So what is the point of lesson observation feedback?

Why do we spend lots of time watching our colleagues teach? Why do we also spend lots of time talking to our colleagues about their lessons? The cynic will say "because we have to", "it is part of the appraisal cycle" and so on, and this is true if there is a culture in the school that lesson observations and feedback are activities that are done to colleagues rather than with them. Some may suggest that there are times when we observe in "OFSTED" mode so that leaders and teachers are ready for inspection, however I believe that there is only one way, one philosophy, and one motivation behind lesson observations, and that is to develop teachers to improve outcomes for children.

It is true that lesson observations should form a key piece in the monitoring and evaluation life of a school, but by developing a philosophy that says the M&E side is a fortunate by-product of a more constructive lesson observation philosophy then it is more likely that observations will help to raise standards.

Within a cycle of leadership there will always be tension at the beginning. Lesson observations will be tense but the way the observation is handled and the manner in which feedback is conducted will sow the seeds for increasingly productive observations in the future. So what did I do? You've possibly seen me ramble on about "5+2 Ps" elsewhere in this blog; this set the expectations for the lesson and colleagues knew what I would be looking for. But also, and very importantly, I told them how I would be conducting the feedback. It is at this point that you can make a real difference. My colleagues knew that the feedback would be around the ideas of Purpose, Planning, Pitch, Pace and Progress and that they would be leading the feedback. That last bit is the radical part. Rather than feeding-back to the teacher, the feedback then becomes a reflective dialogue. As my colleagues knew what they would be discussing they evaluated their own lessons and were able to analyse the effectiveness of the lesson. Before I started on my 5Ps crusade the feedback I gave was like the feedback I had received, tell them the good and bad points and then tell them (or invite them to tell me) what to do better. This approach is different, the feedback becomes mentoring and not simply a M&E activity. The result of this is that the observation and feedback become real opportunities for staff to development.

When a culture of understanding and respect has developed within a school then all sorts of opportunities open up. For example I wanted to develop the leadership capacity of less experienced teachers. Because no teacher feared observation I was able to arrange for teachers to be observed by their colleagues with me also in the room. Now nothing new here except for my role in the room. I wasn't observing the lesson, I was observing the observer. Throughout the lesson I would whisper in their ear, pass them notes, get them to take up certain positions and point to things so as to develop their observing capacity. After the lesson I would ask them to brief me about the lesson and then I would observe them to the debrief with the class teacher. You may think that this all seems a little expensive in terms of time, but the impact of developing staff to undertake meaningful lesson observations is immense.

My experience of an OFSTED inspection in 2015 will last with me forever. I observed a lot of lessons with the inspectors and then they watched me giving feedback to 4 or 5 colleagues. Each time I started with "well how do you think the lesson went?", and every time I immediately had the teacher leading off with statements about progress, pace and pitch. This wasn't feedback, this was dialogue, this was staff development, and it was no surprise to me that every lesson would have been graded at least "good". 

The human side of leadership

The Hay-McBer analysis of leadership styles has been cropping up in educational leadership for a good few years. I first encountered it in the early 2000s and it is regularly encountered on current leadership programs. It aims to break leadership styles into 6 categories and analyses the way in which leaders operate according to their predominant leadership style. The 6 leadership types (according to Hay McBer) are:

• Coercive
• Authoritative
• Affiliative
• Democratic
• Pacesetting
• Coaching

The issue that I have with this is that it is all about the leader and not the leadership relationship. It is acknowledged that most leaders will display all of these at some time or another but nevertheless I believe that it is wrong to pigeon-hole leaders. At best it is overly simplistic and naively reductionist and at worst it absolves the leader from the responsibility of establishing quality relationships. “I am an authoritative leader so deal with it” seems to be the attitude. It is then the responsibility of those being led to adapt to the leader, which is wrong!

Educational leadership has a great deal to learn from leadership in the wider world of business but education has a unique set of employees, employees who are all very different. I would sooner the see a different Hay McBer analysis, where the predominant characteristic of the employee comes first. I would assert that a school is most successful when it is inclusive with its staff. No-one should feel excluded from the life of the school but if leaders feel that they can legitimise a certain way of leading because they fit the category then I fear that employees will be excluded.

So here is my radical proposal. Leaders, don’t categorise yourself at all. Embrace all leadership styles and always seek to gain greater inter-personal skills. To work out how many leadership styles you actually need apply “Whalley’s law of leadership styles” which states “the minimum number of leadership styles needed is calculated by taking the number of those you lead and multiplying it by 2”. Why the “2”? Well you need a different style for when your employee is having a good day and when they are having a bad day! You may even want to multiply by 2 again to allow you to recognise that your leadership style with any individual is determined by your state of mind as well.

Leadership is a human process based on unique interactions. Put your employees first (not yourself) and remember they are all individuals. Leadership is about relationships and if you cannot form meaningful relationships you may make a great manager but you will struggle with leadership. You may actually think you’re a great leader but what would your staff say. Have you actually got genuine authority or are you exercising power (see earlier post HERE)?

I have learned that every member of staff deserves personalised leadership if you invest in them they will invest in you and the school.  

Addition to blog (13 Sept 2016)
What could you do practically to make this happen? I reckon you could conduct 2 audits, a personal one, and one for those you lead. What are your characteristics, values, strengths and weaknesses that make you a good leader? Now do a similar thing for your team, explicitly identifying key characteristics. Given that I assert that leadership is a relationship-centred human activity, understanding personalities (including your own) must be at the heart of our activities. 

On a personal level I have found that I have developed significantly over my leadership career, my characteristics have changed (some radically). In addition the teams I have led have all been different and so my skill-set has had to adapt to meet the needs of the team. Rather than waiting for this to happen I have actively looked at my teams and worked out how their personalities require me to lead.