Executive Summary 1

REPORT ON THE 2nd YEAR OF THE NETWORK OF SUPERINTENDENTS (NJNS)

Prepared for the NJNS Design Team

Rachel Kliegman & Thomas Hatch

National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, & Teaching (NCREST) Teachers College, Columbia University

September 2010

Executive Summary 2

REPORT ON THE 2nd YEAR OF THE NEW JERSEY NETWORK OF SUPERINTENDENTS1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, 2009-2010

Background

The New Jersey Network of Superintendents has continued to bring together a diverse group of New Jersey superintendents in a community of practice to develop their understanding of instruction and their work as system leaders. By supporting the development of the superintendents’ understanding of the instructional core – the interplay of students, teachers, and content in the classroom (City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L., 2009), the network seeks to foster system-wide changes in the superintendents’ districts, and, ultimately, contribute to improvements in student achievement for all students, particularly students of color and students living in disadvantaged communities. The network grew out of conversations between the members of the Panasonic Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, the New Jersey Association of School Administrators, and other members of the New Jersey foundation community. Inspired by the work of superintendents’ networks in and Washington State, amongst other places, the participants in these conversations saw a need to help shift some of the time and attention of local superintendents from issues of management to issues of instruction. To support the network, the Panasonic Foundation developed a design team that includes Larry Leverrett, Executive Director of the Panasonic Foundation; Scott Thompson, the Foundation’s Assistant Executive Director, and Gail Davis, senior consultant to the Panasonic Foundation; Robert Peterkin, Professor and Director of the Urban Superintendents Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education; Thomas Hatch, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching; David Allen, Adjunct Professor, College of Staten Island, City University of ; Ross Danis, Associate Dean of Education at Drew University and former Education Program Director of Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; and Rachel Kliegman, Research Assistant at the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching. The documentation team consists of Thomas Hatch and Rachel Kliegman. In the network’s second year (2009-2010), the network expanded to 16 superintendents and continues to reflect the range of school districts in New Jersey, including urban, rural, and suburban populations. Network superintendents from districts across New Jersey reflect a range of demographics, socio-economic conditions, and district enrollment, from 900 to 21,000 students. Twelve of the superintendents are male and four female. Three of the superintendents are African American, one is Asian American, two are Latino, and ten are white. The superintendents represent a range of experience, with some in the early part of their careers, while others have worked in central office positions for two or more . Fifteen of the superintendents are district superintendents, and one is a county superintendent. Two new members joined the network, both of whom had heard about the network through participating superintendents. One person left the network at the beginning of the second year because he was

1 We would like to thank the Panasonic Foundation for their support of this work. We thank as well the members of the Design Team and all the superintendents in the NJNS for their participation and the insights, time, energy they have contributed to this project. Executive Summary 3 involved in other demanding responsibilities related to his work, and two superintendents are leaving at the end of the second year, one due to retirement and the other because of commitments within his district. The network’s second year has built on the experiences and reflections of the previous year. In the first year (2008-2009), sessions focused on preparing for and engaging in instructional rounds. Building on the use of rounds in medicine, instructional rounds engages participants in a series of guided observations of classroom practice within a school (City, et al., 2009). Generally, an instructional rounds visit focuses on one specific problem of practice. Problems of practice are specific problems of teaching and learning that can be addressed and used to leverage broader improvements in instruction. Additionally, superintendents began to articulate and work on their theories of action for promoting systemic improvements in their districts. In reflecting on the network’s first year, the design team recognized a need to spend more time working on the alignment of superintendents’ theories of action with district- and school-based problems of practice that were the focus of the instructional rounds. The design team also chose to add a discussion of the “next level of work” (City e. al, 2009) into instructional rounds in order to get participants to brainstorm specific action steps to address the problem of practice and to encourage superintendents to apply what they were learning about the specific problems of practice across their districts In the second year, the network met nine times, with meetings including four instructional rounds visits and one phone conference due to snow. In addition to the rounds visits, those meeting included further work on the superintendents’ problems of practice and topical issues, such as that of rigor. For the network’s final meeting of the year, Superintendent Jerry Weast and Deputy Superintendent Frieda Lacey of Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland gave a presentation on their work in closing achievement gaps, emphasizing equity and system-wide change. During the second year, the documentation team continued to focus on four major questions to support the design team and the superintendents in assessing the network’s development: How is the community of practice developing? What are superintendents learning? How is network participation affecting superintendents’ work in their districts? How is the network theory of action evolving? To address these questions, the documentation team engaged in a number of data collection activities, including taking notes at design team meetings, analyzing transcripts of the network’s monthly meetings, conducting one-on-one interviews with superintendents at the end of the year, and having superintendents complete two on-line surveys at the end of the year. All sixteen superintendents participated in the interviews with a member of the documentation team. Fifteen superintendents participated in both of the on-line surveys (one only completed the first section on the network’s theory of action). Additionally, the documentation team reviewed the results of the 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning Instructional Leadership Assessment, an assessment administered by the Center for Educational Leadership at the University of Washington at the request of the design team. The 5D’s assesses superintendents’ abilities to observe and analyze instruction in a number of domains, such as purpose and student engagement (5D Assessment, 2010). Thirteen superintendents participated in the 5D’s assessment. The documentation team conducted these activities guided by the following assumptions: Executive Summary 4

