Classroom Walk-through
by Joyce Sherwin
Acting Associate Coordinator
Member Services—Administrator Assistance
Alberta Teachers’ Association
[October 2015]
In 2006, I began fielding member’s questions about various forms of classroom walk-through
that were being marketed to busy administrators. At that time, I wrote an article on the subject
for an edition of “Administrator Issues and Concerns” (Monograph 13). The calls received by
Member Services were mostly from worried teachers who said they felt vulnerable by the
processes they were subjected to. The issue of classroom walk-throughs, not to be confused with
proper ongoing required supervision by a principal, remains problematic today as evidenced by
the fact we still receive many calls on the subject. The angst, justifications, confusion, lack of
communication and miscommunication about classroom walk-through, as described to my
colleagues and I, in hundreds of telephone calls on this issue, begs the question; is classroom
walk-through a progressive or oppressive concept and does it build capacity or erode trust?
Based on the many calls I have personally received from teachers in Alberta, I opine that
walk-throughs continue to carry significant risks as a supervisory process. Not only is the
communication regarding the purpose of classroom walk-through often murky, but the trust
between the teachers, principal, and/or central-office staff is often eroded as well. Walk-throughs
are perceived by many teachers as nothing more than a compliance check. Most report that they
have learned very little, do not feel respected as a professional, have not been inspired by the
experience, describe it as stressful or tension filled and describe trust issues with administration
as a result.
Through my experience as a school principal as well as a staff officer, I have come to believe
that other than standardized testing, classroom walk-through may be one of the best examples of
neoliberal reform, where educational systems implement businesslike techniques for the purpose
of benchmarking simplistic measures. The spread of neoliberalism reforms is alarming on a
global scale, so much so that it is referred to as a Global Education Reform Movement (GERM)
by education expert, Dr Pasi Sahlberg, who in his many keynote presentations around the world,
likens these kinds of reforms to a virus or disease. The results of neoliberal reform is problematic
including a narrowing of education as discussed by Diana Ravitch, Jelmer Evers and Rene
Kneyber. At the core of this issue is that classroom walkthrough processes often undermine trust
and the overriding theme in Sahlberg’s presentations is that the alternative to GERM is the need
to engage processes to enhance trust.
A simple Google search will tell you there are numerous classroom walk-through materials
actively marketed to principals by a variety of companies. As such, we are seeing a plethora of
formats appearing in our Alberta school landscape. Some principals use hand-held digital
devices or apps, while others utilize paper checklists of supposed good teaching practices. In
essence, most programs of classroom walk-through have principals conducting short
observations of teachers to generate a data profile of the teacher.
1|Page
Although heavily marketed and advertised by companies with business interests, especially in
the United States, the research on the effectiveness of classroom walk-though is not robust and is
extremely limited. In my review of the literature, I did not find it surprising that classroom walkthrough research typically reports management to have a more favourable view while the
subjects of classroom walk-through have a less favourable view of the process.
Most companies advertise that their reporting system will help principals identify trends and
issues and allow them to compare observations collected in one particular classroom, with
school-wide data. They claim that the data profile generated from these observations creates a
culture focused on “learning and improvement.” This seems paradoxical to me when upon
review of classroom walk-through materials, it is clearly evident the driving philosophy behind
most programs, is accountability.
I find it interesting that while marketing his own “patent pending” version of classroom
walk-through, called iObservation, Robert Marzanno admits, “Most walkthroughs that I’ve seen
I think are ineffective. And actually, I think some work against developing effective teachers.
The primary reason for that is that the walkthroughs I’ve seen focus on typically a very narrow
range of instructional strategies, as though that were the totality of what effective teaching is.
Commonly they’ll use strategies from one of the books I’ve written on Classroom Instruction
that Works and they’ll just focus on that. Although it was a good book and it had good strategies,
to say that is good teaching is very inaccurate. And actually, we never said that in the book,
never at all. As a matter of fact, if people read the first chapter, we caution against that.”
(http://www.iobservation.com/Marzano-Suite/Videos/why-most-classroom-walkthroughs-areineffective/)
A quote sometimes attributed to Einstein but also to William Bruce Cameron, reminds us that
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” In
the busy world of a school, it is understandable how educators are seduced by easy answers that
may be gleaned from data that appears simple to collect, however, based on the ever increasing
complexity of the typical classroom in Alberta today, supervision by the principal needs to dig
much deeper than short snapshots or drive-by’s of teaching in relation to a narrow range of
instructional strategies. The outcome of classroom walk-through will no doubt lead to a “data
rich” file over time but will most often leave the principal and teacher “information poor” when
it comes to offering true “guidance and support” (a requirement as per Alberta Policy 2.1.5) for
the purpose of building teacher capacity. Master teachers and principals understand that teaching
is a complex dance, involving both art and science, in ever changing and complex contextual
environments.
Principals who consider themselves instructional leaders should consider whether their ongoing
supervisory actions or intended actions will actually support and build teacher capacity in order
to optimize learning environments for students or whether the measures will be regressive due to
unintended negative outcomes. At worst, walk-throughs, viewed by teachers as compliance
checks and top-down enforcement of district initiatives, as evidenced by the many phone calls to
member services, impede professional learning and leave teachers thinking about avoiding
trouble rather than encouraging true collaboration with administrators and teachers for the
purpose of building capacity. It would seem classroom walkthrough practices, due to a negative
reputation earned over the last decade, risk being viewed as a part of an ongoing assessment
process driven by negative accountability forces. Many teachers see it as something they must
endure but not something they find inspiring.
