Spring 2014
EDUC 672: Processes of Supervision & Staff Development
Professor: Marilyn Tallerico
Office:
Academic Bldg. B #243E
Phone:
(607) 777-2478 (Office)
E-mail: mtalleri@binghamton.edu
Class Times: Mon. 4:40-7:10 pm
Class Dates: Jan. 27 - May 5, 2014
Meeting Place: AB - Rm. #125
Office Hours: After each class &
anytime by appointment
General Description: The purpose of this course is to enhance educators’ knowledge and abilities to
facilitate the professional growth of adults in PreK-12 schools. It is based on the premise that an
important aspect of leadership is the continuous development of one’s own and others’ potential.
Current issues in formative and summative evaluation of teaching are addressed. (This is a required
course in the Educational Leadership Certificate of Advanced Studies [CAS] program. The course may
also be used as an elective in the EdD in Educational Theory & Practice, if your doctoral program
faculty advisor approves.)
Course Objectives & Format: Students in this course can expect to:
 Critically analyze conventional practices in supervision and professional development.
 Broaden their thinking about the content, processes, and contexts that promote adult learning.
 Explore multiple ways of reflecting on teaching & communicating in supervisory or instructional
coaching situations.
 Apply concepts from relevant literatures to their current and prospective work settings.
 Participate actively in seminar-style discussions and fieldwork.
Additional Key Contact Information:
CAS/EdD interim program secretary: Caroline Millen (607-777-6681) or cmillen@binghamton.edu;
Binghamton University SnowLine = 607-777-7669; B.U. Alert Line = 607-777-7700 (for information
re: campus emergencies)
BlackBoard Course Website: https://blackboard.binghamton.edu
> Login >to course #.
Office snail-mail address: Graduate School of Education, Academic Building B, PO Box 6000,
Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
CAS website with detailed information about program & FAQs:
http://www2.binghamton.edu/gse/educational-leadership/index.html
Course Overview: Essential Questions & Big Ideas

What content, processes, & contexts promote professional development (PD) in schools?
o Content:
 Curriculum priorities for student learning & well-being
 Understandings of effective teaching and student voice
 Balance of individual & organizational development
o Processes:
 Models & designs of professional development
 Follow-up & support
 Research on effectiveness
o Context:
 Leadership, culture, & resources
 Values, norms, trust, everyday acts of leaders
 Coherence; integration of multiple initiatives

What design options exist for PD & supervision to improve teaching and learning?
o Individually-guided models
e.g., reflection, journaling, video self-analysis, portfolios, I-PDPs
o Collaborative models
e.g., professional learning communities, peer/cognitive coaching, critical
friends, study groups, mentoring
o Reflective clinical supervision
e.g., cycles of classroom observation & formative assessment
o Inquiry-based approaches
e.g., action research; lesson study; examining student work together
o Training
Theory – Demonstration – Practice – Feedback - Coaching
o Informal supervision
e.g., instructional rounds; walk-throughs
o Multi-source assessment
e.g., student/parent feedback; student work as data; student assessment data

How can theories of adult development inform efforts to improve PD practices?
 Teachers and leaders as learners
 Importance of school culture & sociopolitical context

What is “good” teaching? “Effective” teaching?
 Value of shared understandings
 Bases for data collection, formative assessment, & evaluation
 Current influences; e.g., Danielson; Marshall; Marzano; NYSUT
 Relationships among teaching, supervision & professional development
(Overview, continued……….)
2

What is “good” supervision? (Trends today? In the past?)
 Formative & summative assessment/evaluation
 Tensions between helping & judging
 Evolving state and national directions in the U.S.
 Expectations for student achievement and growth
 Peer assistance & review

What technical skills should educational leaders develop?
 Classroom observation & data collection methods
 Quantitative vs. qualitative tools; rubrics
 Evidence vs. inference/opinion; describing vs. interpreting
 What’s most important? e.g., Teaching performance? Student behaviors?
Teacher thinking? Student learning?
 Differentiated interpersonal communication/feedback approaches
 Directive control
 Directive informational
 Collaborative
 Self-directed (aka non-directive or cognitive coaching)
 Individual teaching improvement plans
 Tensions between support & quality assurance
 The limitations of technique: Critical perspectives

What happens when supervision morphs into evaluation?
o Use of standards, performance indicators, complex rubrics, & formulas
o NYS Annual Professional Performance Review (A.P.P.R.)
