Pre – Readings for Shared and Distributed Leadership Webinar (10/8/2013)
1.
Harding High School’s shared Leadership Model
2.
Progress update on shared leadership and student outcomes at Harding High School
3.

MTSS Distributive Leadership Model 2013/2014 Harding High School updated 03/07/13

F&A Update 3 HHS 9/10/13
HARDING HIGH SCHOOL
Harding High School has a complex and highly evolved leadership structure consisting of multiple groups that serve both dedicated and intersecting purposes. Someone new to the school will quickly see that this leadership structure does not have a traditional look or feel. While this update describes particular dynamics and developments unique to many of these groups that constitute the Harding leadership structure, it has two primary foci: 1) influences bearing on the development of leadership capacity in the school most generally; and 2) Inquiry Groups, as these were the primary area of concentration of the
TSP Coach-Facilitator (C-F). The update also specifies how the school used dedicated TSP financial resources.
Leadership Teams
Composition, Purposes and Routines
The Harding Distributive Leadership Model is composed of eight distinct leadership groups (see MTSS
Distributive Leadership Model 2012-2013 Harding High School 3/7/13). These include the Learning
Team Facilitators (LTFs – MTSS Tier 1), Inquiry Group Facilitators (IGFs), Administrators PLC, Department
Chairs, Grad Crisis Team, MTSS Tier 2 Intervention, MTSS Leadership Team, and Equity Team.
Learning Team Facilitators (PLC Teams MTSS Tier 1)
This group works collaboratively to enhance student learning through comparative analysis and engaging with the Data Teams Process. It compares and analyzes common assessments and seeks to develop innovative instructional strategies. It is comprised of teacher leader representatives from each departmental PLC cluster (English - 5 PLCs; Math - 4 PLCs; Science – 4 PLCs; Social Studies – 4 PLCs;
World Language – 1 PLC), is supported by two administrators, and meets weekly.
Inquiry Group Facilitators (MTSS Tier 1)
This group is dedicated to discussing, exploring, and learning focused instruction practices through differentiated professional development. Teacher leaders function as Inquiry Group Facilitators and lead groups of 8-10 made up of diverse teaching staff members from across the school. The IGFs are supported by the TSP C-F as well as a school-based instructional coach. They meet together monthly in advance of each Inquiry Group meeting; they debrief individually afterwards with the coach-facilitator and instructional coach.
MTSS (Tier 2)
This group is dedicated to implementing intensive literacy in Tier 2 classes using the Data Teams Process.
It is made up of five teacher leaders (LTFs) representing the following PLCs: AVID, Health, Reading, ELL,
Art, CTE, and FACS. It is supported by a TOSA, and meets weekly.
Grad Crisis (MTSS Tier 3)

This group was developed three years ago with the explicit purpose of identifying and supporting HHS students “at risk” of not meeting graduation requirements. It provides a variety of focused interventions for identified students. It is made up of an administrator, two counselors, two literacy coaches, a teacher, a data specialist, a parent liason, a testing coordinator, and counselors. It meets weekly.
MTSS Leadership Team
This is the largest and most centralized leadership group at Harding. It serves as the “Target Design
Team” for school improvement efforts, and is dedicated to organizing professional learning around school-wide instructional targets. The Principal referred to this as the school’s “large-scale design group.” It is comprised of LTFs, Professional Development Team Leaders, coaches, consultants, the TSP
C-F, and administrators. It meets 3-4 times per year.
Administrators PLC
This group uses the Data Teams Process as well as walkthroughs and videos of classroom instruction to monitor and support the implementation of school-wide instructional goals. It is made up of six administrators and one teacher facilitator and meets monthly.
Department Chairs
This group discusses and facilitates departmental work (e.g. allocation of resources, scheduling) that is not related to instruction and PLCs. It is comprised of representatives from each department, is supported by an administrator, and meets as needed.
Equity Team
This is a new group at the school which is dedicated to supporting efforts aimed at realizing the school’s equity goals. This includes examining school policies, practices, and climate in order to “identify barriers for equity leading to systemic change of achievement for all.” It is made up of six equity leaders, with administrative and district support, and meets monthly.
Supports for Leadership Team Effectiveness
A Positive School Culture that Draws Teachers in and Compels them to take on Leadership Roles
The last A&F update discussed the importance of “building positive cultural mindsets” in Turnaround
Schools. HHS’s engagement in this process predates its involvement in TSP and the resulting positive school culture is evident. The Principal almost always begins staff meetings with comments about the school’s “Learning Journey,” its six consecutive years of improving scores on the MCA Reading
Assessment, or mentioning that this is an “amazing story” and that Harding is a “school on the move.”
(See HHS Presentation Documents at Learning Forward Conference, MPLS, July, 2013). More importantly, the Principal consistently mentions how Harding teachers have contributed to its success.
At an October staff meeting the principal began by saying:
I have been in just about everyone’s class here, and if I haven’t been in your class, I want to be. And I just want to say that I am seeing so much hard work in your classes. And I

