justinbaeder, Author at The Principal Center - Page 3 of 12

Free Download: 10 Questions for Better Feedback on Teaching

All Posts by justinbaeder

Ending the “When Can You Meet?” Back-and-Forth with Self-Service Calendar Booking Tools

As a leader, your time is in short supply, but a lot of people need it.

You're needed in meetings with parents, district administrators, outside contractors, and the teachers you supervise.

Unless you're in a small school where double-booking is rare and people can easily find you when they need you, it's essential to manage your appointments with a calendar.

While the calendar is a great tool for avoiding double-booking, and making sure you're always in the right place at the right time, managing your calendar can be a part-time job all by itself.

It comes in waves, especially around the teacher evaluation process:

“Dear teachers,
It's time for our evaluation conferences. Please email me three times that would work for you.”

A single all-staff email like this can easily generate dozens or hundreds of back-and-forth messages with teachers as you attempt to pin down a time that works for each teacher, with no double-booking.

Of course, many of the “three times” that teachers suggest for your meeting will overlap with the times suggested by other teachers.

If you have ample office staffing support, you can delegate many aspects of managing your calendar to a trusted administrative assistant. But in most schools, it's not just leaders who are overworked—it's everyone, including administrative assistants.

So the value of solving this problem for good—by allowing people to book their own appointments—is immense.

But it goes against a longstanding tradition in protecting leaders' time.

The Gatekeeper


Administrative assistants have always played an important role in protecting leaders' time.

Leaders' time is scarce, and the buffering role that administrative assistants play saves leaders countless hours of sales presentations, complaints, and other meetings that aren't a high priority.

So if the idea of handing over direct access to the leader's calendar to others makes you nervous, you're not alone.

Fortunately, new tech tools can make it vastly easier to book the right appointments with the right people, without opening the door to time-wasting distractions.

An Experiment in Self-Service Booking

A few years into my role as an elementary principal, I decided I was tired of the “let me know a few times that would work for you” approach to scheduling meetings with teachers.

I was tired of all the back-and-forth emails, and I knew there must be a better way.

It would have been easy to say “please see Teresa in the office to set up a meeting,” but I happened to be using Google Calendar rather than my district's Outlook platform, so no one else had direct access to my calendar.

Plus, I wasn't eager to burden anyone else with the onerous task of making and confirming dozens of appointments. So I looked to technology.

I was familiar with Doodle polls, which are great for figuring out the best time to meet with a large group.

However, Doodle wasn't the right fit. I didn't want to set up one meeting with a large group; I needed to set up a large number of individual meetings, without any double-booking.

I settled on a tool called ScheduleOnce, which I use to this day. (If ScheduleOnce is overkill for your needs, you might try Calendly, which has a free plan—see below.)

These tools are even easier to use than Doodle, and require less back-and-forth discussion, because they're fully self-service.

They don't allow people to see what's on your calendar, but they allow people that you invite to book appointments with you, without any back-and-forth discussion.

How Self-Service Booking Tools Work

Here's the basic process:

  • You link the tool to your Google, Outlook, or iCloud calendar, so the tool can add appointments to your calendar only at times you're free, to prevent double-booking
  • You set additional rules for when you're available for meetings (so you're never booked at 5am, Sunday night, or during lunch duty, even if nothing is on your calendar)
  • The tool provides a link that you share with people who need to meet with you
  • When someone visits this link, the tool checks your calendar in real time, and allows the person to select a time
  • The tool adds the appointment to your calendar and sends email notifications to everyone

Before I used ScheduleOnce, the process was much more cumbersome:

  • Send out a “please let me know three times that work for you” email to all staff
  • Reply to teachers individually to confirm the times that work for me
  • Apologize to the teachers whose three times are already filled, and ask for more options
  • Feel bad that I answered my email slightly out of order, so it wasn't perfectly first-come, first-served
  • Reply again to confirm appointments with the teachers who didn't get their first choice
  • Follow up with anyone who forgets to book a time

When I made the switch to self-service booking, the process consisted of:

  • Setting up the tool
  • Sending out the link and instructions
  • Following up with people who forgot to book a time
  • Showing up for the meetings

As you can see, the process is similar when you use a self-service calendar tool, but a major time-wasting step is eliminated: negotiation and communication.