 Growth scores; value-added measures (VAM)
National & NYS Standards for Educational Leaders: This course is designed to develop both
building- and district-level leadership skills & knowledge. For example, it focuses most directly on
NYS Content Requirements (iv -h) re: effective supervision and continuous professional development.
It also addresses: (d) leading comprehensive planning relevant to instructional strategies, classroom
practices, assessment, professional support & development; (e) effecting change; (f) establishing
accountability systems; (g) modeling ethical behavior; and (i) creating supportive learning environments
for students & staff. Of the 9 Essential Characteristics specified by NYS, this course develops the
abilities to (#3) communicate clearly & effectively, (#4) collaborate & cooperate with others, (#6)
support, develop, & nurture staff, (#7) hold selves & others responsible, & (#8) continue learning &
honing skills.
Required Readings & Class Materials

Two books, available at the Binghamton University bookstore. Costs are approximate. Note that
some students have been able to find bargains online.
3
1. Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching and learning (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. ISBN 978-1-4522-5546-0 (pbk.) ($42)
2. Tallerico, M. (2005). Supporting and sustaining teachers’ professional development: A
principal’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN 1-4129-1335-7 (pbk.) ($28)

40 additional articles/chapters included as “Course Documents” in BlackBoard (listed
alphabetically, by author’s last name). See syllabus “References” for citations expected to be used
in course papers (attached). Computing Services Help Desk = 777-6420 or e-mail Qs to
blackboard@binghamton.edu

Documents for class announced via email at least 24 hours prior to class meetings. Please be sure
to check your email for updates, including weather cancellations/delays & materials needed to be
retrieved & brought to class sessions (in either print or electronic form).
Summary of Course Requirements & Grading
Important Note: Students will enter this course with a variety of backgrounds and prior experiences. If
required course projects are not a stretch for you or do not meet your needs, alternatives can be
negotiated. It is important that this semester’s efforts enhance your current knowledge/skills, and help
you advance toward your CAS/EdD Personal Plan’s goals. For example, although the course will
center on U.S. educational systems, issues may also be examined from international perspectives.
Additionally, although most course participants are likely to be practicing and interested in upstate New
York K-12 settings, students are welcome to focus on other educational contexts of their choice (e.g.,
postsecondary institutions; private schools; healthcare organizations; social service agencies; etc.).
Class Participation. You are expected to attend every session, on time and prepared to participate
actively. Top priorities are:
(a) Demonstrating you have read and digested the assigned readings
(b) Applying authors’ ideas to what you could or will do as an educational leader
(c) Listening actively.
Other constructive contributions include:
 Linking specific examples to ideas from readings under discussion
 Building on the comments of others
 Voicing counterpoints in ways respectful of others’ perspectives
 Being sensitive to your level of participation, making attempts to increase or decrease so that
contributions are balanced across class members.
Note: Though this rarely happens, I reserve the right to lower your semester grade if (in my opinion)
attendance or participation becomes problematic.
For CAS students/prospective applicants:
 Two Applied Projects (2); each = 1/2 of semester grade. It will be important to manage your
time well this semester. Pay attention early on to when graded projects are due. Note also that
there are 2 full weeks during the semester when we will not be meeting, due to the University’s
and local public schools’ spring recesses.
4
For EdD students/prospective applicants:
 Two Research Papers (2); the first = 1/3 of semester grade; the second = 2/3. Specifics are
detailed later in this syllabus.
 One 10-15 minute Oral Presentation. Marilyn will assign topic & due date. Time constraints
necessitate your being very focused in this brief presentation. Do that by selecting no more than
three (3) main ideas to synthesize and share. Your selections could be based on either what you
judge most interesting or what you think potentially useful to this audience. For additional
guidelines, see Criteria for Assessing Oral Presentations in Bb Course Information.
Instructions for Course Projects
Important Information for All Papers:
Substance. The primary goal for project papers is to demonstrate your understanding of, and ability
to apply, ideas from course readings. Please synthesize your work succinctly and clearly. Papers must
devote more space to analysis than to description. Do this by applying, and citing, course literature.
Ideas for relating the literature to your project can be found in the listing of course topics and essential
questions in this syllabus, in the Concept Maps in Bb Course Documents & Figure 8.1 (Tallerico, 2005),
in the References attached to the syllabus, in the Tables of Content of our 2 texts, & in the sub-heads of
the articles/chapters of our required readings. A rubric with detailed assessment criteria for grading is
located in Bb “Course Information.” You are encouraged to have a peer review your paper using this
rubric, prior to submitting it to Marilyn. See also in Course Information: “Suggestions: Analysis,
Description, & Rubric,” “Pitfalls to Avoid,” and “Sample Analytic Paper.” Be sure to note that the
Sample is not an exemplar, nor was its assignment identical to this semester’s. Nonetheless, you could
benefit from examining the feedback I’ve penned in this B-grade paper’s margins.
