12. Judgement & Problem Analysis
a. Analyzing relevant information, frame issues; identify probable causes and reframe issues
b. Demonstrate adaptability and conceptual flexibility c. Assisting others in forming opinions about problems and issues d. Reach logical conclusions by making quality, timely decisions based on available information e. Identify and give opportunity to significant issues f. Demonstrate an understanding of and utilize appropriate technology in problem analysis g. Demonstrate an understanding of different leadership and decision-making strategies, including but not limited to collaborative models and model appropriately their implementation |
Managing all of the Q Comp processes for a district includes the creation and facilitation of multiple groups of people. I have been in charge of: all teacher individual goal setting, collaboration with the administration to choose annual building site goals, decisions related to Plan changes, drafting of those changes with the teacher leadership committee, discussion of proposed changes with administration, training all teacher leaders (PLC leaders, observation coaches, and mentors), managing the mentor/mentee program, building and managing the processes and procedures related to PLC work and documentation, conducting evaluations for all teachers in Q Comp leadership positions, and conducting the annual program audit. With so many groups, problems arise and solutions must be found.
Many of the issues that come up are related to specific processes and how to correctly do something. These problems are usually easily solved with a quick answer or a clarification statement at a meeting or a written email. Occasionally, a process or procedure must be refined or changed entirely, and then more communication must take place to ensure all stakeholders are aware of the change.
One issue that I was required to deal with was a situation related to earning performance pay in the area of individual goal setting. The procedure for goal setting is: goal is set in the fall with all specifics of a SMART goal being documented on the goal form. Then, shortly thereafter, if baseline data is needed, it is turned in to the PLC leader and reported to the Q Comp coordinator in order to make sure that there are gains to be made. This particular teacher’s baseline data was too high and after multiple prompts from the coordinator and his PLC leader to modify his goal, he never did. In May, he tried to hand in his final data, but we had no solid goal target percent on file. The problem that came up was that we did not have a new percent on file with anyone but himself. The process is laid out for accountability, and he had not followed the process. I solved this problem by meeting with him and his PLC leader to gather all of the information from them. Then, I brought this information to the Q Comp leadership committee with a recommendation from me. I recommended that we not pay the performance pay due to the fact that we did not have documentation of a goal target on file. The committee agreed and the decision was made. As recommended by the committee and the administrator on the committee, I wrote an email to the teacher detailing the decision and rationale, but I also followed up with a personal conversation with that teacher (Artifact 1).
Another problem that I dealt with is related to building site goals. Part of my job is to help set the Q Comp building site goals each year. In 2014, our high school MCA reading score was 72.3% and dropped to 58.1% in 2015. Our World’s Best Workforce Plan that our Board has been looking closely at suggests that we should be improving by 5% per year in this area. The problem we ran into is that in 2015, our high school dropped 14.2%. In setting our goal for 2016, we struggled. Do we set a goal of 19.2% growth to keep pace with our World’s Best Workforce Plan? Do we set a goal of 5% growth to match the other two building sites and be equitable? Do we set a goal somewhere in between? I began by talking to the Director of Teaching and Learning. He agreed with my initial thoughts-- my decision was to have a meeting with the stakeholders, the high school teachers. They pointed out that we needed to keep the A in our SMART goal—it needed to remain attainable. So, a 19% goal was not going to work. In the end, we set a goal of 6.9%, and I headed the improvement initiative to increase 10th grade reading test scores this year (Artifact 2).
In leadership, solving problems while facilitating systems of people is a daily job. I believe it is important to use a format of shared leadership and involve stakeholders in solutions as much as possible. However, it is also important to realize when a command decision can be made with low impact. Often those decisions entail a quick cost/benefit analysis.
Many of the issues that come up are related to specific processes and how to correctly do something. These problems are usually easily solved with a quick answer or a clarification statement at a meeting or a written email. Occasionally, a process or procedure must be refined or changed entirely, and then more communication must take place to ensure all stakeholders are aware of the change.
One issue that I was required to deal with was a situation related to earning performance pay in the area of individual goal setting. The procedure for goal setting is: goal is set in the fall with all specifics of a SMART goal being documented on the goal form. Then, shortly thereafter, if baseline data is needed, it is turned in to the PLC leader and reported to the Q Comp coordinator in order to make sure that there are gains to be made. This particular teacher’s baseline data was too high and after multiple prompts from the coordinator and his PLC leader to modify his goal, he never did. In May, he tried to hand in his final data, but we had no solid goal target percent on file. The problem that came up was that we did not have a new percent on file with anyone but himself. The process is laid out for accountability, and he had not followed the process. I solved this problem by meeting with him and his PLC leader to gather all of the information from them. Then, I brought this information to the Q Comp leadership committee with a recommendation from me. I recommended that we not pay the performance pay due to the fact that we did not have documentation of a goal target on file. The committee agreed and the decision was made. As recommended by the committee and the administrator on the committee, I wrote an email to the teacher detailing the decision and rationale, but I also followed up with a personal conversation with that teacher (Artifact 1).
Another problem that I dealt with is related to building site goals. Part of my job is to help set the Q Comp building site goals each year. In 2014, our high school MCA reading score was 72.3% and dropped to 58.1% in 2015. Our World’s Best Workforce Plan that our Board has been looking closely at suggests that we should be improving by 5% per year in this area. The problem we ran into is that in 2015, our high school dropped 14.2%. In setting our goal for 2016, we struggled. Do we set a goal of 19.2% growth to keep pace with our World’s Best Workforce Plan? Do we set a goal of 5% growth to match the other two building sites and be equitable? Do we set a goal somewhere in between? I began by talking to the Director of Teaching and Learning. He agreed with my initial thoughts-- my decision was to have a meeting with the stakeholders, the high school teachers. They pointed out that we needed to keep the A in our SMART goal—it needed to remain attainable. So, a 19% goal was not going to work. In the end, we set a goal of 6.9%, and I headed the improvement initiative to increase 10th grade reading test scores this year (Artifact 2).
In leadership, solving problems while facilitating systems of people is a daily job. I believe it is important to use a format of shared leadership and involve stakeholders in solutions as much as possible. However, it is also important to realize when a command decision can be made with low impact. Often those decisions entail a quick cost/benefit analysis.