Running head: CLINICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE D: BENCHMARK 1

Clinical Field Experience D: Leading Leaders in Giving Peer Feedback Related to Teacher

Performance

Daniel D. Ramos

Grand Canyon University

EAD 533: Developing and Empowering Instructional Leaders

Professor Harvey Tidwell

December 20, 2021

CLINICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE D: BENCHMARK 2

Clinical Field Experience D: Leading Leaders in Giving Peer Feedback Related to Teacher

Performance

Develop and Supervise Instructional and Leadership Capacity

In this clinical field experience, I was able to join my instructional coach as part of their

coaching cycle with one of the self-contained special education teachers on campus. As I

attended the pre-conference, observation, and post-conference, I was able to see the importance

of the level of feedback received by the teacher being observed. While this newer coach is

understanding and implementing the coaching cycle as Mesa Public Schools implements, I

noticed that feedback provided was more general in nature and mostly based on the teacher and

not the student growth and achievement. The coach was more focused on the fidelity of the

program being implemented as opposed to actual student needs. While the conversations were

respectful and professional, I felt that the conversation was one sided and not an actual

collaboration. In the article entitled, Using Dialogic Lesson Observations and Participatory

Action Research to Support Teacher Development, the author describes the importance of these

conversations, stating that a “a dialogic, critically reflective and developmental lesson

observation process, is the observer and observed transcending traditional boundaries by

switching, and adopting, several identities” (Congreve, 2015). While a conversation is vital to

collaboration, subsequent steps may be taken to have the teacher assume the observer role to

know and understand their own areas of need. Likewise, it is up to the instructional coach to

develop their own capacities as a coach to have open and honest conversations to discuss what

was observed and provide them with resources and opportunities to observe for themselves to

benefit their learning and student achievement within their classrooms.

CLINICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE D: BENCHMARK 3

Develop Leaders for High-Quality Instruction and Student Learning

In evaluating this situation between the instructional coach and the teacher, I was able to

relate this experience back to the PSEL Standard 7C, which states that effective leaders,

“Establish and sustain a professional culture of engagement and commitment to shared vision,

goals, and objectives pertaining to the education of the whole child; high expectations for

professional work; ethical and equitable practice; trust and open communication; collaboration,

collective efficacy, and continuous individual and organizational learning and improvement”

(National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). As a school administrator, it falls

under your responsibility to develop leaders within the school to push for academic excellence as

it is outlined in the mission and vision set forth. As a school leader, developing coaches and team

leaders to coach, assist, and evaluate instruction happening on campus, you allow for this

leadership paradigm to be shared and implemented with fidelity across the campus. These

leaders can, in turn, assist you as a leadership team by discussing the needs on campus and where

additional support is needed to maximize time and professional development to have high-

quality instruction and student learning to take precedence. The coaches and leadership team can

employ action research steps within the coaching cycle to improve instruction and other barriers

that may hinder the protected organizational time. While the principal is to spearhead the

development and progress towards the school mission and vision, they cannot do this alone. The

act of having and developing leaders across the campus will allow for evaluation and changes to

occur in a cyclical process.

CLINICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE D: BENCHMARK 4

Distributed Leadership Structure and Recommendations

On my current campus, the school leadership is distributed among grade level team

leaders and department chairs. Most educational leaders on campus were selected due to

seniority on campus from the previous year’s administrational team. One recommendation I

would make to improve the structure of distributed leadership would be to incorporate teachers

in their earlier stages of teaching as they hold the innovate position being new to the profession

and seeing the profession through a different lens. Another recommendation I would make to

have a distributed flow of leadership would be to have team member input to the selection of

their grade level team’s leader so that seniority would not take precedence over experience or

desire to lead. The last recommendation to have a better distributed leadership structure would be

to have trainings with these leaders on campus for how to implement the action research and

coaching cycle into their grade level teams and continually assess progress using data. The

coaches lack experience with implementing the model and if don so inconsistently, this will

create gaps in collaboration and improvement across the campus.

CLINICAL FIELD EXPERIENCE D: BENCHMARK 5

References

CONGREVE, R. (2015). Using Dialogic Lesson Observations and Participatory Action Research

to Support Teacher Development. Education Today, 65(3), 16–20.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for

Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.