Form: Please use APA style. A simple guide for citing in APA style in your narrative is included in
Bb Course Information. Also note that the bibliography attached to this syllabus is a useful model of
reference lists in APA style. Note that the one APA guideline we will ignore this semester is line
spacing: Single space your papers for this course. Length maximum excludes required list of
References. Please submit two copies of each paper: one electronic & one hard-copy.
CAS PROJECT #1: Professional development ANALYSIS & ACTION PLAN.
Goals: (1) To demonstrate understanding of, and ability to apply ideas from course readings. (2)
To practice authentic professional development planning.
Challenge: Select a school (or other educational unit that makes sense for a particular context).
This project has 2 parts: (1) analyzing that school’s staff development situation, and (2) developing
an action plan for its future professional development efforts. For Part I, investigate and analyze
the school’s recent history of staff development, in terms of content & processes. (Note: All NYS
school districts are required to have a Professional Development Plan approved by the governing
board, though it may look quite different from what actually happened during implementation.) For
Part II, use this situational analysis as a foundation for developing an action plan for the future (1-5
years). Organize your action plan by: (a) identifying top-priority goal(s) or objective(s) for adult
development; (b) providing a rationale for the goal/objective(s) identified; & (c) clarifying future
staff development content, processes, and recommended follow-up. Please be realistic about
resources required. Of course, please also be sure to attend to the earlier “Important Information
for All Papers” (above). 8-10 single-spaced pages.
5
CAS PROJECT #2: Classroom observation & self-video post-conference ANALYSES.
Goals: (1) To practice the leadership skills of: (a) planning for and observing teaching in a natural
setting, using authentic tools & formats; and (b) conducting a post-observation conference using
one or more of the supervisory approaches introduced in class. (2) To critically analyze one’s
own supervisory experience. (3) To demonstrate understanding & application of ideas from course
readings.
Challenge: Recruit a teacher to collaborate on this project. Observe her/him teaching for an entire
lesson/period, after appropriate consultation about the teacher’s thinking and expectations for the
lesson/students via a planning conference. Make a written record of your observation via Detached
Open-Ended Narrative (“scripting”) or some other evidence/data collection tool your district uses
(e.g., some have created “Observation” forms). Complete at least part of the rubric required by
your district. Attach either your written record of the observation or the part(s) of the rubric you’ve
completed, as an appendix to your paper. Also attach an outline of what you intended to discuss
during a post-conference with this teacher. Then arrange to have yourself video-recorded
conducting a post-conference with this same teacher about your observation of her/his teaching.
In your paper, analyze:
(1) Your experience planning for the observation (i.e., Why this teacher? The planning
conversation? Pros & cons of the data-gathering tool selected? etc.) ;
(2) Your experience observing the teacher in the classroom (i.e., Successes & struggles collecting
evidence? Shifts during data collection? Grappling with describing vs. interpreting; the evidence vs.
conclusion-drawing?, etc.);
(3) Your planning for the post-observation-conference with this teacher (i.e., Successes &
challenges collating and making sense of the data collected? Why you did or didn’t share your data
with the teacher in advance? Relating the evidence to state teaching standards and the district’s
rubric? Approach selected for the conference & why? etc.);
(4) The post-conference opening, interactions, questioning, substance (i.e., topics of discussion),
ending, and any additional elements you chose to work on for this project;
(5) The strengths and weaknesses of your performance in the post-conference, in terms of what we
have learned this semester.
Please understand that this paper is primarily an analysis of your supervisory practice,
informed by course literature. Be sure this paper includes more analysis than description. As for
all analyses & critiques, the more specific you are, the better. See rubric for papers in Bb Course
Information. Submit your video-recording to Marilyn (simply to verify that this part of the
assignment was done; it will be returned to you & remain confidential).
5-8 single-spaced pages.
DOCTORAL PAPER #1: Professional development design of choice.
Goals: (1) To demonstrate abilities to research a topic of interest independently and to
synthesize information coherently in writing. (2) To practice justifying professional
development choices and addressing implementation challenges.
6
Challenge: Required readings elaborate most completely two of many possible designs for
professional development: (a) training, and (b) formative assessment via classroom observation.
