Personal Reflection on Leadership for Learning Standards-Year 1

John G. Parker

Introduction
During the development phase of setting goals for this program, my initial focus was on setting
individual goals for each of the four standards. After three years directing programs in Title I, the
Learning Assistance Program (LAP), English Language Learners, K-12 Math and Science, and
the instructional materials program, I felt I had several pieces of evidence to demonstrate a fairly
solid baseline of evidence with each of the standards.

When completing the Internship self-assessment in October of 2012, I felt confident that the
evidence I cited supporting each claim provided my portfolio with a rich array of experience
related to each standard. However, as the year progressed, I realized just how isolated or siloed
each of the claims and supporting evidence was. When February 2012 arrived, I decided to take a
different approach to claims and evidence and instead, identify a single goal from which I could
support with claims and evidence. To demonstrate the continuum of this learning, I will share
some of the evidence I cited initially within my self-assessment as well as the more integrated
pieces of evidence related to the SMART goal I wrote in February. The rationale for this lies in
the personal growth the continuum demonstrates for my leadership in showing the effectiveness
of integrating the claims and citing the evidence while learning the cycle of inquiry process, and
show the reader how my development as a leader has grown from individual works focusing on a
variety of work, to more fully integrated and deliberate work around a single goal-and have each
of the four leadership standards reflected in this body of work.

To begin, I will share my overall February SMART goal. Claims and evidence related to my
understandings of the leadership standards will follow with an emphasis on claims and evidence
related to the overall SMART goal. This order is important since my leadership walk
demonstrated within both my portfolio and within my work with Leadership for Learning (L4L)
shows how my goals are changing based upon new learning from the first year of course work.
Specifically, the understanding of identifying a single goal and demonstrating how the four
standards of leadership are woven around that goal. One impression the L4L program has had on
me is the value and impact of identifying a problem of practice prior to moving into any
implementation of solutions. Not only does my goal identify this new understanding practice, but
my personal practice as a leader has changed because of this new learning. Therefore the reader
should see how my evidence demonstrates a shift in leadership practice from immediate solution
response to a response based upon identification of a practice, supported by evidence, followed
by a theory of action supporting solutions to that problem of practice.

February SMART Goal Statement linked to leadership standards
During professional growth planning beginning in October, we were asked to identify a goal (or
goals) to focus our L4L work upon for the coming year. I decided to pursue using the SMART
goal planning template so I would construct my goal identifying specific, measurable, actionable,
reliable, and timely components associated with this goal. Since I believed I needed the most
experience with Inquiry-Focused Practice standard, I selected the Cycle of Inquiry work as the
basis for my annual goal. Specifically, I stated that through the cycle of inquiry process and
based upon research-based practices, I will identify a problem of my leadership practice and
implement a theory of action to improve the instructional leadership capacity of building
administrators within one of Puyallup School Districts regions through the use of assessment for
teaching and learning. The cycle of inquiry work this year aligns nicely with many of the
leadership standards; but I will go through each standard providing the standard in my own
words, relate this standard to evidence within my portfolio, connect this work to goals in the
coming year, and provide activities and opportunities associated with achieving goals within
each standard.

Standard 1: Equity and Excellence In my own words:
What protocols, policies, and processes exist that create the achievement gap within our district? How
have these processes led to inequities or created a barrier for students to experience the excellence we
want all students to experience? How can I help establish policy that promotes the learning of every
child, and engage all stakeholders to collaborate on equitable practices? What leadership opportunities
exist which empower the community voice to provide input on teaching and learning practices which
promote equitable learning for all?
- Internship Self-Assessment October, 2012
Early in the Leadership for Learning program, claims and evidence of the equity and excellence
standard were provided within the initial self-assessment. These claims provide a backdrop and
baseline for describing my growth in this leadership standard, and also provide an opportunity
for me to use new learning from the L4L program to influence future work. Some of the claims I
made for this standards components included:
Claim: I have identified ELL practices and policies that created disparities in the quality
of learning environments and student success and acted to change those policies.
o Evidence: Re-location of ELL programs from two secondary schools to all eleven secondary
schools; Development of a common intervention model for English Language Learners
(ELL),
Claim: I modify and help construct district policy and support systems that support all
students in their success and learning to high standards
o Evidence: Policy revision for adopting new instructional materials; Re-location of ELL
programs into all secondary schools and new common intervention model for language
acquisition and support
Claim: I am beginning to engage and empower multiple voices, professionally and within
the community, in key deliberations and decision-making.
o Evidence: ELL parent steering committee meetings; ELL re-location and common language
intervention model
Claim: I continue to facilitate explicit discussions about race, class, language, ability, and
other group-based disparities in the service of collective action to decrease them
o Evidence: Planning for district cultural competency Supplemental Day in August

