The Rubber Hits The Road - Leadership Project

A Case Study

Two sections of ENG 4U are running in the first semester. 44 combined students are registered in the two sections. Several changes to teacher scheduling occurred in the last week of August so that two previously unscheduled teachers would be teaching the ENG 4U course. Both are seasoned, confident veterans with 16+ years of experience each.

Within the first week of classes, around fifteen students requested to change from Teacher A’s section to Teacher B’s section. A few of these changes were made, then Guidance realized that these students were “teacher shopping”. Students generally felt that Teacher A was an excessively “hard marker” and that Teacher B was an “easy marker”. Several students have dropped the course altogether, then registered for night school. Student movement and growing unrest are becoming serious concerns for the Head of Department and all department members.

Both teachers are aware of the student perception, but neither sees it as a problem. Teacher A thinks that Teacher B’s class median is generally too high and sets a bad precedent for other teachers who want students to see exactly where they stand as university level students. Teacher B is concerned that students won’t be able to get to university if their marks are artificially low. She also feels that certain students do better in university than in high school – she wants to give them this chance. Both see their assessment techniques as strengths.

There is reluctance to intervene in this situation as both teachers are respected and valued in the department. Alienating one or both teachers based on student perceptions is an unpalatable prospect, but as the tension in the department grows, it becomes clear that the Head will needs to act.

Context

The OSSTF negotiates the duties of a Head of Department in each collective agreement. These duties are essentially of a supportive nature: to be the local expert for all questions about curriculum, assessment, classroom management and course materials. They also can be called upon to resolve conflicts and be mentors. Heads of Departments, however, never evaluate teachers in their department. For this case, the concept of teacher assessment must be tread on carefully.

The Ministry’s document “Program Planning and Assessment” gives a clear description how to assess in a “valid and reliable” manner program and assessment. Using the achievement charts provided by the Ministry 11-12 curriculum guidelines along with the specific curriculum should give all teachers the basis for consistency.

In this case, it appears that one or both teachers are not doing this effectively

Leadership

A heavy-handed top-down approach is not what is required in this situation. In order to maintain a collaborative environment in the department, neither teacher must feel like he or she is being attacked. The head must act collaboratively, not coercively or unilaterally.

Two assumptions are necessary for a solution to this case: that the two course teachers recognize that inequity exists in the student assessment and that both teachers are receptive to a collaborative approach of leadership.

If the Head is focused on the long-term goal of having consistent assessment throughout the department then the “problem” does not even need to be actively addressed. The three articles I looked at talk about leaders changing “challenges to successes” (Spence 2004); leaders and followers acting “for the collective good” (Brungardt 1998) and leaders “sustaining trust though competence, candor, caring” (Bennis 1999). These three authors treat leadership as a continuum – not as a series of singular acts, but as on-going relationships.

Partnerships within the department need to be created or strengthened. Course leaders need to communicate regularly with all department members. Most importantly, regular assessment workshops need to be held to ensure consistent assessment.

Plan

The two teachers in question must be flexible and willing to work collaboratively with the department. This is not a problem that can be solved instantly – it will take time and planning as a seasoned teacher may have to change how he or she thinks about assessment. Conversely, someone may just need a simple adjustment. In most departments, policies are in place can be taken to ensure congruity between consecutive courses and between sections of the same course. Each step (except the final optional step) involves the entire department – no course is taught in a vacuum. For this challenge as Head, I would:

1) Ensure that all teachers submit mid-term and final marks to the Head. This allows for a short-term and long-term snapshot of all teachers’ assessment histories. It is a preventative tool that, in this case, the Head would use diagnostically to determine whether either teacher’s marks fall into the norm.
2) Ensure that each course with more than one section has a subject leader that co-ordinates subject material, scheduling of modules, exam material. This teacher would also collaborate with colleagues about instructional approaches to material and assessment methods. In this case, the course leader would be another check to ensure assessment congruity.
3) Every two months or so, organize an assessment workshop. Using the Ministry achievement chart and sample work (either teacher-generated or through Ministry exemplars), teachers pair up and work independently and together to create assessment base lines for the courses they co-teach. I have been involved with assessment workshops - they are productive and eye-opening. In this case, I would see if the PD committee in the school would be able to give up two hours during the first PD day to allow for department work – the department could have its workshop then.
4) The Head could ask the Principal to convene a meeting between the two parties only if discrepancies and incongruities with the subject assessment continue for an unreasonable period. The Principal could ask to see their evaluation plans to ensure the formative and summative assessment and evaluation were reasonably identical. This is a last-gasp solution and only one I would consider if both parties were totally unwilling to collaborate as subject and assessment partners (steps 2 and 3). Going to the Principal ensures that a climate of discord and coercion exist in the department.