2|Page
Having said that, I must state, aspects of classroom walk-throughs are beneficial in my view. In
fact, some elements of the processes described would be very appealing to me if I were still a
principal. My caution to principals is simply this, be critical consumers of resources, including
classroom walk-through resources. As a wise principal, you know that supervision of teachers is
relationship based, complex, contextual and multifaceted. No one can simplify supervision and
sell it to you in a box or as an app. Implementation of supervisory practices requires flexibility,
encourages risk taking by teachers and administration, encourages creativity and problem solving
rather than compliance with overly simplistic measures and checklists. Effective supervision
promotes teacher collaborative networks and focuses discourse on optimizing learning
experiences for students. All of this involves frequent observations of the pedagogical practices
of the teachers in the school. Classroom walk-through practices typically get principals into
classrooms often so that is positive, but that is only the simple first step. What a principal does
after that in order to weave networks, invite journeys of professional growth, motivate discourse
about teaching and learning and promote pockets of good practice is the true art of supervisory
practices. Supervisory practices involve teacher professionals as equal partners in a common
quest to optimize learning environments for students.
Sahlberg argues that the factor that has most contributed to the Finnish education system is the
daily contributions of excellent teachers and argues that supervision must always respect
professional dignity and the work of a teacher must always strike a balance between classroom
teaching and collaboration with other professionals. Alberta has developed a system of teacher
growth, supervision and evaluation that is based on the premise that teachers are competent
individuals who are constantly growing professionally. Policy 2.1.5—Teacher Growth,
Supervision and Evaluation (TGSE) deals with accountability and continuous professional
growth. It is a provincial regulation that recognizes the excellent teaching provided by Alberta’s
teachers and their contribution to the achievement of Alberta’s students, who are among the best
in the world.
In the Alberta context, supervision is an ongoing process of observing and providing feedback
related to a teacher’s competence against prescribed standards of the Teaching Quality Standard.
Through the professional growth plan process, principals have a direct connection with each
teacher’s teaching that is supplemented by ongoing supervision. Teacher observations by the
principal have always been an expected aspect of the TGSE process in our province.
When teachers and administrators in a school develop a collegial culture focused on pedagogical
improvement, or a philosophy that “we are all learners in order to optimize the learning
environments for our students” and when there is a high level of trust, teachers do not suffer
from lost sleep the night before an observation by a principal. Rather, the process of supervision
is inspirational, serves to build trust and motivation, leads to improved teacher capacity and
enriches the learning environments for students. Teachers, who have demonstrated competency,
should be treated with professional dignity and not be subjected to a process that has them
micromanaged or worried about perceived fault finding processes that they believe may be
counted against them at some future date. These kinds of supervisory practices do not encourage
creative risk taking or inspired pedagogy which is complex and relationship based. Rather, these
kinds of supervisory practices are much more likely to result in marginal compliance to
simplistic teaching measures that narrow a teacher’s repertoire and will not likely impact
teaching capacity in a positive or sustainable way.
3|Page
A national research study, the Future of the Principalship in Canada, which is available on the
ATA website and is something I recommend all principals read, identified the need to foster
cultures of collaboration and distributed leadership in order to build teacher capacity. “This
finding reveals a potential disjuncture between administrators’ professional self-concepts as
isolated leaders and problem-solvers and the forms of distributed leadership and integrated
service models, which school improvement literature promotes (p 49, Clandfield & Martell,
2010; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Harris, 2009; Leithwood, Mascall & Strauss, 2009). In
Alberta, our Policy 2.1.5, reminds principals that they must support and guide teachers. This
means that active listening, helpful discourse about teacher and student aspirations for learning,
and thinking about how to guide as well as support teachers to reach the aspirations, is the work
of principals and school leaders. Data collection, within the teacher growth and supervision
process, when grounded in clearly defined goals as discussed between teacher and principal is
extremely beneficial. Respectful professional dialogue includes an ongoing analysis of
contextual variables impacting the learning environment. When opportunities are provided for
teachers to engage with principals in safe open discourse regarding pedagogical decisions to
determine the impact to the learning environment, these reflective conversations will not only
serve to inform practice but encourage capacity building. This is a two-way process.
Observational feedback as well as self-reflection can be powerful forces when unleashed through
a trusting collaboration between a principal and a teacher.
On the other hand, placing a check mark next to a descriptor on a list, has little potential to
improve instruction or inspire professional growth in any long-term, sustainable or meaningful
way and would seem to be a wasted and potentially damaging effort. The role of the data
gathered during supervision must be carefully examined by principals to determine its usefulness
in making decisions about teaching and learning. Fullan reminds us that the “evolution of
standards and accountability as applied to the teaching profession with greater intensity over the
years has fundamentally weakened the effectiveness of the profession” and that rather than
accountability as a driving force, the focus of principals should be “capacity building.” The
biggest impediment to capacity building is a lack of feedback and Fullan suggests rather than
using appraisal instruments or tools, a principal should build in collaborative learning
opportunities every day with teachers. Fullan states that countries with strong teaching
professions recognize that carrot and stick approaches are not effective as teachers “simply don’t
improve that way.”
In conclusion, I would stress that supervisory approaches that have the goal of building teacher
capacity and optimizing learning environments for students, must operate in transparent ways so
that teachers can “learn from each other” if they are to have any chance of success and must
recognize that teaching is complex, contextual and relationship based and that professional
respect and dignity must rule the day.
Evers, J and Kneyber, R. 2015. Flip the System: Changing Education from the Ground Up.
London and New York: Routledge.
Fullan, M. 2014. The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact
Sahlberg, P. 2014. Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in
Finland? (Series on School Reform)
4|Page
Marzano website: (http://www.iobservation.com/Marzano-Suite/Videos/why-most-classroomwalkthroughs-are-ineffective/)
The Alberta Teachers’ Association and Canadian Association of Principals 2014, The Future of
the Principalship in Canada: A National Research Study
5|Page