The only communication involved was sending out the email with the link and instructions. Everything else happened automatically:

  • The tool checks my calendar for existing appointments to avoid double-booking
  • The tool follows my additional rules for when I want to meet, so I don't end up with meetings at inconvenient times
  • The tool adds the appointment to my calendar
  • The tool sends a confirmation to me and the person who set up the meeting
  • The tool sends reminders to make sure we both show up on time

These tools aren't always free, but they're incredibly flexible, and they'll save you a ton of time.

Choosing The Right Tool

I've never used Calendly to manage my own calendar, but I've used it many times as a podcast guest or meeting participant.

The interface is extremely simple and intuitive, and it's free. If you want to get started quickly and easily, go with Calendly.

You can pay for more advanced features—for example, if you'd like to customize the text in appointment confirmation emails to remind teachers what to bring to their meetings with you.

My recommendation is to try Calendly and see if it does what you need.

If not, I recommend taking a look at ScheduleOnce, which is also very easy to set up, but is much more customizable. Because of its built-in flexibility, ScheduleOnce doesn't have a free plan.

If you need advanced features, such as multiple booking pages, or group meetings, I recommend ScheduleOnce, because they've developed a solution for virtually every scenario:

Do you want to have all of your pre-conferences to take place before or after school, to leave the school day free for observations?

Do you want to have veto power before meetings are confirmed?

Do you need to schedule a meeting with three parents, two SPED teachers, seven Gen Ed teachers, and your school psychologist, in a room with a projector and at least 8 chairs?

No matter how elaborate your needs, ScheduleOnce has you covered. (By my count, ScheduleOnce has 46 different customization features at the moment, with more added all the time.)

But again, if you just need a way for people to make appointments on your calendar without double-booking, Calendly is much simpler—and if you need advanced features, Calendly has plenty to offer when you're ready to upgrade to a paid plan.

Different Links for Different Purposes

If you want to create a single link to allow people to book appointments in general, it's fast and easy.

But you may find it worthwhile to create different booking pages for different purposes.

For example, when I asked teachers to book their formal observation cycle appointments with me, I just provided a single link. But if I wanted to hold all of my pre- and post-conferences outside of school hours, to leave the school day free for classroom observations, I could create two different booking pages—one showing school hours, and one showing non-school hours.

Both booking pages would connect with the same calendar—my calendar—but with different availability rules.

You can also create different rules for different audiences. For example, you may accept 1-hour appointments for classroom observations, but only 15-minute meetings with parents. It's up to you.

It Really Works!

As I've worked with countless groups of administrators and administrative assistants, I've often encountered resistance to the idea of setting up a new tool, because it seems like it'll be hard or intimidating. And we fear letting go of control, which is understandable.

So allow me to give you three assurances:

  • It's easy—you can do it, even if you aren't tech-savvy
  • It works, and nothing bad will happen
  • It'll save you an enormous amount of time and frustration, especially when you're meeting with a lot of people back-to-back

Give it a try! Pick a tool, link it to your calendar, and share the link with someone who needs to meet with you.

Your Turn

How will you use a self-service calendar tool? Leave a comment and let me know!

If you'd like more time-saving strategies for school leaders, check out my book Now We're Talking! 21 Days to High-Performance Instructional Leadership (especially chapters 6-10).

If you'd like to provide your district team with in-depth support for productivity and instructional leadership, learn more about bringing me onsite for the High-Performance Instructional Leadership 1-Day Intensive.

Guillaume Gendre—School By Design

Interview Notes, Resources, & Links

Visit the School By Design website

About Guillaume Gendre

Guillaume Gendre is a senior school design expert for School by Design, where he helps districts design the schools students and teachers need with the resources they have. He has 20 years’ experience in the field of education and has previously been a principal in Washington, DC and Hartford, CT, and an assessment specialist for the Oregon Department of Education.

Robyn Jackson—Never Underestimate Your Teachers: Instructional Leadership for Excellence in Every Classroom

Interview Notes, Resources, & Links

Get the book, Never Underestimate Your Teachers: Instructional Leadership for Excellence in Every Classroom

Follow Robyn on Twitter @Robyn_Mindsteps

Visit the Mindsteps webiste

Listen to the School Leadership Reimagined podcast

About Robyn Jackson, PhD

Robyn Jackson, PhD., is the founder of Mindsteps and the host of School Leadership Re-Imagined, the podcast for school administrators, instructional coaches, and teacher leaders. She's the award-winning author of 10 books including the best selling The Instructional Leader’s Guide to Strategic Conversations with Teachers and Never Underestimate Your Teachers, which was chosen as an ASCD Member Book.