As described in the introduction, my early understanding of the self-assessment yielded this type
of methodical listing of claims and evidence. I articulated each claim explicitly from language of
components in an effort to clearly speak to each. One of the components requiring a listing of
practices, policies that presently and historically created disparities in the quality of learning
environments and student success for traditionally marginalized students, was best demonstrated
in my leadership when I made district-wide decisions to move our secondary ELL programs
from two schools and implement that program within each of our schools. The practice of having
only two of our eleven secondary schools contain identified ELL students denied ELL students
from remaining with their cohort student group as they progressed from grade 6 (elementary) to
grade 7 (junior high). Students had to choose to either receive language support and thereby
move from their home school to the designated ELL support junior high school or elect to stay
in their home junior high but not receive language services.

By eliminating this policy, the district shifted toward providing ELL services in each school to
all qualified ELL students. In doing so however, a new model was required to provide language
service to ELL students since resources were spread thin. The common ELL intervention model
cited within my portfolio shows how basic language services are, to an extent, provided by each
teacher through Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) strategies; and for students
needing more intensive language support, ELL specialists would provide specific language
support in tiers similar to a Response-to-Intervention program in reading or math. I feel this
leadership move spoke to this standard; but, a clear identification of the problem of practice was
not explored within each of the dimensions. For example, how were the existing high ELL
transition rates and general success ELL students experienced likely to be impacted by
introducing this new policy? What role did both teachers and principals play when the students
were located back into their home school? Or, what teacher practices at the schools where ELL
was located impacted academic language the most, and to what extent did other principal
leadership factors impacted language acquisition for ELL students? Was locating the ELL
schools back to their home school going to create additional issues for teachers and building
leaders?

Cycles of inquiry work would have helped answer these questions, or at the very least, provided
additional evidence supporting the re-location or supporting a different leadership theory of
action. In the single goal listed above, substantial effort went into identifying the problem of
practice within the student, teacher, principal and central office dimension. Claims within each
dimension were supported by qualitative or quantitative data, and led to specific action steps
targeting identified dimensional problems of practice. The work to locate ELL back into
elementary and secondary buildings and support this decision through a common language
support model impacted our ELL students was effective work since it supported equitable
practices in each of our buildings. This policy change did foster collective responsibility and
enact equitable practices among buildings; but the implementation of this policy change required
more thoughtful planning.

By contrast, the planning using data cycle of inquiry/theory of action work shown in my
presentation to administrators this year demonstrates leadership growth for me in the equity and
excellence strand. During the COI process for planning using data, I began helping teachers and
administrators analyze data from all student groups to identify the next instructional steps for
those students. Also in that process, I met with and engaged other professionals (teachers,
principals, and central office administrators) to assist me with how instructional decisions might
be made for all students through the use of one-on-one conversations and an administrator
survey. By piloting a data protocol, our administrator focus group was able to have discussions
about how data related to race, socio-economic group, and ability groups might be utilized for
quicker responses to individual student learning needs. For this reason, I included these ELL
artifacts and cycle of inquiry work samples from this year to demonstrate the growth I have
experienced around providing equitable, high quality programs to our students-especially our
traditionally marginalized students.

I also believe I am helping close the achievement gap with ELL students by addressing the
various learning modalities of students through the systems-wide implementation of GLAD in
our district. An evidentiary piece for this claim is linked to the ongoing work as a director of
instructional leadership and by producing written overview of this process for the L4L
Instructional Leadership Strand titled, Linking GLAD Instructional Strategies and the
Danielson Instructional Framework. In this document, I present a compelling data set
supporting GLAD as effective instructional strategies for all learners, especially ELL students.
Through leadership decisions I made to have four of our own teachers trained to deliver
professional development to our own teachers, more of our teachers are using these strategies in
their classrooms and experiencing the success in achievement as well as improved language
acquisition of our ELL students.