For this assignment, you are to select a design other than these 2, and read 5-6 outside sources
about it. Be sure to choose a design that you do not already have expertise or significant
experience with, so that this project expands your leadership repertoire. Design possibilities
include: collaborative analysis of student work, study groups, critical friends groups, lesson
study, mentoring, book study, action research, professional learning communities, journaling,
teaching portfolios, individual professional development plans, video analysis, 360-degree
feedback, technology-based formats, national board teaching certification, teaching centers, and
more. In your paper:
1. Explain where your selected design fits among the 5 models discussed in Tallerico
(2005, chap. 3). That is, which model(s) is your design an example of?
2. Describe what the design would look/sound like in practice, so that an educator
unfamiliar with it would attain a clear picture of it.
3. Provide one or more concrete examples to supplement your description.
4. Identify one or more specific educational contexts in which you could imagine yourself
advocating this design “in real life” (e.g., in a school, a university, a business, a nonprofit organization, other?). Explain why.
5. Discuss how you would address anticipated obstacles to implementing this design well in
the context you’ve identified. Be realistic about resources required.
 Attach bibliography of sources. (Not counted in page maximum.)
 Append documents essential to implementing this design. (Note: In many cases there
will not be any, depending on the design selected.)
5-6 single-spaced pages.
DOCTORAL PAPER #2: Synthesis of research and course readings.
Goals: (1) To demonstrate abilities to research a topic of interest independently, to integrate
course learnings, and to synthesize information coherently in writing. (2) To practice a kind of
writing useful for developing dissertation proposals.
Challenge: Choose a topic/issue related to professional development or assessment of teaching
that is a “stretch” for you. Use published resources (outside of AND including assigned course
readings) to investigate the selected topic in-depth. Synthesize & integrate your findings.
Organize your paper by “chunking” into no more than 3 conceptual sub-topics (i.e., interrelated
“big ideas”). Choose chunks that either capture sub-topics of greatest interest to you or are most
directly relevant to your future dissertation proposal. Create flow among your selected sub-topics
by using transitions or other conceptual organizers. Know that it is always better to elaborate a
few sub-topics in depth, rather than to try to “cover everything” in a field. Be sure to integrate
multiple authors’ perspectives within your conceptual sub-topics, rather than presenting a series
of mini-summaries by author. For topic/issue ideas, see the reference lists attached to course
readings, pp. 2-3 of this syllabus, or any other sources compatible with your interests and goals.
Approach this paper as a dissertation-like mini-recap of the literature. As for all papers for this
course, you must demonstrate that you've read widely, and understood the ideas from those
readings. 10-15 single-spaced pages.
7
Semester Calendar: Essential Qs, Required Readings, & Due Dates
Day #1 = Jan. 27
What can I expect this semester? [Course overview]
Day #2 = February 3 What should be the CONTENT of professional development [PD]?
Tallerico: Chapter 8, Chapters 1 & 2
Mitra: Student voice (in Bb)
DUE: Review syllabus & raise any questions/curiosities re: course expectations
HINT: Think about course projects early, so weekly readings can inform them.
Day #3 = February 10 How can key PD PROCESSES be differentiated?
Tallerico: Chapter 3
Easton: Design & learning communities (in Bb)
Sullivan & Glanz: Chapter 5
MacDonald: Culture of nice (in Bb)
Day #4 = February 17 What does research suggest contributes to PD effectiveness?
Tallerico: Chapters 4 & 5
Wahlstrom & York-Barr: Leadership (in Bb)
Hoy et al.: Doug Franklin (in Bb)
Knight et al.: Record, replay, reflect (in Bb)
Darling-Hammond et al. 2009 Summary NSDC (in Bb)
Day #5 = February 24 = How can leaders create supportive CONTEXTS for PD?
Tallerico: Chapters 6 & 7
Armstrong: Resistance to change, read pp. 1-3 (in Bb)
Scott: Emotional wakes (in Bb)
Heineke & Polnick: Pave the way (in Bb)
DUE: Doctoral Paper #1: Professional development design of choice
Day #6 = March 3 What do additional PD PROCESSES look like in practice?
Antonovich et al.: AYP (in Bb)
Wood & Burz: Literacy (in Bb)
McKinney: Building common knowledge (in Bb)
Phillips & Olson: Technology (in Bb)
Marzano et al.: Opportunities to discuss (in Bb)
DUE: CAS PAPER #1 – Professional development analysis & action plan
Day #7 = March 10 What is “good” teaching? “Good” instructional supervision?