Barbara Blackburn—Rigor In Your School: A Toolkit for Leaders

Interview Notes, Resources, & Links

Get the book, Rigor In Your School: A Toolkit for Leaders

Follow Barbara on Twitter @barbblackburn

Visit Barbara's website

Free Resources from BarbaraBlackburnOnline

About Barbara Blackburn, PhD

Barbara Blackburn, PhD is the author of 18 books and a full-time consultant who works with schools around the world to help raise the level of rigor and motivation for professional educators and students alike. Dr. Blackburn has been named to the Top 30 Education Gurus by Global Gurus for 3 years running, and she’s co-author of the book Rigor In Your School: A Toolkit for Leaders

Classroom Conversations for Leading Learning

Our profession has had no shortage of efforts to help leaders improve their schools.

In recent years, these efforts have focused heavily on teacher evaluation, though many other promising models have incorporated coaching, feedback, and data-driven planning cycles.

But what if we’ve been overlooking the most impactful approach, precisely because it seems too simple? And what if the best way to improving teaching is also the best way to improve school leadership?

From thousands of conversations with school leaders, I’ve seen a wide range of approaches to instructional leadership, ranging from the casual to the highly formalized. I’ve also heard brutally honest reflections—from both administrators and teachers—on the impact of these efforts. My conclusion is that most are a waste of time and effort. We’d do far better to return to the most basic form of human interaction: conversation.

Conversation As Professional Learning

Making a daily practice of visiting classrooms, observing briefly, and talking with teachers has the greatest potential to improve student learning, help professionals grow, and help schools become more effective learning organizations.

I’ve come to this conclusion by studying an unlikely role model: Toyota. At Toyota, continuous improvement and employee development happen primarily through interactions between mentors and mentees—employees and their supervisors—on the factory floor, or wherever the work is being done. We might assume that leadership in a manufacturing company would be rigidly top-down, numbers-driven, and directive toward front-line staff. But Toyota’s focus on conversation is precisely what sets it apart from its competitors.

Adopting a “go and see” philosophy, Toyota supervisors are prohibited from making decisions from afar based on reports and data. Instead, they’re expected to go and talk about the work with the people doing the work. Because these conversations take place on the factory floor rather than in the manager’s office, they’re based on firsthand, real-time observations of the work being done.

As Mike Rother explains in his book Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness, and Superior Results, everyone throughout the company is taught to improve quality by engaging in rapid cycles of inquiry—an interactive process between supervisors and employees at all levels of the organization.

Contrast this approach to our typical system for accountability and professional growth in schools:

  • Teachers set annual goals based on student performance, which are vetted by administrators
  • Administrators conduct formal observations, meeting in their offices with teachers for pre- and post-observation discussions
  • Conversations about teaching tend to focus on ratings and directive feedback, with the administrator doing most of the talking
  • Decisions about student intervention and teacher professional development are made based on data and reports, but with hardly any firsthand observation

Under this approach, instructional leaders obtain very little real-time information on which to base improvement decisions. Administrators may conduct occasional walk-throughs to collect data, provide feedback, make an appearance, and generally keep teachers on their toes, but without conversation, these visits fail to generate learning—for the individuals or the organization.

If a much simpler approach—face-to-face conversation—has so much potential to improve leadership and organizational performance, why hasn’t it caught on in schools?

In short, because we’re too focused on directive feedback.

The Danger of Directive Feedback

In the education profession, we hold feedback in high regard—though what constitutes feedback can vary widely. In most cases, it includes suggestions made by instructional leaders, which teachers are expected to implement or at least consider. For example, in his 2013 book Leverage Leadership, Paul Bambrick-Santoyo describes how a principal, Julie, provides feedback to teachers in weekly 15-minute meetings, based on 15-minute observations: “At each feedback meeting, Julie offers direct, readily applicable feedback. The next week, she checks that her feedback has been put in place and looks for further areas for improvement, building a veritable cycle of improvement” (p. 64).

At Toyota, in contrast, mentors are discouraged from providing this type of feedback, which is seen as a hindrance to the mentee’s growth—as well as a hindrance to discovering the true nature of the improvement that needs to occur. Suggestions—or what Toyota calls countermeasures—are inappropriate before the issue has been pinpointed by the mentee. The mentor is present and fully engaged, but only to guide the mentee—not provide a solution.

What if we instead approached school improvement and professional growth like Toyota, by treating inquiry-driven conversation as the best way to improve performance? What if we trained school leaders not to treat observations as opportunities for directive feedback, but as a chance to “go and see,” and engage in conversation with teachers?