can see the work going on. Your work is extremely difficult and I am honored to be a part of your team. [Fieldnotes 10/30/12]
All of these public statements build pride in its collective efforts and seem to contribute to the school’s improvement momentum.
Another important source of school pride seemed to be its self-conscious attention to academic rigor.
For example, one of the school’s most important routines related to common assessments is when staff gather to assess student writing prompts in the fall. One teacher explained the Harding approach to these assessments in a mid-year staff meeting:
On the writing prompt for the fall, we are out of sync with the state. Where the state gives a 3, we give a 2. We are tougher than the state is. So we need to tell students, the state has a more minimal level; we are trying to prepare you for a higher level. We should not feel good about graduating students with a writing level lower than 3. That does not match up with our ACT level. [Fieldnotes 11/27/12]
Accordingly, the school expected a great deal of its teachers. Several teachers commented on the “high expectations for teachers” at Harding. This seemed to contribute to the overall sense of pride in the school. (This was also evident in the high number of especially male teachers and administrators that wore Harding gear on an everyday basis in the school).
Teachers themselves consistently referred to students, including students facing significant challenges, in positive terms. At a presentation on HHS ELL students in November, 2012, a member of the counseling staff described the backgrounds and learning needs of the school’s ELL students, and the fact that 41 different languages are spoken at the school. He provided first hand details about the backgrounds of the school’s Karen students by drawing on his own experience at the Umpian refugee camp on the Thai border. He concluded his presentation by saying, “So the ELL students at Harding are a great group of kids.”
Even students who were perceived as causing difficulties in the school, specifically by being consistently tardy, absent, or defiant, were referred to as “knuckleheads” by many teacher leaders. Such a term does not represent such students in completely negative terms, and in fact is evidence of the “assetbased approach” that the principal himself said he internalized early on in his career in part from the work of the Search Institute. Much of this positivity is due to the school’s emphasis on mutual respect and caring. One teacher told me, simply, “Here, we respect everyone.” Other teachers emphasized the
“caring” climate at Harding.
Finally, the school had structured ways of welcoming new people into its community. At the beginning of each staff meeting one of the TOSAs made sure to introduce new teachers, aides, coaches, or administrators, and at the end, communally acknowledge (and applaud) any “celebrations” - such as family births and marriages.
An Emphasis on Learning, Trying New Things, and Creating Shared Understandings (w/ Ample Humor)
Another key dimension of the HHS school culture related to its leadership capacity is the emphasis on adult learning. This emphasis opens the way for adults to take chances by adopting new instructional strategies and taking on new leadership roles. The Principal once explained, “It’s a learning by doing