Finally, a work that demonstrates my growth to facilitate explicit discussions about race, class,
language, ability, and other group-based disparities in the service of collective action to decrease
them involves the co-planning achieved with building administrators to deliver an array of
impactful panels and sessions for our Cultural Competency Day. On this day, teachers within our
region will come to hear about improving achievement for students who are disadvantaged based
upon poverty, disability, or student homelessness. Other sessions will include meeting the
instructional needs of English Language Learners and those students whose parents are deployed
and likely without the support structures at home to support their learning. The agenda from this
event demonstrates how I have fostered the collective responsibility, growth and capacity of
others to reflect on and enact equitable practice through this powerful professional development
opportunity. This agenda also shows how we are explicitly tying this cultural competency piece
to our instructional framework which demonstrates our desire to link all of our professional
development back to our improvement of student achievement through instruction goals. Plans to
survey attending teachers and gain additional insight into the value of this activity to improve
equity and excellence for all students will be discussed as well.

From my October self-assessment, I scored myself with an average of 2.4 on the equity and excellence
based upon the evidence I listed above. After my first year as a cohort member, I feel I am still scoring in
roughly the same area; however, with the new learning from the instructional leadership strand, exploring
the components of the achievement gap, and learning how to provide high quality instruction and learning
experiences to all students, I am re-aligning my score to a solid research base associated with the L4L
modules and learning experiences. Specifically, the learning around the achievement gap and how this
gap is created provided some of the most impactful learning I have experienced. Now, more than ever, I
plan to calibrate my work around cultural competency research and best practices aligned to district
initiatives and the Danielson instructional framework.
Using student achievement data as a guiding benchmark, my goal is to provide support to administrators
and teachers to access and use student data to increase student achievement of all learners and close the
achievement gap between marginalized groups.
Within the body of evidence described above, I provided a rationale for why engaging those activities,
resources, and opportunities is likely to help me realize this goal. In conjunction with my cycle of inquiry
work, I plan to provide training to teachers and administrators on what each assessment measures and
how related instructional materials support increased student growth. Within these trainings, I plan to
utilize our new Performance Plus software which houses all of our student data including state
assessment scores and strand data, district benchmark assessment data, and progress monitoring data.
Providing a new research-based data protocol is another way I plan to use the data to magnify student
learning gaps (especially in marginalized learners) and help teachers and administrators to align
instructional resources the district has to the instruction and learning made evident by the data. As a
district team then, we will use the same data to evaluate our success and get additional qualitative
feedback on how to improve this process through smaller building focus groups.

Standard 2: Inquiry-focused Practice
I will have demonstrated an inquiry-focused practice when I am able to provide specific responses and
examples to the following questions:
How can I thoughtfully engage in a process of inquiry to identify learning problems on a systems level?
What are the key elements impacting the learning problem and how are students, teachers, and principals
involved? How are those problems identified based upon evidence and what is the rationale for changing
those practices? What systems levels theory of action will be established to change those practices?
Finally, how are these individual cycles of inquiry to which we identify interrelated and causal to other
emergent problems in a large school district?
-Internship Self-Assessment, October 2012