It might seem impossible that a manufacturing company could have a more effective approach to professional and organizational learning than schools, which are ostensibly learning organizations. But Toyota’s culture and results speak for themselves. By engaging in continuous improvement for more than 60 years, Toyota has established itself as the world’s quality leader—not just in manufacturing, but across all sectors. How might a “go and see” approach to instructional leadership work in our schools?

From Firsthand Evidence to Better Decisions

Classroom conversations facilitate professional and organizational learning for a straightforward and obvious reason: they allow us to make sense of what’s taking place, and to make rapid decisions to improve the conditions for teaching and learning.

For example, if Sam, an administrator, spends a few minutes observing in Carol’s math class, he might observe that students seem confused during Carol’s explanation of how to solve a new type of problem. In a typical walkthrough, Sam might leave Carol a note with a few reflective questions, such as “What are some ways you could ensure that students are following along with your explanations, so you can identify their misconceptions?”

Or if it’s a formal observation, Sam might meet with Carol afterward and ask her to justify her approach to the lesson. He might then provide directive feedback on reducing students’ confusion.

But what if Sam adopts a simpler approach, and simply asks Carol how the lesson went relative to her plans? He might discover that she intended for students to struggle a bit with the new problem type in small groups, as a formative assessment before teaching a new algorithm. Or he might discover that Carol didn’t think students were confused at all. Without knowing Carol’s intentions for the lesson, and inquiring about her perceptions of its success, Sam is likely to provide unhelpful or even insulting feedback.

Teacher evaluation expert Charlotte Danielson, in her book Talk About Teaching! Leading Professional Conversations, explains that conversation is powerful because—unlike directive feedback—it hinges on teachers’ understanding as much as their actions:

When educators recognize that for teachers to advance in their understanding, they must be the ones to engage in the work of self-assessment and reflection on practice, then external feedback is even seen as a possible hindrance to that process. (p. 10)

In a complex environment, determining the facts on the ground is a critical first step. Before we can make improvement decisions, we must ascertain what’s currently taking place, then decide what it means. As outside observers, instructional leaders often lack the context they need to make meaning of what they see. Teachers have deep knowledge about what and how their students have been learning, but may miss many of the nuances of student interaction that an outside observer may notice. Conversation can bridge these gaps in knowledge, and lead to deeper understanding—and ultimately, better decisions that result in improvement.

For teachers, these decisions are squarely focused on teaching and learning. For instructional leaders, the insights gained from a single conversation may inform a wide range of operational and improvement decisions. It’s these interactions, repeated hundreds of times each school year, that lead to sustained improvement and outstanding results for students.

Why can’t directive feedback produce the same level of improvement? I believe it can help teachers move from bad to good, but not from good to great. Achieving excellence in teaching requires that teachers themselves take professional responsibility for their teaching decisions and their growth. Too many instructional leaders go to great lengths to provide high-quality directive feedback, yet fail to recognize this fundamental fact. It’s not enough for teachers to improve only in response to directive feedback; continuous improvement, as the same implies, should happen all the time.

As leaders engage in “go and see” conversations with teachers, they learn about the challenges teachers are grappling with individually, as well as school-wide challenges that must be addressed at the administrative level.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming, known as the father of the quality movement in Japan and the US, believed that quality is the results of systems more than exceptional individuals, noting that “in my experience most troubles and most possibilities for improvement add up to the proportions something like this: 94% belongs to the system” (Out of the Crisis, p. 315).

While student learning may depend to a greater degree on the quality of individual teachers, only by engaging in organizational learning can schools build the capacity to meet the needs of their students. Treating individual teachers as problems to be fixed with corrective feedback robs our schools of the improvement potential of conversation-based learning.

How “Go and See” Conversations Look In Practice

Powerful classroom conversations begin with noticing. Instructional leaders can be more than a sounding board; they can be key sources of insight if they’re willing to “go and see” the work being done firsthand.

For example, Sam might begin a conversation with Carol by saying “It seemed to me, from the looks on their faces, that students were pretty confused while you were demonstrating how to solve the new type of problem. What was your take, and how did that compare with your expectations when you planned the lesson?”

Sam not only shares his perception of what took place, but also asks for Carol’s perspective on the situation. Then, he asks how that compares with her intent for the lesson—a consideration that’s often missing from directive feedback. After clarifying the situation, Carol and Sam can discuss ideas for improvement.