world here… for me the learning is always around figuring out how literacy fits into these content areas.” During the 2012-2013 academic year, when the school undertook an effort to enhance math instruction and support for all students (only 3.8% of African American students were proficient in math on the 2011-2012 MCA assessment), the Principal began tutoring sessions with one of the school’s math teachers so that he himself could master the standards that his students would encounter on the upcoming assessment.
This spirit of embracing learning was found throughout the staff – and furthermore, statements about adult learning were frequently laced with humor. For example, during the 2012-2013 academic year, the Grad Crisis team took on a central role in the school-wide push on math preparation. At a staff meeting, the Principal actually had one of the school’s reading coaches present some of the Grad Crisis team’s plans to enhance math support (when he had learned of this role at an earlier Grad Crisis meeting, this coach had said, “Good, because as you know, I’m thinking about math all the time.”)
Additionally, in a different staff meeting, several LTFs shared how their PLCs were engaged in the process of developing language goals for ELL students in their PLCs. One LTF said, “I drafted one, and sent it to [an ELL teacher], and he said it sucked, and he sent it back.” The key cultural contour here is that adult learning is expected in the school and it is okay to take chances, to fail, and to learn from mistakes. Indeed this seems to be an important counterweight to what Zeichner refers to as the
“clericalization” of teaching.
In addition, the school emphasizes a vital practice of culture building in virtually all of its practices: creating shared understandings. For example in a planning meeting of the MTSS Leadership Team oriented to preparing for the advent of the Middle Year Program (MYP) at Harding, the TSP C-F put a list of starting points on the conference white board, including “shared understandings.” Moreover, there was an emphasis on ensuring that MYP fit into the established Harding culture. One teacher coach commented,
Key to this whole thing is the Harding way of doing MYP. PLCs, Inquiry Groups, those are all Harding’s way of doing things. So I’m thinking how does MYP fit into what we are doing. That is really on my mind. [Fieldnotes 4/5/13]
Making Teacher Leadership Normative: The Principal’s Demonstrated Respect for the Voices and Abilities of Teachers
The Principal’s belief and trust in teacher leadership is another key form of support for leadership capacity building at Harding. This was based on a demonstrated respect for the work of teachers, their opinions, and abilities.
Harding administrators and teacher leaders regularly solicited feedback from the teaching staff on matters of school policy and practice. This seemed to send a message to teachers that their opinions mattered. For example, in January, 2013, the Principals and two Assistant Principals carefully went over survey monkey data summarizing teacher feedback on the latest professional development session on incorporating language learning goals into their classroom.

Several teachers commented that their leadership was valued by the school. One said, “I think it’s welcomed by the administration and I think that the administration wants more teachers involved in the leadership.” Another teacher confirmed this sentiment:
Interviewer: To what extent is this school umm open to teachers taking on those kinds of [leadership] roles and having an influence?
Respondant: I would say, 100%. We’ve got some great staff members who step up when something is needed, somebody steps up. We’ve got a pretty good staff here.
Some people are just willing to take on whatever it takes, you know, to get things done - to implement some of these things. [Interview 6/10/13]
Impacts on Teachers: Evidence of Effective Distributed Leadership
There was a great deal of evidence of the efficacy of the distributed leadership model throughout the school.
Early on in my time at Harding, the Principal said that he was constantly trying to find ways to
“showcase” the work of teachers. This “showcasing” took the form of leadership of whole-school professional development sessions; taking on formal speaking roles in staff meetings (8 different teachers had such roles in the beginning of year staff meeting on 8/31/12); and leading specialized segments at the Administrative PLC meeting.
The efficacy of these groups was also evident in the way the Principal worked with them. During a Grad
Crisis meeting in October, the Principal came in for the last 15 minutes and sat down at the end of the table. When he entered one of the teachers on the committee said with a smile, “Uh oh, look who’s here.” The Principal smiled and said, “Just keep going.” The meeting continued and the principal was silent throughout. When the meeting concluded he simply got up, patted the teacher who had made the initial comment on the back, and said, “Keep it up.” This Principal’s silence in this case powerfully authorized the leadership of teachers in this meeting and was evidence of his trust in their capabilities.
Effective teacher leadership was also evident in PLCs. In one PLC I visited during the 2012-2013 academic year, the teachers independently sought feedback from the Reading Dept. on the leveled questions they were generating for their students.
It is worth noting that effective teacher leadership at Harding also generally included teachers’ informal influence as well: some teachers commented on their efficacy in terms of “leading from the middle” in the school. One teacher established a campaign in support of tablet computers for the teaching staff during the 2012-2013 school year, ending all her in-school emails with the message: “this work could have been done more efficiently with an iPad.” At the end of the year the Principal announced that he had identified some funds to begin to allocate tablet computers to the teaching staff.
Barriers to Teacher Leadership (Leadership Team) Effectiveness
Time and Financial Support
Several teachers observed that while the HHS administration supported teacher leadership, they often had a need for more teacher leaders than were available. Teachers were asked about this in interviews,

