the culture and climate are very important and should be monitored and assessed frequently, and in the case of climate, daily. These two things measure whether a school is doing well or not. We can tell that Mr. Kelly is not effectively measuring the climate of his school, when he consistently and continuously gives negative feedback after walk-throughs, even after it is obvious that teacher morale is declining. Had he checked in with his teachers early on, he would have known that implemenation of the program was not happening or that teachers were not feeling confident in it. Had he considered that a new literacy program meant adjusting the school’s vision and changing teachers’ ways of doing something, then he may have recognized the importance of allocating adequate time and resources for the improvement of the culture of the school.
The 11th Competency “Initiating Change” is said to be the most difficult skill to work through for various reasons, which include: processes that take longer time, people who resist, inevitable conflict, knowledge that most changes fail, and more (Martin et al., 2017). As a leader, this must be a daunting responsibility. However, the authors also reassure the reader by providing actions that can be taken to make the process more bearable, many of which involve the effective practice of the other 12 competencies. We know that Mr. Kelly has been tasked with the implementation of the school district’s new literacy policy. (I believe it is also important to note that it was only the assistant superintendent and Mr. Kelly, the principal, that decided this was a fit for his school. Other key stakeholders, such as the teachers, were not given an opportunity to voice their opinions.) It would be useful for him to consider and apply the factors that contribute to a successful change effort, such as: Broad-based ownership, positive relationships, administrative support, adequate resources available, monitoring and adjustment in the process, and more trainings during implementation (Martin et al., 2017).
What is not evident in our case study is Competency #12 “Evaluating Student, Personnel, and Program Performance.” It is too early to adequately evaluate this new program set in place. Instead, it would have been useful to be knowledgeble of what was previously in place. What were the five teachers doing that made them successful and consistent at growing student learning by 1.5 years. Could their practices be examined more carefully and possibly utilized to coach the other teachers? Could it have helped Mr. Kelly in deciding leadership roles in planning? Moreover, could he have used such evaluations of his personnel to develop leaders in the early stages of the implementation of the new literacy program? We do, however, see Mr. Kelly evaluating his staff by using walk-throughs. Instead of using what he observed in the classes to look for resources available to support his teachers through this process, he chose to give them immediate feedback. With such an early program as this, I think it would be best to use these walk-throughs to make decisions on planning and trainings, not criticize the teachers.
What I recognize from this whole process of analyzing this study through the competencies is the importance of the utilization of all of the skills. They all overlap and work together to make leaders, teachers, students, schools, and communities successful. Martin et al. (2017) affirm, “Leaders strive to move the organization and all of its members to a new vision. Reducing risk and increasing the possibility of success for your vision requires all the other 11 competencies.” It may be that Mr. Kelly’s initial intention was correct. His vision is to see his students and teachers improve and succeed. Unfortunately, he did not have the tools to realize his vision, nor was he careful and prepared in setting out on such a huge undertaking.
Peer 4
After reviewing week 1's case study as well as my peer's reviews I determined a lack of developing trusting relationships was the root cause. I came to this conclusion due to the fact that it was a consistent theme throughout the case study as well as throughout the other competencies. Although there is evidence of weakness in all the competencies, the lack of trusting relationships affected each of those. Until trusting relationships are developed shared vision, shared decision making, resolving conflicts and issues, and motivating others cannot occur. As Mr. Rogers is able to develop these relationships at LHS, I believe he will be able to positively influence change on the campus.
In case study #2 we see another young principal dealing with issues on campus. In regard to the first competency, managing group processes, it is imperative for a campus culture to include administrators and faculty members collaboratively working toward school improvement (Martin et al., 2017). In the case of Bayview Elementary we see that the district has implemented a new literacy program and provided the training for it, however when Principal Kelly does walk-throughs he observes that teachers are working very hard, but not implementing the new literacy program teaching strategies. This gives evidence that the administrators and teachers are not working together collaboratively toward implementing this new program. This most likely stems from the fact that teachers are needing more support. There is such power in collaborating and planning together and the lack of common planning being mentioned in the case study makes me wonder to what extent this is occurring.
Mr.Kelly's leadership style appears to be very direct. Where I am drawing that conclusion from is he provides feedback to the teacher's walk-through observations, however it does not appear that any coaching is provided to the teachers. As a result, teachers are getting negative feedback and getting discouraged as the case study says morale is very low (Martin 19). His direct leadership style isn't all together bad in implelmenting the literacy program, as the assistant superintendent has set an expectation for this to occur. However with time, it seems that a collaborative and coaching leadership style would work better with implementing this new literacy program. There is evidence in the case study that five of the 24 teachers have consistently produced 1.5 years of student learning growth. Utilizing common planning as well as more of coaching feedback on walk-throughs may be more effective.
According to Martin et al.(2017), a leader must use power appropriately in order to get things done. In looking at the analysis questions, Mr. Kelly has not exerted the appropriate use of referent or expert power. First of all we do not see that Mr. Kelly would be considered an expert on the new literacy program. He has attended a two week training, but that does not necessarily mean his an expert. Therefore, it would be advisable for him to find a way to provide support for his teachers in implementing this new program. A 2-day training is a good start, but it seems his teachers may need more help. Secondly, it does not seem that his teachers have necssarily developed a sense of trust in him as a leader. The morale being low in response to negative feedback on walk-throughs is evidence to this (Martin 19).