What learning will result from this conversation? First, Sam will learn how Carol thinks about the issues they discuss. Second, he may gain insight into effective teaching strategies that Carol shares with him, which he may be able to share with other teachers. Third, he may identify issues that need to be addressed at the school level—for example, if Carol identifies school activities that are causing students to miss class. Fourth, he may identify areas in which Carol could benefit from additional professional development or training.

What might Carol learn from this conversation? She may gain greater insight into how students experienced the lesson, and may gain valuable ideas about how to improve her practice. She’ll also learn to adopt Sam’s approach to inquiry, so she can use it independently.

But it’s also possible that she’ll learn very little from her conversation with Sam—especially if she’s a highly skilled, experienced teacher. Is this a positive outcome? Yes, because what Carol shares with Sam can result in organizational learning—Sam can help transfer Carol’s expertise to other teachers, and he’ll be able to make better-informed school leadership decisions. In the worst-case scenario, Carol makes a good impression on Sam, and goes on with her day.

In contrast, if Sam had approached Carol with traditional top-down feedback, the potential for harm would have been much greater, and the potential for learning would have been much lower. Directive feedback is only effective if the instructional leader both correctly diagnoses the situation and prescribes the right remedy—both of which are unlikely in a brief visit to an experienced teacher’s classroom.

If Sam’s feedback is off-base in any way—if he has misunderstood the lesson, or if he lacks the necessary expertise in mathematics instruction—Carol can only avoid harming student learning by ignoring it, possibly at risk to her own career. And if Sam gives bad feedback, he will learn nothing—or worse, he’ll learn the wrong lessons from the interaction.

One of the greatest barriers to improving teaching is its inherent complexity. Teachers make thousands of decisions about how to best teach dozens or hundreds of unique students, and administrators often find it difficult to guide them in making better decisions.

This is, fundamentally, a problem of information. Teachers know what they’ve already taught and how their students have responded, and use this information to make decisions from moment to moment. Administrators have access to far less information about the classroom—especially in a brief visit—but have a valuable perspective as outside observers who come with a wealth of professional knowledge.

The best way to exchange this information quickly, with the least potential for misunderstanding, is through face-to-face conversation in the classroom, immediately following a brief observation.

What Doesn’t Work, and Why

Classroom conversations are the most powerful form of professional development for instructional leaders, but not all conversations are created equal.

If instructional leaders talk with teachers without observing in the classroom—as often happens before or after school—their conversations will be reduced to philosophizing, because they’ll lack the “go and see” dimension of Toyota’s approach that facilitates shared problem solving.

If instructional leaders provide directive feedback, telling teachers what to do rather than developing an understanding of the instructional situation through conversation, they’ll risk providing bad advice, and they’ll fail to learn from teachers who could aid their growth as instructional leaders.

If instructional leaders provide only written or checklist-based feedback, they’ll fail to develop the stronger collegial relationships and the deeper insights that naturally result from conversation.

In contrast, when instructional leaders adopt a “go and see” approach to classroom conversations, they maximize their opportunities for professional growth, teacher development, and organizational learning.

A Gameplan

If you’d like to spend more time in classrooms, consider the following approach:

  • Visit three classrooms a day, every day, observing for five to ten minutes in each classroom
  • While students are working, or when the teacher is free, have a brief, open-ended conversation with the teacher
  • Focus your inquiry on professional and organizational learning, not on feedback

You don’t need a complicated process or any special tools. Simply “go and see,” and talk with teachers. Over the course of the school year, you’ll make it around to each teacher a dozen or more times, depending on the number of teachers you supervise.

You’ll quickly find that these conversations build relationships, trust, and the knowledge you need to keep improving. And you may discover that classroom conversations are the best professional development you’ve ever experienced as an instructional leader.

 

References

Danielson, C. (2015). Talk about teaching!: leading professional conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Rother, M. (2009). Toyota Kata: managing people for improvement, adaptiveness and superior results. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

The Challenge of “Calibrating” Teacher Observations

When districts strive to provide great training for their administrators on doing high-quality observations and evaluations, I’m delighted.

But there’s one goal the process can never achieve, and it bothers people to no end.

The unreachable goal? Calibration.

“But without calibration, how can teachers be evaluated fairly?” the concern goes. “If one administrator’s assessment would be different from another’s, how is this a defensible system?”

Of course we don’t want teacher evaluations to be capricious or unreliable. And using multiple evaluators for high-stakes evaluations isn’t a bad idea at all.

But what most districts try to do doesn’t work.

 

Calibration Training

Here’s how calibration training typically works: One school (or a vendor) provides a video of a lesson, and all the administrators watch and do a practice write-up.