and generally cited a lack of time to spend in more formal leadership roles, or insufficient compensation for taking on such roles.
I’ve said no a lot just because I have a lot on my plate already with [several] kids and a second job. But I mean I think it’s something the administration welcomes and I have the impression that it’s difficult for them to get as many teachers as they would like involved in leadership. [Interview 6/6/13]
I also have this perception that if I take on this leadership role in the sense of LTF or something like that, I can get wrapped up too much in the politics that are involved in our job and I’m not going to like it and I’m going to become tainted and not enjoy my job as much. So I would rather immerse myself in (inaudible) and student council and have a legitimate thing to say. I am literally too busy. [Interview 6/6/13]
I’ve been asked to be a leading team facilitator for my team. I’ve been asked to be department chair, things like that. Umm, but I’ve always had to turn it down and the reason is because I have three kids and we can’t afford daycare so my wife works in the evenings and I work during the day. So, I have to go home. I have to get home and pick the kids up from school and you know, on those days that she’s working. So, my schedule would be very inconsistent with what would be required with those types of things. [Interview 6/10/13]
Balancing Teacher Leadership for Professional Development with “Monitoring”
This was an emergent pattern in data collected in an Inquiry Group that may bear on leadership capacity building more generally. During an Inquiry Group meeting in advance of the end of year showcase sharing out event between Inquiry Groups, the IGF asked, “Should we prepare a handout on this [what they had taken away from the book they had read]? Or just talk?” A teacher replied, “Is this just for us, or is there monitoring?” I asked follow up questions about the term “monitoring” in interviews, and it refers to administrative oversight of teacher professional learning. This is seems to be a particular type of dilemma that may arise in different kinds of professional development activities that must be addressed on a regular basis.
Inquiry Groups
This section related specific feedback on the Inquiry Groups – the primary focus of the TSP C-F during the 2012-2013 academic year. As background, it should be mentioned that this was the second year of the Inquiry Groups, and the overall plan was that each Inquiry Group would choose a particular book related to a dimension of improved teaching practice, and that conversations would be focused around these books. The TSP C-F said candidly that the books were an initial way for the teachers to begin to talk about practice (or as the Principal put it, the “how” of teaching), with the aim of undertaking more systematic and regular visits to each others’ classrooms in the future. In addition, for the 2012-2013 year, one of the goals for the Inquiry Groups was for teachers to do two classrooms visits. The TSP C-F worked with one of the school coaches to plan and facilitate IGF meetings, develop agendas and protocols for the Inquiry Groups meetings themselves, and held open office “drop-in” meetings for IGFs to debrief with them following Inquiry Group meetings.

One of the IGFs commented that her group had kept the observations very “casual.” She explained , that this was “to the point where they didn’t have to record anything on paper if they didn’t want to.
Because for some of them putting something on paper, maybe they start to feel a little more judgmental.” She reported that while her group members found being casual a “good thing,” there was
“nothing too substantial about it,” and that this was an initial step “so they could get comfortable.”
This IGF added that she “really appreciated” the TSP C-F’s role in working with the IGFs in terms of setting meeting agendas, establishing frameworks, and planning activities. She said in general, it was very helpful to have “a model to follow:” it made her think, “Oh great, I can do this.” She said she also very much appreciated the C-F’s “willingness to listen to you.”
Impacts on Teachers: Evidence of Effectiveness
Several teachers stated that they found the Inquiry Groups helpful in terms of providing instructional strategies that they then used in their classes. Some of these came from the books that the Inquiry
Groups collectively read during the year, some from discussions with fellow teachers themselves, and some from classroom visits.
One teacher said that while his group’s particular book (Feedback) did not provide substantial new ideas, the discussions did:
One of the math teachers had this great tracking thing that she did, where kids would do, not quite like a journal but they would keep track of test scores and this and that and compare, you know. I thought, wow that’s easier than my way, I’m going to try that. [So] we all exchanged stuff, we tried lots of stuff.
This teacher found the visits helpful as well:
Respondant: [It was] just a little, a way to just see other teacher’s practices and what worked for them and what might not have. And you get to see students that maybe you don’t normal see, you know from different academies or whatever.
Interviewer: How useful was that? How useful were the visits? The feedback, both in terms of the giving and the receiving?
Respondant: Well, personally I found it pretty useful… it’s useful to see how other people do things. I also saw some affirmation in my own practices. Where I see other teachers doing something that perhaps I suggested to them, last year or something and now they’re doing it. [Interview 6/10/13]
Barriers to Effectiveness
Difficulties in Scheduling Classroom Visits
Other teachers, however, cited difficulties in scheduling classroom visits (some acknowledged that they had only done one during the course of the school year). The HHS administration, TSP C-F and HHS coaches were all aware that this would be a challenge – especially to fit in the second visit in May. One
IGF said, “It’s hard to find time in your schedule to find the person you want to see. And it’s awkward if it’s not on your prep.”