This leads into the fact that Bayview elementary does not currently have a postive school culture and climate. Although state testing data has been evaluated, I do not see where any assessments have been conducted to assess the culture and climate. The teachers have their work cut out for them with students coming to them at least 2 years behind on average. This is already a daunting task to overcome and have student growth; as previously mentioned we see that teachers are working hard. Implementing the new literacy program, although could be worth it in the long run, can be very challenging in the beginning. It seems that with students already struggling and being behind the curve it would be good to start with celebrating the small successes with the teachers and finding ways to establish that positive school culture and climate.
Mr. Kelly finds himself in the midst of the competency of initiating change. As our text states intiating change can be one of the hardest things a principal does and it is not always worth it. Mr. Kelly has done well in knowing what change to implement with the new literacy program, however it seems he may need some help wiht how to implement the change. Getting the teachers trained is the first step in intitating change, but maintaing the implemetnation of that change is where in the difficutly lies. There is good data to support the necessity for change, however the walk-through data shows there seems to be some resistance to the changes overall. This may not be outright overt resistance from the staff, it may just be an indicator of needing more support. It seems there needs to be some crucial conferencing to be had with individual teachers to see why they are not implementing the new teaching strategies and what they need to help them.
Finally, Mr. Kelly seems to be doing a good job of evaluating the student progress on his campus by analyzing data of their performance and addressing their needs. He is also doing a good job of getting into classrooms and observing teachers, however his feedback on walk-throughs is not being effective in getting teachers to acknowlege where they are needing to continue to grow in implementing the new teaching strategies. Is seems there needs to be further data taken to evaluate this, including lesson planning in which teachers document including this new program into their lessons. I do not see where data is being utilized for planning, so this could be another change that needs to be implemented. When I taught one of my favorite things my administrators would do after a walk-through is they would write one thing that they loved seeing me do and then they would include a "have you thought about trying..." section. This feedback encouraged me to make adjustments where it was needed without it feeling like a negative critique.
Peer 5
In the case study of Mr. Rogers, the overarching problem seems to stem all from the lack of one core competency. Although he struggles in many areas, if he had the ability to work on this specific competency area, I believe, the other areas of concern would diminish. Mr. Rogers has no ability or skills around communication. As Martin et. al (2017) states an effective communicator must be able to give and receive information. A skill that Mr. Rogers struggles with. First, he does not effectively give information to his staff. For example, meeting with only a selective few staff members with no real dialogue in that conversation and secondly, when meeting with the whole staff he never leads the conversation of data analysis or data dialogue. When it comes to listening, Mr. Rogers has a stoic approach. He does not demonstrate to his staff that he is an active listener. He has no response to anything that his staff says. Mr. Rogers shows no interest in what his staff has to say and because of this he has no rapport with his staff; he does not provide an environment of open communication; and finally he does not help increase the understanding and learning of those he leads. (Martin et. al, 2017)
According to Martin et. al (2017) school improvement occurs when faculty and administration work together through empowerment, growing leaders, cooperation, and shared responsibility. Mr. Kelly in the case study has a new reading initiative that he is trying to implement with his staff, and though he organizes a 2 day training at the beginning of the year, there seems to be no follow up meetings or collaborations. He does check into classrooms, but no further application or training sessions.
In regard to the core competency eight: supporting others with appropriate leadership styles, Martin et. al (2017) states that there are six types of styles of leadership and the success of a leader is to know what style to use in the situation and with the people you lead. Mr. Kelly from all appearances in the case study seems to take on the Laissez-Faire style of leadership. He seems to passively interact with leading his staff through the implementation of a new literacy initiative. Even though he does take, what seems to be, genuine interest in how the staff are doing with the implementation; he does not actively engage in helping them with it. It seems that he does not consider the type of leadership needed for such a project.
Martin et. al (2017) states that a leader understands how to empower others to search for improvement and that in doing that creates a stronger more dynamic team who is all in. It is obvious that in the case of Mr. Kelly, his staff does not feel empowered. In fact, the feedback from staff is overwhelmingly negative and morale is low. I wouldn’t say Mr. Kelly has misused his power but rather, not even used his power. He seems disengaged from the leadership, other than 2 days of training and a few walk throughs. He has a real opportunity with some of his staff who seem to be achieving great results in their classrooms, utilizing them as team leaders with the initiative which would delegate while empowering his staff.
Creating and managing a positive culture and climate is essential as a building leader according to Martin et. al. (2017) Culture change is hard to achieve and takes a great deal of time and effort. With any change support is needed and this is where Mr. Kelly falls short. He introduces the new change, provides some training around it, and then provides no additional support for it. He does solicit feedback from the staff after six weeks, but by this time it is too late and staff have already become negative and unresponsive to the change.
Fostering change is challenging and initiating it can be the most difficult part of the process (Martin et. al, 2017) Change takes TIME. According to Martin et. al (2017) most change is a process that takes 2-3 years. The leader must facilitate the change which Mr. Kelly struggles with. The key here is that this school has only just begun this process and already are not happy. It is Mr. Kelly’s role to facilitate it in such a way that even if they are not onboard, that they can at least get on board with the vision because they trust their leadership.
A leader must be reflective with all processes and so it is fitting that the last core competency is around evaluation. Martin et. al (2017)says that it is with evaluation that we are able to see the strengths and weaknesses and efforts. Mr. Kelly does get feedback from staff according to the case study, but not from anyone else. It also does not mention in the case study if he looks at any sort of student assessment data after implementation either. Finally, once he has this data, will he use it to plan better supports and initiatives around this.
