The Alberta Teachers’ Association

One of the hallmarks of a profession is self-governance. The Alberta Teachers’ Association has governed its own members’ conduct since 1936. In 2009, the profession also took over the governance of members’ practice. This ensures that the assessment of a teacher’s competency, or more specifically, a teacher’s success in meeting the teaching quality standard (TQS), is performed by teachers. Doctors assess the competency of doctors, lawyers assess the competency of lawyers and teachers assess the competency of teachers – it just makes sense. Whereas some believe that a profession should not judge its own members’ conduct and/or competency, a reasonable person understands that every profession has a discrete body of knowledge that each successful practitioner possesses and that this knowledge is most effectively assessed by those most conversant with the professional context.

The implementation of three new quality practice standards in September 2019 will provide the teaching profession with an opportunity to sharpen its saw as it also ensures growth, supervision and evaluation practices continue to be in place to guarantee that the standards are effectively met.

An essential component of assessment of competency is autonomous responsibility for growth. Thus, the most effective means possible to ensure teachers are engaged in ongoing professional growth need to be in place. The Association has had a longstanding policy that, “Professional growth plans are self-authored, growth directed, and reflect the individual’s assessment of the individual’s professional learning needs” (Alberta Teachers’ Association 2017, 122).

Provincial policy has reflected Association policy in that teachers are required to complete annual professional growth plans based on their assessment of their own learning needs. Brady, quoted in Brandon et al (2018), recognized the importance of making decisions about teacher growth closest to those the decisions affect, when he wrote, “Instead of thinking of professional development as a top-down system of bringing best practices into the school from outside agencies, recent research has identified the teacher and their teaching context as the site at which professional development is most effectively developed” and that teacher learning is, “always embedded in the daily lives of teachers in the classroom, in the school community, in the corridors, in courses and workshops” (p. 337).

How, then, do teachers ensure ongoing professional growth? How do principals ensure effective supervision and evaluation of practice of new competencies? What role does policy play in the teacher growth, supervision and evaluation (TGSE) process in Alberta?

It would be counterintuitive and counterproductive for an external source to tell a teacher what their individual professional goals should be. Principles of adult learning tell us that the locus of control for the most effective adult learning is oneself (Chen 2014).

Those who curiously lament the notion that teachers own their own growth goals may be reassured by noting that deficits in a teacher’s practice that are identified by a principal are dealt with as part of supervision and evaluation. A teacher may also choose to include a principal’s suggestions within a growth plan. Further, if a teacher has undergone an unsuccessful evaluation, a principal may mandate that a teacher replace their growth plan with a plan of remediation.

As Alberta Education embarks on an update to the provincial policy that governs the growth, supervision and evaluation of teachers (and new policy related to school and district leaders), it will be important to teachers that their stature as professionals be maintained and that assumed competence remains a hallmark of the policy. That is to say, once a teacher’s evaluation has deemed them suitable for a permanent professional teaching certificate and/or a continuing teaching contract, the responsibility for continuous professional growth rests with the teacher. Barring any subsequent identifiable deficiency or a written request by the teacher, there are no provisions for formal evaluations of a teacher. What a waste of precious resources it would be to ask teachers and principals to jump through some arbitrary hoop for the sole purpose of proving that, just like last year, they still know how to teach this year.

All this points to the importance of teachers planning for their own growth. Not only is it a professional responsibility but research suggests a clear connection between teacher professional growth and improved student learning (Nye, Konstantopoulos and Hedges 2004). The Association has developed several exemplars, templates and tools to help teachers reflect on their practice and develop growth plans that will ensure continued professional improvement. These are available on the Association’s website.

One of the Association’s objects, outlined in section 4(b)(v) of the Teaching Profession Act, is, “to improve the teaching profession by meetings, publications, research and other activities designed to maintain and improve the competence of teachers.” Highly competent teachers are part of the profession’s commitment to public assurance. In addition to the profession’s responsibility for ongoing professional growth, commitment to teaching excellence also occurs at the school level, in the form of supervision of practice.

Supervision of teacher competency calls for the exercise of reasoned professional judgment. There is no recipe for supervision of professionals. The word supervision itself may be a misnomer but, semantics aside, supervision of instruction is multidimensional and differentiated. Supervision of professional practice is a professional practice in itself and cannot be standardized. Supervision is instructional leadership and is one of the most complex aspects of a principal’s work. It can look like a principal reading report cards, reviewing individual student program plans, attending meetings with teacher teams, visiting classrooms, observing teachers interacting with parents, students and others, holding one-on-one conversations with teachers, reviewing data and myriad other practices that reflect the teacher’s context, the principal’s context and the school’s context. Supervision is purposeful but often seamless and woven into the teacher/principal’s daily interactions. Blanchard, Zigarmi and Zigarmi (2013), in their review of the concept of situational leadership, remind us of the importance of considering individual styles when supporting the work of others.