Limitations of Individual IGF Debriefings
There was an awareness among some LTFs, the C-F and some administrators that collective debriefing meetings for the IGFs would enhance the effectiveness of the Inquiry Groups. The C-F commented that while the individual drop-in debriefing meetings with the IGFs were helpful, it would be more effective to be able to schedule group debriefing meetings with all the IGFs.
Tighter Structural Linkages with PLCs and LTFs
Teachers made occasional connections with their PLC work while in their Inquiry Groups. For example, a science teacher and social studies teacher related PLC discussions from their departments on how to give immediate feedback – stating the importance of doing so especially for ELL students.
However, an administrator commented that tighter structural linkages with the work of the LTFs would be beneficial.
We’re not where we wanted to be… [in terms of] having the work of those two really be purposefully integrated and mutually supported, because, you know there is all kinds of logical overlap. If I’m in my inquiry group talking about instructional strategies and now we’re in PLC and we’re going through data teams and we’re looking at student work and we’re talking about hey, what strategy you know those things they come up… I still think that the two things are potentially and logically enough connected where they can be more integrated then that are….
Because to me it just seems to be one of those logical connections that we haven’t done before. Finding time for that, if it’s just monthly, I think is valuable enough to make sure that it happens. [Interview 6/10/13]
The Principal certainly had such linkages in sight. At a MYP Planning meeting he said, “I’m looking at this more on the grey side than in black and white. Inquiry is about practice. If we keep talking about good practices, then PLC conversations will roll that way naturally.”
Equity Team
Harding teachers and administrators have been aware for several years that racial equity has been an issue in the school, both in terms of academic outcomes, and partly in the area of student discipline and defiance.
As mentioned earlier, only 3.8% of African American students were proficient in math on the 2011-2012
MCA assessment. 56% of African American students, 46% of Hispanic students, and 57% of Asian students were proficient in reading on this assessment, compared with 82% of White students. At a staff meeting the Principal framed the issue this way, “Remember, this is not about blame. This is about what we can do at Harding to improve this.”
In addition, in the spring of 2013 the school experienced an increase in student absenteeism, tardiness, and defiance towards teachers. A particular problem was teachers asking students why they were in the hallways during class, and students often dismissing the teacher, saying, “You’re not my teacher.”
Interviews indicated that many of these exchanges were between White teachers and students of color,

and may have had racial dimensions to them (other teachers commented on the number of Harding students that “played the race card” with them in their classes).
During the 2012-2013 academic year the Principal stated that the Equity Team the following year would be “new and different” and more integrated into the culture of the school (during the 2012-2013 academic year three teams were explicitly dealing with equity: Counselors, Social Workers and Nurses, and Administrators).
Potential Impact of Findings for Future Leadership Team Developments and Functions
Harding is moving towards implementing a Middle Years Program, which has been a primary focus of the MTSS Leadership Team since Spring, 2013. To date, this design work has drawn on school strengths especially in terms of integrating MYP into existing cultural norms and practices, and leveraging teacher leadership in effective ways.
At the HHS presentation at the Learning Forward Conference in Minneapolis in July, 2013, the “Learning
Journey” goal for 2013-2014 was presented as: “Sustaining our momentum of shared focus on Harding targets using an equity lens.” The Principal elaborated that other goals for the year would be to: 1) continue drawing on C-F support to develop networks, particularly teacher-leader networks within the school; and 2) taking advantage of local and national opportunities to continue to develop his own personal leadership capacity. Furthermore he anticipated that TSP would play a “large role” in building and supporting leadership in the significant lesson design work that MYP will necessitate within PLCs.
Lastly, he anticipated “tapping into” both TSP C-Fs “with continued support with facilitation and coaching as we deepen our journey with literacy, MYP and Equity work.”
Turnaround Saint Paul Grant Resources
Curriculum development
Out-of-school professional development for staff
Out-of-school professional development for Principal
Meeting for Principals at Thomson Reuters
Discretionary dollars including pay for substitute teachers
LCCI Survey