Then, the calibration begins.

“Why did you give her a 3 for ‘monitoring student engagement’?”

“I gave him a 2 for ‘having a clear objective for the lesson.'”

And the debate begins…but it never goes anywhere.

And it can’t, because the observers don’t have the information they need.

Missing Context

I don’t believe teaching is like auditioning for a musical, where you can do a scene or a number and give the casting director a good sense of whether you’d be right for the show.

When you teach, you’re not just showing up and doing a little song and dance. Some of the most important work happens behind the scenes, when you’re phoning parents, planning lessons, reviewing student work, collaborating with other educators, and doing the million other things that go into great teaching.

Good evaluation frameworks account for this behind-the-scenes work, but even when it comes to understanding what’s happening during a lesson, there’s essential context that a stranger won’t know.

As a supervisor and colleague, you know things about your teachers and their students that are essential for conducting a fair evaluation, and even for truly understanding what’s happening in a lesson.

Ten Things Administrators Know About Their Own Classrooms

Here’s what’s missing when we do practice observations from videos, or even when we observe other schools’ teachers during site visits. We don’t know:

 

  • What the teacher taught yesterday, and what’s happening tomorrow
  • What went well and what didn’t go as planned yesterday
  • Which students are having a hard time lately
  • Which students have IEPs, behavior plans, or other systems in place
  • What the teacher’s team decided jointly to do for this unit
  • When the teacher’s dog died (true story…)
  • What routines and procedures the teacher has in place
  • How today compares to the typical day in this classroom
  • What the teacher learned about students’ understanding yesterday
  • How today’s lesson connects to upcoming plans

You can’t know this context if you’re watching a video.

But you also can’t know it if you aren’t in classrooms regularly, and if you aren’t involved in planning and collaboration meetings.

(If you’re ready to develop the habit of visiting classrooms regularly, so you know what’s going on, check out the Instructional Leadership Challenge, which currently has been taken by more then 10,000 participants worldwide).

The bottom line? Evaluation can only be done well in the context of a teacher-supervisor relationship. It can’t be simulated, at least not very well. And it can’t be calibrated, except among administrators who actually work in the same school and have the same information.

How To Help Administrators Do Better Observations

If you want to do an exercise of this type, forget about calibration, and focus on the quality of the written evaluation.

Don’t worry if one principal thinks the lesson was great and another thinks it was terrible. Focus on the quality of evidence the principal provides in the written report.

Share good and bad examples, talk about the difference, and give feedback on how to make the final product stronger.

As a side benefit, principals will develop a clearer understanding of the evaluation criteria you’re using, and this will directly aid the calibration goal.

 

Ilana Horn—Motivated: Designing Math Classrooms Where Students Want to Join In

Interview Notes, Resources, & Links

Get the book, Motivated: Designing Math Classrooms Where Students Want to Join In

Follow Ilana on Twitter @ilana_horn

About Ilana Horn

Ilana Seidel Horn, PhD is Professor of Mathematics Education at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College, where her research and teaching center on ways to make authentic mathematics accessible to students, particularly those who have historically been disenfranchised by our educational system. She is the author of numerous scholarly publications and several books, including her new book Motivated: Designing Math Classrooms Where Students Want to Join In

Julie Wilson—The Human Side of Changing Education: How to Lead Change With Clarity, Conviction, and Courage

Interview Notes, Resources, & Links

Get the book, The Human Side of Changing Education: How to Lead Change With Clarity, Conviction, and Courage

Visit the Institute for the Future of Learning Website

Follow Julie on Twitter @juliemargretta

Bonus Content: Listen to Julie and Justin talk more about organizational change

About Julie M. Wilson

Julie Margretta Wilson is the founder and executive director of the Institute for the Future of Learning. An alumnus of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, she is the author The Human Side of Changing Education: How to Lead Change With Clarity, Conviction, and Courage

Elena Aguilar—Onward: Cultivating Emotional Resilience in Educators

Interview Notes, Resources, & Links

Get the book, Onward: Cultivating Emotional Resilience in Educators

Visit the OnwardTheBook Website

Visit the Bright Morning Consulting Website

Follow Elena on Twitter @artofcoaching1

About Elena Aguilar

Elena Aguilar is the founder and president of Bright Morning Consulting, an educational consulting group that works around the world supporting educators to meet the needs of children. She is the author of The Art of Coaching and The Art of Coaching Teams and a longtime contributor to Edutopia and EdWeek.