This inquiry standard, as noted in my overall SMART goal listed above, has been among my top learning
priorities since understanding the impact inquiry-focused practice has on my work provides greater
purpose and rationale for action, greater focus on a problem of practice which can be addressed, each of
which is substantiated by evidence. Over the last several years as a school director, I immediately went
into action to remedy a situation whether it was for English language acquisition or math achievement
without fully identifying specific problems of practice within the student, teacher, principal, or my
leadership dimension. With the previous years focus on cycles of inquiry (COI), I have gained a much
greater understanding of both the importance of this practice to my own work, but see the potential of
using COI for the work to build capacity with our districts building administrators and teachers. Our final
L4L COI project targets this new relevancy to my practice and is primary piece of evidence I present to
the reader.
To provide a baseline from my earlier work with COI, I submit to you my work as facilitator of the
district improvement plan. This piece of evidence was the closest example of inquiry work without really
understanding that the process used was inquiry-based. We used state provided district and school
improvement documentation to guide our work and, being a first-year director, I believed important to use
the guide with fidelity. We had over 28 persons on the committee which included our Assistant
Superintendent, Chief Academic Officers, Directors, Administrators, Teachers, and parents. Our six
meetings included plenty of voice and first-hand experience from these practitioners and student learning
data was used to craft a plan targeting action steps to remedy or improve student learning in reading and
math. While staying true to the facilitation guide, this process lacked clear identification of what teachers
and administrators were doing which impacted the student reading and math scores. TOA steps were
identified and implemented without clear data sources to consult for determining measures of progress.
While as a district, we did continue to make some gains in reading, math achievement remained stagnant.
In contrast to this, the final L4L COI/TOA project reflects my learning of identifying the problems of
practice in each of the dimensions-especially within my leadership. Learning how to cite each
dimensions problem using claims based upon evidence has however, not been easy for me. Further
frustrating me was my previous experience as in science which, I felt, should have afforded me the ability
to produce claims based on evidence much more quickly. But when applied to learning, I confronted my
own bias and personal leadership problem of practice of making claims without the necessary evidence,
or at least, without all of the evidence. This is why my Building Instructional Leadership Capacity
through Planning with Data COI project is included as evidence within this portfolio since this work
demonstrates the growth I have made in this area.
Another piece of evidence I would like to present which address two components of this standard related
to supporting the learning of other adults to continuously strengthen their practice, and teach how to
communicate from a teaching and learning stance is shown by the training I brought to our district on
Cognitive Coaching from Adaptive Schools. This powerful training for seventeen of our building and
central office administrators provided methods to have deep and focused learning conversations with
teachers and others using cognitive coaching techniques from Adaptive Schools work by Bruce Wellman
and Bob Garmsten. The response by our administrators was powerful and each of them wanted to use
these practices immediately with their staff and during observation follow-ups. Also apparent was how
this directly provided each of them with support to do the important work of impacting instruction and
student achievement by clearly focused conversations with teachers. Images of the training are provided
in my electronic portfolio.
Overall with the inquiry standard, I self-assessed my growth in October as a 1 because I did not fully
yet understand the teaching and learning stance of L4L inquiry practice, and felt my district improvement
planning was the only experience related to this work. Upon reflection, I feel my initial score would more
closely reflect a 2, and the final year-end assessment would be closer to a 3. However, when I consider
myself scoring a 3, I consider that to be proficient and I have some distance to go before attaining
proficiency in this area. For the following year, I would like to complete my SMART goal with particular
focus on the following two activities:
Along with the assistance of other central office administration, I will help construct a student
performance tracking assessment system that can be used by administrators and teachers to
systematically access and efficiently use assessment data for the purpose of planning and improving
instruction
The focus group will help input on the construct a data protocol that other administrators can use
which systematically facilitates the identification of student learning problems through the analysis
of state, district, and classroom assessment data.

These are two action steps directly related to my TOA cited within my final COI project, and they
represent support structures to both aid building administrators to lead conversations around the
improvement of instruction, and build their capacity to become instructional leaders. I will continue
measuring progress by maintaining records of those administrators whom have completed the data
analysis protocol, capturing feedback from administrators through one-on-one conversations, and
collecting agendas where both the Performance Tracker and the data protocol are used within staff
meetings. I will also be able to monitor administrator access and use of the data within the Performance
Tracker system itself.