Parkay et al.: Chapter 6 (in Bb)
Marzano: Introduction (in Bb)
Jensen: Poverty & student engagement (in Bb)
NYSED: NYS Teaching Standards – 1 page summary (in Bb)
Sullivan & Glanz: Chapter 6
8
Day # 8 = March 17 What tools are adaptable for classroom observations?
Danielson: Observing classroom practice (in Bb)
Sullivan & Glanz: Chapter 3
Online: Skim 2 different “Approved Teacher Practice Rubrics for NYS” at EngageNY.org >
Teacher/Leader Effectiveness > Evaluation > State-Approved Tools > Practice Rubrics > Rubrics (then
scroll down)
Day #9 = March 24 What interpersonal approaches should leaders master?
Sullivan & Glanz: Chapters 2 & 4 [3 approaches; clinical cycle]
Saphier: Planning content (in Bb)
Danielson: Chapter 5: Conversation skills (in Bb)
MiraVia: Learning-focused conversations (in Bb)
Tomlinson: Evaluation dreams (in Bb)
Danielson: Chapter 6: Informal professional conversations (in Bb)
Turner: Confrontation (in Bb)
[CAS students are encouraged to conduct Project #2’s planning meeting, observation, & post-conference
during the 2-week period, March 26 (Wed.) through April 10 (Thursday).]
Day #10 = March 31 What trends pertain to teacher supervision & evaluation?
Sullivan & Glanz: Preface & pp. 3-30
Sullivan: Assessment & evaluation (in Bb)
Downey et al.: Formative & summative evaluation (in Bb)
Simon: Tale of two (in Bb)
Marshall: Fine-tuning (in Bb)
DUE: Ed.D. Oral Presentation: Hinchey: Teacher evaluation (in Bb Web Links)
Day #11 = April 7 What about peer assistance & review?
Reback: What is peer assistance? (in Bb)
Darling-Hammond: Teachers evaluate peers (in Bb)
Johnson & Fiarman: Potential of peer review (in Bb)
DUE: Raise any remaining questions about upcoming papers/projects
DUE: Ed.D. Oral Presentation: Evaluating employees in non-K-12 setting
[No class meetings April 14 & 21 = Binghamton University and K-12 spring recesses.]
Day #12 = April 28 What other issues are currently affecting teacher evaluation?
Danielson: Evaluations that help (in Bb)
DuFour & Marzano: Principal leadership (in Bb)
Pieczura: Pros & cons (in Bb)
DUE: CAS PAPER # 2 = Classroom observation & self-video post-conference analyses
DUE: Ed.D. Oral Presentation: Growth/Value-added measures: DiCarlo; Goodwin & Miller; &
NYSUT (in Bb)
Day #13 – May 5 = How would I assess this course?
DUE: Completed Course Evaluation Form (typed & anonymous, in Bb Course Info)
DUE: Doctoral Paper #2: Synthesis
9
Important Information Common to All Graduate School of Education (GSE) Courses
Classroom Environment: The Faculty and Staff in the Graduate School of Education are committed to
serving all enrolled students. The intention is to create an intellectually stimulating, safe, and respectful
class atmosphere. In return it is expected that each of you will honor and respect the opinions and
feelings of others.
Accommodations: If you are a student with a disability and wish to request accommodations, please
notify the instructor by the second week of class. You are also encouraged to contact the Office of
Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) at 607-777-2686. Their office is in UU-119. The SSD
office makes formal recommendations regarding necessary and appropriate accommodations based on
specifically diagnosed disabilities. Information regarding disabilities is treated in a confidential manner.
Academic Honesty:
All members of the university community have the responsibility to maintain and foster a condition and
an atmosphere of academic integrity. Specifically, this requires that all classroom, laboratory, and
written work for which a person claims credit is in fact that person’s own work. The annual university
Student Handbook publication has detailed information on academic integrity.
Students assume responsibility for the content and integrity of the academic work they submit. Students
are in violation of academic honesty if they incorporate into their written or oral reports any
unacknowledged published or unpublished or oral material from the work of another (plagiarism); or if
they use, request, or give unauthorized assistance in any academic work (cheating). (GSE Academic
Honesty Policies)
Plagiarism and cheating will not be tolerated in this class. Incidents of either will result in a failing
grade for the assignment in question, which will most likely have a negative effect on the final grade. If
you have any questions about what constitutes plagiarism or cheating, please ask me. See
http://www2.binghamton.edu/gse/current-students/index.html#academic-honesty
References
(for texts & required readings available electronically)
Antonovich, J., & Hoffman, D. (2012). Eyes on the prize. JSD, 33(1), 42-45.
