Feb 06 2010
Watertown: Fixing the Teacher Evaluation System
After a year and a half of work, our school district’s teacher evaluation and professional growth tool is ready for
primetime. It will be presented to the school board for review at our upcoming meeting on Monday. In reviewing the pre-meeting material, I’m pretty excited about what I see. Developed from scratch through a collaborative effort between our teacher’s union and administration, the tool lays out clear and demanding standards for our teachers – and establishes a process for professional growth and development unlike anything we’ve ever had before.
According to Education Secretary Duncan, teacher evaluations are something that’s broken in our country:
“The truth is that students and teachers don’t live in mythic Lake Wobegon, where According toeveryone is above average. Yet we have an evaluation system today that pretends otherwise. As a result, great teachers don’t get recognized, don’t get rewarded, and don’t help their peers grow. The teachers in the middle of the skills spectrum don’t get the support they need to improve. And the teachers at the bottom don’t get the support they need either, and if they do and still don’t improve, they need to be counseled out of the profession.”
It seems to me our new instrument will go along way in addressing his concerns, and will help us continue to strive toward our ultimate goal of improving student achievement.
The tool establishes a “professional growth rubric” based upon seven area of a teacher’s job performance. These seven areas are:
- Planning and preparing for learning
- Delivery of instruction
- Building relationships with students
- Classroom management
- Monitoring, assessment and follow-up
- Family and community outreach
- Professional responsibilities
The rubrics are designed to give teachers an assessment of where they stand in all performance areas along with detailed guidance on what’s expected to improve. To have enough knowledge to make decisions about the rubric areas, principals will observe teachers in their classrooms frequently throughout the school year – up to 10-12 times per year!
The intent is to establish a four-year staggered evaluation cycle, with about one-quarter of the teachers starting into the cycle during any given year. Year one calls for ten to twelve walk-through visits by the principal with feedback provided through reflection questioning. The teachers will also respond to the questions. The second year is goal setting for the teacher. The third year will have the teacher select two of the seven components of the rubric to have the principal review during the walk-through visits (five to seven). The fourth year is another year of goal setting for the teacher.
The rubric classifies teachers in each of the seven areas of evaluation as:
(1) Distinguished – “reserved for truly outstanding teachers as described by the demanding criteria of the area;”
(2) Proficient – describing “solid professional performance;”
(3) Professional Support Needed – indicating that “performance has deficiencies” that must be corrected; and
(4) Does Not Meet Standard – an “unacceptable level of performance that must be remediated immediately.”
If the assessment finds areas of ineffective teaching practice, the plans calls for the teacher to be put on a plan of improvement with specific goals and resources provided the teacher to remediate the problem. Once remediation occurs, the plan calls for the teacher to be returned to the normal evaluation cycle. If the problem is not remediated, the plan calls for teacher termination.
What excites me about the plan is that it establishes a system to provide real opportunities for teachers to improve their performance, but also weeds out those who ultimately can’t meet the district’s standards.
There’s no question in my mind that good teachers know what it takes to be highly professional and effective in the classroom. This tool sets out a process to help them get even better. And that’s good news.
Thoughts?
February 7th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Seven areas of evaluation? Four categories each? I smell unnecessary complication. How about two categories: rehired or not?
I know teacher evaluation requires serious thinking and analysis. Teachers and administrators alike require protection from allegations of favoritism. But extra bureaucracy can be just another way to hide bad teaching or bad management. Just do what boards should do: hire good administrators whom you can trust to make fair, reasoned decisions. If a board trusts its principal, she shouldn’t have to present a twenty-page rubric to justify her professional judgment that the algebra teacher is making the grade while the lit teacher is not.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
The two categories you suggest – rehire or not – aren’t where want to go with professional teacher development in Watertown.
The tool is actually much more than an evaluation instrument – it’s a culture change vehicle. The teacher/administration development team defined the qualities of a distinguished teacher in our district, the qualities of a proficient teacher (the minimally acceptable level of competence), etc. We want to make it clear to all the district stakeholders what these qualities are, so everyone knows what to expect.
The goal isn’t to give a teacher a pass or fail grade (rehire or fire), but to repeatedly assess, plan, implement and reassess – with the ultimate objective of developing a truly great teacher – and if that level or the proficiency level aren’t in the cards after all appropriate developmental efforts are made, than fire.
You should think about applying for a job here. We’re always looking for great teachers.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Wow, I’d like to have an evaluation system like that. I may be one of the few teachers who hunger for more feedback and opportunities for growth. An AP once told me the only thing to worry about on an evaluation was that little box checked “recommend for rehire.” I disagreed with him 14 years ago and I still disagree with him.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I really like the thought of the rubric which helps the evaluation be more objective than subjective. Do you have anything built in where at the end of the year (or the 4 year cycle) where teachers and principals can assess the evaluation instrument? We had one put in place which didn’t allow for adjusting and revising to allow for a more realistic picture of the teaching situation so then it became more of a joke than an actually tool for assessing the effectiveness of the teacher. I’m interested to see how the results turn out.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Hi Pat. Yea, actually this first year is a trial run. I believe some 60 or so teachers volunteered to test drive the tool (and the process) this first year, and at the end of the year the evaluation tool will be assessed. I think the question is really important. I’ll bring it up tonight at our school board meeting to make sure the evaluation system allows for periodic tune-ups. Thanks, Fred
March 15th, 2010 at 10:44 am
We automate teacher evaluation instruments for Minnesota and Wisconsin school districts. You are achieving what is a wish common to all district administrators and teachers we work with: providing clear, measurable, job-related performance feedback on a regular basis. Old-style narrative evaluations don’t tell teachers what they need to improve their craft and make attornies wince when documentation is needed. One principal told me, “It was my first week and my first review. I jotted down some notes on a teacher and told her that she was doing just fine; she was ‘Satisfactory’, per policy. The teacher looked at me and asked, ‘how satisfactory?’ and I couldn’t tell her.
I enjoy your website and enjoy following your progress.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Thanks Ken. The scenerio you describe is exactly what we’re trying to improve. I understand the first year “beta-testing” is moving forward. Upon completion at year-end, the teacher’s union will formally vote whether to include the instrument into the Master Contract. Hopefully this will be smooth sailing since the union was integral in its development and feedback so far has been positive. In addition to a tool for teachers, allied tools have been developed for other professionals working in the district such as counselors, nurses, psychologists, etc.