Standard 3: Improvement of Teaching and Learning
I will have demonstrated an improvement of teaching and learning practice when I am able to provide
specific responses and examples to the following questions:
What are my primary core beliefs around teaching and learning to which all students are included
(especially students with identified learning disabilities, language development problems, poverty issues,
and social and familial dysfunction)? From those core beliefs and the acknowledgement that these
learning issues exist, how will improvement be addressed? How can I create a sense of learning urgency
among administrators, and teachers to take ownership of these learning challenges and respond with
engaging, culturally-responsive, and intellectually-challenging instruction in their schools and
classrooms? In what ways can I align or unite national and state efforts around the Danielson
Instructional Framework, Teacher-Principal Evaluation, and the Common Core to positively impact
learning in the classroom? Finally, how can I clearly identify the role assessment plays in teaching and
learning; especially since monitoring and adjusting learning is pivotal to improvement efforts by
principals and teachers?
-Internship Self-Assessment, October 2012
This year, my goal for this standard has been to more clearly understand the achievement gap, the factors
influencing the gap, and how to close the gap through my leadership practice. I enjoyed this strand within
the L4L program the most since I was able to build upon a substantial base of knowledge from being a
director of instructional leadership in the 9
th
largest school district in Washington State. With this base
and from my previous work, I assessed myself as a 3 on the self-assessment in this standard. While I
feel I understood what the gap is, I had little knowledge of how my core beliefs and leadership actions
impacted the gap. Moreover, I have learned how important my role is to establish learning systems that
speak to the needs of all learners, whether through the instructional materials students use to the GLAD
training we are projecting for all teachers in our district.
As a learning leader, I am putting structures into place which will aid administrators and teachers to
engage all learners with culturally-responsive and intellectually-challenging instruction through several
initiatives I have established. One, cited earlier and related to equity and excellence, was the training of
four Puyallup teachers to become certified GLAD trainers so that GLAD training could be conducted in-
house training for all Puyallup teachers. The instructional strategies used within GLAD build language
acquisition for ELL students, but we found these strategies also impact all learners in the classroom
through their rich, multi-modal instructional approach to teaching. Further, we see the achievement
benefits in our students when both district and state assessment scores show substantial improvements
when GLAD strategies are used by teachers. This is shown in my written piece, Linking GLAD
Instructional Strategies and the Danielson Instructional Framework.
Another work cited which addresses the improvement of teaching and learning by impacting
each classroom is shown within the final COI/TOA project. In this work, I use the Association of
Washington School Principal (AWSP) Leadership frameworks four components within criterion
three to guide my theory of action steps with building administrators to focus upon the
dimensional problems of practice. Components for the improvement of teaching and learning
include using leadership tools to optimize student and adult professional learning, and the AWSP
leadership framework provides guidance to analyze data using a data protocol and Performance
Tracker in such a way to analyze assessment practices and use assessment data of various kinds
to improve instruction. By implementing my TOA steps, this will also build systems to support and
sustain instructional leadership, inside and outside of schools-which is another component for this
standard.

For the following year, my goal is to continue the implementation steps of my TOA from my COI project
since much of the work is incomplete since it was started late in the spring of 2013. Namely, I want to
continue to build capacity in administrators to lead learning discussions using a data protocol and data
within the new Performance Tracker system with their staff and provide the technical and support for
instruction along the way. The specific action steps to do this are listed above within standard 2. An
additional goal is to build administrators capacity to evaluate staff using the support of technology to
collect, manage, sort and analyze evidence of learning from classroom walks.
To do this work, our district recently purchased a new Microsoft Surface device for every administrator
with one of the purposes to provide a tool to effectively help document evidence of student learning in
classrooms in an efficient, technology-related manner. Directly, this evidence will also empower
administrators to have learning-centered discussions and post-observational follow-ups supporting student
learning and their growth in the classroom. Coupled with Danielson instructional framework language,
this work will provide evidence for teachers to become more proficient as teachers which, Danielson
cites in her framework research, correlates to gains in student achievement. This new activity aligns
nicely with my theory of action steps listed within standard 2 and will provide evidence to support
standard 3 as well.