Armstrong, A. (2011). 4 key strategies help educators overcome resistance to change. Tools for
Schools, 14(2), 1-3.
Danielson, C. (2009). Chapter 5: Conversation skills. In C. Danielson, Talk about teaching: Leading
professional conversations (pp. 65-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Danielson, C. (2009). Chapter 6: Informal professional conversations. In C. Danielson, Talk about
teaching: Leading professional conversations (pp. 73-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35-39.
Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 32-37.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). When teachers support and evaluate their peers. Educational
leadership, 71(2), 24-29.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the
profession. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42-50.
10
DiCarlo, M. (2012). How to use value-added measures right. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 38-42.
Downey, C., Steffy, B., Poston, W., & English, F. (2010). Formative & summative evaluation. In
Advancing the three-minute walk-through: Mastering reflective practice (pp. 13-25). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2009). Principal leadership. Educational Leadership, 66 (5), 62-68.
Easton, L. (2012). Principles of design energize learning communities. JSD, 33(4), 49-54.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2012). Use caution with value-added measures. Educational Leadership,
70(3), 80-81.
Heineke, S. & Polnick, B. (2013). Pave the way for coaches. Journal of Staff Development [JSD],
34(3), 48-51.
Hinchey, P. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research.
Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Hoy, L., Bradley, J., & Horwitz, J. (2012). Does your school have a Doug Franklin? JSD, 33(1), 50-52.
Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70 (8), 24-30.
Johnson, S.M., & Fiarman, S. (2012). The potential of peer review. Educational Leadership, 70(3),
20-25.
Knight, J., Bradley, B., Hock, M., Skrtic, T., Knight, D., Brasseur-Hock, I., Clark, J., Ruggles, M., &
Hatton, C. (2012). Record, replay, reflect. JSD, 33(2), 18-23.
MacDonald, E. (2011). When nice won’t suffice. JSD, 32(3), 45-47 & 51.
Marshall, K. (2012). Fine-tuning teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 50-53.
Marzano, R. (2007). Introduction: A question answered. In The art and science of teaching: A
comprehensive framework for effective instruction (pp. 1-7). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Opportunities to observe and discuss expertise. In
Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching (chapter 5). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
McKinney, G. (2013). Building common knowledge: What teachers need, and how districts can help.
Journal of Staff Development [JSD], 34(4), 42-45.
MiraVia. (2012, Summer). Learning-focused conversations. The Learning System (Learning
Forward/NSDC newsletter), 7(4), 6-7.
Mitra, D. (2008). Amplifying student voice. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 20-25.
New York State Education Department (NYSED). (2011). NYS teaching standards (single-page
overview). Albany, NY: Author.
NYSUT. (2013). Fact Sheet: How to understand your growth score. Retrieved 12/29/13 from
http://www.nysut.org/resources/all-listing/2012/november/fact-sheet--how-to-understand-yourgrowth-score
Parkay, F., Hass, G., & Anctil, E. (2010). Chapter 6: Curriculum implementation, instruction, and
technology. In Curriculum leadership (9th ed.)(pp. 310-320). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Phillips, V. & Olson, L. (2013). Teachers connect with technology: Online tools build new pathways to
collaboration. Journal of Staff Development [JSD], 34(4), 34-37.
Pieczura, M. (2012). Weighing the pros and cons of TAP. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 70-72.
Reback, M. (2010, summer). What is peer assistance and review? American Educator, 39.
Saphier, J. (2013). Fifteen minutes to a transformed lesson: Conversations focused on content clarify
teaching objectives. Journal of Staff Development [JSD], 34(4), 56-59.
Scott, S. (2009). Take responsibility for your emotional wake. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4),
63-64.
Simon, M. (2012). A tale of two districts. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 58-63.
Sullivan, R. (2012). Assessment practices and Response to Intervention. Unpublished presentation.
Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University.
11
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching and learning (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Tallerico, M. (2005). Supporting and sustaining teachers’ professional development: A principal’s
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tomlinson, C. (2012). The evaluation of my dreams. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 88-89.
Turner, J. (2010). Confrontation model of conversation. Journal of Staff Development, 31(5), 63.
Wahlstrom, K., & York-Barr, J. (2011). Leadership: Support and structures make the difference. JSD,
32(4), 22-25 & 32.
Wood, R., & Burz, H. (2013). Literacy gets a makeover: Engaged learning boosts student achievement
at high school. Journal of Staff Development [JSD], 34(4), 38-41.
12