The documentation should inform the development of the network. The documentation should attempt to identify key ideas and lessons that could facilitate the expansion of the network and/or the development of related networks in other contexts. The documentation should yield products and/or publications that can share the lessons from the network with a wider audience including members of foundations, research and reform support organizations, policymakers, and district administrators.

This initial draft of this second year report is intended to support the design team and superintendents in reflecting on the network’s work so far and planning for its third year. Before becoming a final document, the design team and the superintendents in the network will have the opportunity to reflect and give feedback. This memo includes a summary of the data from the second year; reflective and critical questions that arose from the data; a detailed narrative for each of the four focus questions above as well as a section on superintendents’ theories of action; and further resources related to the instructional core and instructional rounds. Executive Summary 5

Summary of Findings from Year 2

Overall, superintendents report high levels of engagement and satisfaction with their participation in the New Jersey Network of Superintendents. Superintendents report that they are improving their abilities to observe and analyze instruction, developing their understanding of the instructional core, and developing and refining their theories of action about their work in their districts. Superintendents also reported more interactions with each other around key network topics. For example, in the first year, only four superintendents reported interactions outside meetings with one or more colleagues around the instructional core, and in the second year, all superintendents reported interactions around the instructional core with two or more network colleagues. In the interviews, seven superintendents also talked about making new or deeper connections with each other as a result of their involvement in the network. Furthermore, all report taking ideas and strategies from the network back to their districts. Six superintendents have implemented or continued with instructional rounds in their districts this year, and seven shared future plans to do so. Superintendents also brought discussion of a number of network topics back to their districts, such as the focus on the instructional core, network readings, and ideas gained from visiting each other’s districts. At the same time, the data from the surveys and interviews raise questions about the community of practice, the extent of learning, and the key aspects of network activity. In terms of the community of practice, while all the superintendents described themselves as engaged, some concerns about the commitment of network members were also evident. For example, on the survey, five of fourteen superintendents felt others could have been more prepared for network meetings, and seven of fourteen wished more superintendents had been engaged in whole group discussions. Most meetings included at least thirteen or fourteen superintendents, but there were two meetings with only eleven participating superintendents. In terms of their theories of action, while all the superintendents reported having a theory of action only ten of fourteen felt they had a clear theory of action; and three said that they did not really work on their theories of action in the second year. There are also some contradictory findings about what superintendents are learning. Thus, all superintendents reported a better understanding of instructional rounds, and five superintendents felt that they were getting better at using non- judgmental language in particular. However, the scores on the 5D’s assessment show that superintendents who have participated in the network during both of the first two years scored about the same this year as last year. On the specific dimensions, superintendents received slightly higher scores in two dimensions (curriculum and pedagogy, and classroom environment) and slightly lower scores in three dimensions (purpose, assessment, and student engagement).2 The interviews and surveys also indicate that the superintendents are getting many different things from their participation. Thus, some report that network activities are leading them to actively reflect on and transform their theories of action; others see network activities as affirming and confirming their theories of action; and others have not developed or reflected on their theories of action as much. Similarly, when asked what they were learning from the network, some superintendents emphasized that they had learned about leadership in general from the members of the design team and their colleagues; some reported that the rounds visits enabled them to improve their ability to use non-judgmental language; some that rounds visits

2 Note that there was some discussion of whether or not to use the five dimensions of teaching and learning specified in the 5D’s assessment as a common framework for observation and discussion. However, the Network opted not to focus on the 5D’s or on another common framework. Executive Summary 6 enabled them to learn about specific programs and strategies being used in different districts; and many found the presentation at the end of the year about the work on systemic improvement in Montgomery County, MD as one of the most important learning experiences. Correspondingly, six superintendents identified the focus of the network theory of action as supporting superintendents to become better instructional leaders. Two saw the network theory of action as focusing on superintendents’ engagement with the instructional rounds process and becoming better observers of instruction. Three superintendents emphasized the network focus on equity, “all means all,” and closing the achievement gap, while two highlighted the network’s role in developing individual theories of action. Superintendents also expressed different ideas and hopes for the future of the network.