Standard 4: Strategic, Collaborative, Governance and Decision-Making
I will have demonstrated strategic, collaborative, governance and decision-Making when I am able to
provide specific responses and examples to the following questions:
Uniting practices in the classroom and practices at the district office requires coherency and a
comprehensive understanding of how both these worlds operate. In what ways am I facilitating
collaborative discussions to help teachers and principals decide upon and own effective teaching
practices? (In essence, I will need to how to navigate the political, structural, and symbolic arenas helps
build this coherency). In what ways am I reframing issues for administrators, teachers, parents, and
students to provide a window into these coherent practices? However, coherency is not enough since
understanding how inequities manifest themselves in a large system requires an additional lens to inform
decision-making or policy revision. How am I providing evidence of inequitable practices to our central
office team? In what ways am I helping to align initiatives to the strategic plan to build this coherency
and provide clarity for resource allocation? And, how am I connecting these initiatives to the broader
legal and political environments (i.e. TPEP, for one) since those environments may influence or impact
student learning?
-Internship Self-Assessment, October 2012
My goal for last year and for the coming year is to impact policy decisions, governance, and strategic
directions for the purpose of building capacity in principals, teachers, and support staff to become more
effective at helping students be successful; and I want to model ethical and transparent leadership
practices to other leaders along the way to establish sustainable programs. The rationale for maintaining
this goal throughout two years of the L4L program lies in the self-assessment score of 2 that I gave
myself. Certainly, I need additional with experiences directly associated with standard four which my
superintendent internship will provide. Specifically, my mentoring superintendent placed me on the
Maintenance and Operations/Capitol Projects Levy committee and put me in charge of the districts new
one-to-one student laptop project. Additional evidence can be provided in the following year by
continuing work within the two district leadership groups in which I serve-the District Leadership and
Education Leadership Teams.
By working on these committees and groups, I plan on uniting district plans and classroom practices to
realize greater student achievement by developing coherent organizational structures and policies that
improve the equity and overall performance of the educational system. As a District Leadership
committee member, I help re-write, review, and enact policy to improve Puyallups educational system,
while I allocate, and manage resources in alignment with improvement and equity goals. I am constantly
learning that you do not do one without impacting the other. An example of this is with the piece of
evidence I provided in my portfolio on the review and implementation of new instructional materials
policy language as this policy impacts the instructional materials we purchase and the subsequent
teaching and learning which occurs in each of our classrooms.
Within this policy is a section requiring a bias screening conducted for every core instructional piece of
material we plan to purchase to ensure it is free of bias and also includes examples, images, and stories of
all learners (e.g. students with IEPs, ELL students, and students from different ethnic groups) instead of
only one student group. In this policy, we also included a process by which community members can
collaborate and provide a voice to provide input when instructional materials are selected.
Another portfolio piece of evidence supporting standard four involves the comprehensive math
improvement plan I created along with indicators of success for each plan component. When I consider
ways to help align initiatives to the strategic plan to build coherency and provide clarity for resource
allocation, I believe the comprehensive math improvement plan illustrates how $2.4 million of district
resources were allocated to improve math. The architecture of a targeted plan involved carefully crafting
actions steps to acquire new math instructional materials, implement demonstration classrooms, support
struggling learners with additional math intervention, and provide other professional development
opportunities for teachers and administrators.
Overall, our indicators of success for this plan show growth for many of the plan components while we
continue to compile data to determine if remaining indicators show the growth we expected. As we
implemented the math plan, I became increasing aware of the inequities in our large system which
required an additional decision-making or policy revision. Specifically, two of our schools continued to
perform well-under others in our district and were listed by the state as Emerging Schools under the new
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) language cited by OSPI. Upon deeper analysis, we
recognized the inequities in language and reading support services at both of these schools based upon
higher poverty and greater numbers of English Language Learners at these two schools. This information
informed our leadership teams that additional services and supports were necessary consistent with the
additional needs from both of those schools. Our leadership team supported changes by increasing ELL
services at the schools, providing GLAD review for teachers, and hiring an additional math and reading
district improvement specialist in each school. In using the comprehensive math improvement plan and
related indicators, we were able to establish a metric for providing these additional supports.
A final portfolio entry includes a random snapshot of my calendar. At first, this appears to have less
relevancy to standard 4, but in practice, this demonstrates a central office practice of maintaining
transparency and modeling accountability and ethical leadership to other district leaders and
administrative assistants. At the beginning of this year, several administrative assistants expressed their
frustration over not knowing where my assistant was during a typical work day. At first glance, there
appears to be an obvious fix by making our Outlook calendars known to both office staff and
administrators and including events and their location within our calendars. However, there were other
factors at play involving personalities and a previous employee who had been resigned due to personal
conflicts with me and the organization. The leadership move I made addressed this issue by printing both
my calendar as well as my office assistants and posting them outside our offices for all to see. Over the
following months, not only did the complaints stop but other assistants and administrators began printing
their calendars too. I share this piece because part of this standard cites the ability to model transparent
and ethical leadership and address sources of conflict productively and equitably. I feel this action did
that.

While I feel I have a considerable way to go as a leader based upon these four standards, I believe this
reflection aided by the pieces of evidence within my portfolio show me as an emerging leader in
standards two and four, and more proficient in the areas of standard one and three. As mentioned above, I
believe my superintendent internship will strengthen my knowledge and abilities to demonstrate standard
four, while continued COI/TOA work in years two and three will provide the opportunities to improve my
inquiry guided leadership practice.