Let us drill down with a specific example. Pat, a middle school principal, decides to take a closer look at how teachers are assessing student writing. Pat raises the issue at a staff meeting and a discussion ensues. In the next few days, Pat visits teachers’ classrooms and observes students as they write. Lee, one of the teachers Pat observes, has a student-writing workshop in progress. While Pat is in the room, Pat and Lee discuss the details of the writing-workshop. In the classroom of another teacher, Jesse, Pat quietly observes student writing samples that have been posted to a bulletin board. Pat is also aware that another teacher, Alex, has included assessment as part of Alex’s growth plan and Pat makes a point to connect with Alex to inquire about the progress of the growth plan.

In this cursory example, Pat’s staff meeting discussion, conversations with Lee and Alex and observations of Jesse’s students’ writing samples all constitute supervision of practice. Pat may follow up with a question or an article, or Pat may ask Lee, Jesse or Alex to share at the next staff meeting. Lee, Jesse and Alex may not even view Pat’s practices as supervisory. Such is the nature of collaborative inquiry.

Brandon et al (2018), in their review of the literature on teacher supervision, provide a chronology of changes in supervision practices of teachers. They state that current theory supports differentiated practices of supervision, which are informed by various sources of data, such as classroom observations, pedagogic dialogue and artifacts, all to improve teaching, learning and shared instructional leadership (p 38). This is the art of instructional leadership. In the above example, Pat took a role of guiding and supporting teachers in the context of their work. Hirsh and Killion (2009) write about the importance of collaboration and an inquiry-driven approach among teachers, where they can draw upon each other’s expertise and focus on student learning.

The new quality standards outline competencies whereas new policy will outline ways and means of ensuring teachers are meeting the competencies. The Association has many tools to assist teachers, including principals, with the work of professional growth, supervision and evaluation, including a newly developed Member Services’ workshop on supervision.

Effective implementation of teacher growth, supervision and evaluation policy seamlessly weaves the three elements. Teachers identify their own growth goals and develop their own growth plans; principals supervise teachers’ practice; and, in cases where required, a principal’s supervision is a component of a teacher’s evaluation. Unlike supervisory practices, the evaluation of a teacher has potential employment ramifications, so some degree of standardization is required in the evaluation of a teacher.

Teachers and principals who are being evaluated have a right to procedural fairness, including reasonable timelines, transparency, objectivity and adherence to policy. Staff officers from the ATA’s Member Services program area assist teachers, including principals, with the process of teacher evaluation. The new quality practice standards reflect new competencies and indicators, but they do not change the fundamental democratic process that is in place to ensure that teachers and principals meet their respective standards. Fullan (in Thiers 2017) states that, “Research shows that the biggest factor in the effectiveness of a principal is the degree to which he or she ‘participates as a learner’ working with teachers to get to a solution” (p. 11). The new policies that will accompany the new standards will necessarily meld public assurance and teacher growth within a framework of collegiality and ongoing commitment to excellence.

References

Alberta Teachers’ Association. 2017. Members’ Handbook. https://www.teachers.ab.ca/Members%20Only%20Documents/ATA/2018%20Members%20Handbook.pdf (accessed August 22, 2018).

Blanchard, K., P. Zigarmi and D. Zigarmi. 2013. Leadership and the One Minute Manager. Toronto: HarperCollins Canada.

Brandon, J., P. Adams, S. Friesen, D. Hunter, K. Koh, C. Mombourquette, D. Parsons and B. Stelmach. 2018. Building, Supporting and Ensuring Quality Professional Practice: A Research Study of Teacher Growth, Supervision and Evaluation in Alberta. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education.

Chen, J. C. 2014. “Teaching Nontraditional Adult Students: Adult Learning Theories in Practice.” Teaching in Higher Education 19, no.4: 406–418.

Hirsh, S., and J. Killion. 2009. “When Educators Learn, Students Learn.” Phi Delta Kappan 90, no. 7: 464–469.

Nye, B., S. Konstantopoulos and L. Hedges. 2004. “How Large are Teacher Effects?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26, no. 3: 237–257.

Thiers, N. 2017. “Making Progress Possible: A Conversation with Michael Fullan.” Educational Leadership 74, no. 9: 8–14.

Keith Hadden is the associate coordinator of the Alberta Teachers’ Association’s Southern Alberta Regional Office.