Some see rounds as central to the future of the network, while others feel that the network needs to move beyond rounds in order to keep them engaged. Some felt they would benefit more from other kinds of activities, such as more general support and advice around their leadership practice or more focused presentations around issues like equity and scaling up instructional improvements.

The evolution of the network’s theory of action In reflecting on these results and their own experiences in the network, the design team and two superintendents noted that the network’s theory of action has evolved over the course of the first two years. Essentially, the initial theory of action suggested that by participating in the network – and specifically in instructional rounds – superintendents would develop their abilities to observe and analyze instruction and to understand the instructional core. In turn, the network expected that those developments would enable superintendents to be more effective as instructional leaders in their districts. The experiences in the first year, however, suggested that this theory of action had a crucial gap: it failed to specify or provide much support to help superintendents use anything they were learning in the network and apply it in their districts. By the beginning of the second year, the network attempted to address this gap by revising the theory of action and hypothesizing that superintendents would be better able to apply what they were learning in the network if they developed their theories of action and identified specific problems of practice that could be addressed through the use of rounds in their districts. Correspondingly, a significant portion of the second year was spent working on problems of practice. Over the course of the second year, however, two further gaps in the network’s theory of action emerged. First, it became apparent that some problems of practice (which could be labeled problems of instructional practice) were better suited to individual schools or specific learning or teaching situations (like special education, elementary literacy, or mathematics) while others were more focused on district-wide issues and were problems of leadership practice. The network’s theory of action said relatively little about how to differentiate these problems or to figure out how each could be used most productively in improvement efforts. Second, the theory of action also did not specify how the superintendents’ work on rounds, theories of action, and problems of practice could lead to improvements for all students or could help to address specific equity issues. In short, the theory of action presumed that all problems of practice were likely to be useful in addressing issues of equity.

Next Steps and Key Questions Executive Summary 7

Taken together, the documentation and reflection on the first two years of the Network raise a number of key questions about the ways in which the network is working for participating superintendents and what the most productive Network activities might be: What is the extent to which a focus on instruction and the use of instructional rounds is required in order to achieve network goals? What and how much do superintendents need to learn about instruction in order to be most effective in general and in addressing issues of equity in particular? What's the relationship between the development of a productive problem of practice and theory of action and a superintendent's success in meeting network goals? What kinds of problems of practice are most productive in supporting systemic improvements in general and in addressing issues of equity in particular? What activities are most likely to help superintendents apply their learning of instruction and their work on theories of action and problems of practice systemically across their districts? To what extent are these activities likely to be the same for all superintendents? How do the superintendents and the design team define equity? What is the network’s theory of action for using the work on rounds, theories of action, and problems of practice to address issues of equity?

In response to the work from the second year and the emerging questions, the design team is working on developing another iteration of its theory of action. In particular, the design team is prepared to focus on how to help superintendents develop a systemic approach for addressing issues of equity by developing a better understanding of the instructional core and by focusing on issues related to leadership practice and scaling up instructional improvements throughout their districts. For the network’s third year, the documentation team will continue to document the development of the network’s community of practice, the learning of the superintendents, their work in their districts, and the network’s theory of action. However, as the network focuses more attention on issues of equity and systemic impact, the documentation is considering developing a set of cases that track how participants are applying what they are learning and doing in the network to address issues of equity in their districts and the challenges encountered in that process. The documentation will also look at superintendents’ understanding of equity and changes in that understanding over the course of the year.

Executive Summary 8

References

5D assessment. (2010). Center for Educational Leadership, University of Washington. Retrieved on August 18, 2010: http://www.k-12leadership.org/5d-assesssment City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. : University of , Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Curtis, R. E. & City, E. A. (2009). Strategy in action: How school systems can support powerful learning and teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Elmore, R. F. (2007). Professional networks and school improvement: The medical rounds model, applied to K-12 education, provides a community of practice among superintendents committed to better instruction. School Administrator, 64(4), 20-24. Rallis, S., Tedder, J., Lachman, A., & Elmore, R. (2006). Superintendents in classrooms: From collegial conversation to collaborative action. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 537-545