02.26.14A “How To” Follow Up on the Stack Audit
My most popular post of 2014 so far was my post on the Stack Audit, which is one of my favorite tools for understanding, managing and improving what we do as an organization, especially a decentralized, autonomous and creative one.
One reader–Christy–asked for some details on how we do it. At first i didn’t think there’d be much to say… just a sentence or two maybe… so i started to reply. Then all of a sudden my reply got to blog post length so i thought I’d share it out here as well. So if you’re keen to try a Stack Audit here are some how-to notes:
We usually keep it pretty simple. The hardest part is gathering the materials. i usually ask for those in advance so people can’t show up empty handed or forget OR i have someone central collect them all. So, for example, I might ask someone on the team to send an email asking for everyone’s do now from today’s lesson. Or the HW from last night. Sometimes we actually have these things collected already and we can just source it that way. For example, the HW is already in wire trays by the front door so someone might just go down for three days running and collect it and make copies. I like to sample multiple days and examples, by the way, because any one day eby itself is always an anomalous picture of what we do.
As far as participants in the stack audit, my ideal number of people is 4-6. That gives you a good sized team to generate a plurality of ideas and perspectives but few enough folks that we can have a real conversation. I’ve had it work quite nicely in the 8-10 range and also with just me and principal (though i really like at least a third whenever possible). So 4-6 is ideal and 3-10 is viable.
We put all of the documents in a stack. I like to have lots so it feels like there’s plenty to look at. I usually set a clock for 15 minutes or so and say we’ll check in after that. then we start. We usually don’t talk at all during this portion. People just take two or three examples from the stack, read and make notes, then return them to the stack and grab a few more. Sometimes we use a formal tracker but I actually find that simpler is better and that it’s easier to process my thinking just by using a T-chart of glows and grows (or, because I am geeky, plusses and deltas). i do think it’s important to have participants note which document they were looking at when they made a specific observation so that when we discuss it they can refer to it specifically and even show what they were talking about. Sometimes to facilitate this i number all of the documents in advance in a corner for easy reference. So a typical entry in my t-chart might say
“Doc #5: Great use of challenge problem on page 3 with good language to reinforce growth mindset. “If you’re ready to take your thinking to the next level, try this…” Easy to replicate.”
After the allotted 15 mins (or whatever) I check in and ask if people want more time. They usually do (!) so we go another ten, maybe. If not we push on with reflection
After we’re done looking we start with a report back. We do glows and grows separately, usually starting with glows, and we go “protocol style,” that is we go in order around the ring with each person making one single observation and speaking for thirty seconds at most. Participants can pass if they want to because we go around the circle multiple times.. perhaps five.. so people get to share lots of ideas and don’t have to try to get everything out at once. The short pieces of feedback part is really important. I want to keep the pacing fast and i want to avoid one person’s ideas (especially mine!) influencing the general direction too much. We also ask people not to break in to comment on other people’s observations. You can “build off” on your turn but you can’t jump in out of turn to agree or disagree with what someone said. Right now we’re just hearing what people saw and though was important. We want to see the field. After the glows we do the grows. I often ask someone on the team to track the share-outs on a projector or a flip chart so after we can look at the list and decide what’s most important. Sometimes the person tracking is a participant and sometimes that’s their only job. When we review the list I sometimes ask people to vote, ie “choose the three ideas from the grows you think are most important to follow up on with our team.” Aggregating the votes gives me a sense of priorities. Sometimes instead of voting I’ll ask each person to identify a key theme or an idea they think is most important. Other times, I’ll just ask the principal or the teacher we’re working with to reflect and advise us on how they’d like to proceed. It’s nice to ask, “What would be most useful to you?” to remind them that our job is to help rather than judge (though usually the tone of the event makes that obvious.) Sometimes I’ll differentiate “quick hits” (things we can address really quickly, in an email, say) from “bigger issues” which would require some time and planning to address. I want us to take on, say, two of each. and I always try to remember to ask for follow up on the glows too. calling attention to and replicating what we do well is as important as “fixing” what we don’t.
If we have time i take one or two of the key takeaways and we plan our first five action steps. one person’s usually then in charge of tracking and reviewing what we decide to make sure we follow up. they also send around a summary afterwards to make sure people remember and that we got it all right.
My last thought is that a stack audit is a great time to feed people or show up with treats and things to remind them that you appreciate them. I have yet to do one in a pub but I am eager to be invited by my British colleagues to pilot this variation. That’s about it.
I love this idea for digging deep into actual practice. It strikes me that this is a similar process to what we used when reviewing video footage. And seems like you could do the same kind of audit for aspects of teaching besides what we produce on paper…in other words, collect video footage from all teachers on their entry routine, or their questioning, or [insert technique here] and then review samples from several teachers and address glows and grows on what you see and hear. As an instructional coach, I saw so much variation between how one teacher interprets a technique versus another- this way of approaching quality control and development seems like it would be incredibly valuable. Assuming you have a school culture that would support it, of course.