Oct 2, 2009 7:31 AM
Draft Recommendations
-
Like (0)
This discussion is locked
25321 Views
15 Replies
Latest reply:
Oct 2, 2009 7:29 AM by
Catherine Cullen 
-
Hello to the outstanding Hope Street Group on Teacher Evaluation,
I have been your silent follower since mid-June with hopes of being involved with the fantastic discussions on teacher evaluation. Unfortunately, my workload was doubled just about the time the discussions began, so I was unable to interact throughout the process. (Thanks, also, to Doug Clark for your phone call. I apologize I could not do my part on the “Outcomes” committee, but you all did an amazing job.) With encouragement from Monique and Catherine, I was determined to response to the final recommendations of this collaborative and highly-spirited process. As I took 12-24 pages of information home each night to read before falling asleep, I vicariously participated in your discussions of effective teaching, teacher frustrations, PBL and experiential/social learning activities, HOUSSE rubrics and Title II, value-added measures, multiple measures, student achievement, culture, “unlearned lessons” (thanks, JoAnn for that information), whole-child emphasis, and much more.
I loved the July analogies of the “dance” of input/output (Sheila, Ken) and the importance of student feedback and parent feedback, followed by Connie’s priorities of hope, engagement, and well being and implementation of strengths education. I enjoyed hearing about Texas from JoLisa (and Doug), student achievement, grade level standards, and the “Widget Effect” from Laura, the emphasis on student differences from Eric, the emphasis of goals from Julie and later Nicora, and the mantra for longitudinal data from Raquel, the Researcher. Of course, Rachel added the “inter-rater reliability” (back to Stats class for me). Ross and David reminded us of the importance of having the evaluator trained and Peter noted the need for trust between administrators and teachers in the evaluation process. My favorite analogies in August were Dina’s being head of “sales and marketing” in her “own store” (i.e. the classroom) and Vance’s “cross-pollination” of teams. Then Samuel was the winner of the September analogy of the carrot and the stick to the Race to the Top funds! (I also appreciated Samuel’s emphasis on equity!) Darcy with Dina made up the dynamic duo on Measures with Sherman keeping them afloat on the wording and research. What a team! Stefanie added to implementation, Liam added to policy, Teddy helped me understand the TAP process, and Jon added to the whole perspective. Jennifer was new to the website! I totally understood Lisa’s questions from the perspective of an SLP. I am the special education director for 12 school districts in Central Kansas and have 24 SLPs on my staff (never enough). The discussion of Medicaid logging hit home as the new Medicaid updates I was facing here in Kansas were taking 60 hours a week of intense work to get implemented in our 12 Central Kansas school districts (time that I would have much rather used in discussions online with all of you). Of course, Catherine, Monique, and Sarah kept everyone reading and focusing on the project at hand. What slave drivers!! It will take me months to thoroughly view all the resources that were suggested. Each personality did shine through in the discussions and your bright lights have focused the spotlight on teacher evaluation front and center stage!
Meanwhile, my meager and humble input follows. I may have missed out on some of the discussions, so you may take or leave this input:
1. Recommendation 1 stands on its own and the feeder recommendations are clear until “h” and “m.” I would suggest that the two sentences be reversed in “h”starting with “Inclusion of value added measures needs to be weighted and equitable...” Then “m”, although I know the emphasis of this outcome concerning the “whole child” from reading the discussions, just doesn’t seem to fit. The language is not consistent with the rest of the feeder recommendations. I believe that other wording has been suggested to align this outcome with the rest of the recommendations. This could be easily done by substituting “evaluation process” in place of “formative assessment” if this doesn’t lose the desired meaning.
2. Recommendation 2 is needed, but what are these “clearly defined standards.” I would agree with others who mention that examples are needed to clarify. Although I know the intent is to be vague enough to cover differences in states and situations, some examples are needed for clarity.
3. Recommendation 3 is no doubt needed. How about Boards of Education? Are there too many variances in BOEs to add them? I would also note that the same recommendation from above concerning “m” would fit “d” here- clarification and alignment is needed to the language.
4. Recommendation 4 notes that evaluation systems are ongoing, fluid, and must be evaluated themselves. Once again, I would agree that some examples are needed, such as what is meant by public investment in “a”, what is a “fair system” and what is an example of what an “appeals process” might look like in “b,” and explain more about “mentors” (who can be one, some suggestions for attaining mentors in rural and urban settings) in “e.” I also would suggest that “f” needs some clarification. How would this be done, the development of “weighting requirements”? Finally, I would ditto for “g” what has been noted in 1m and 3d.
5. I believe that Recommendation 5 could stand alone and would not need the feeder recommendations. They seem redundant.
6. I would replace Recommendation 6 with the feeder recommendation “e” under it. It seems like “e” really is the recommendation. Feeder recommendations “a” and “b” are not needed; they repeat the recommendation. I would change the wording in “d” to say “…..,.can help teachers identify strengths and address weaknesses to improve teaching…within a teacher’s district …This process must be constructed from the beginning, and regulated.” I would delete the words “less-effective” from “f” and replace “a potentially unwieldy” with “an improved” evaluation process in “h.”
7. In Recommendation 7, I would take out the word “ineffective.” In the feeder recommendations, I would explain how often is “frequently” in “a” and leave out the last sentence in “a”—“Teachers….. achievement.” Feeder recommendation “b” is identical to “6c”- is it needed here? Under “d”, should Boards of Education be part of this possible “review team”? Could it be called a “review team” and leave out “dismissal”? I believe that “g” should be worded more emphatically like “d”: “Develop a system of peer mentoring…” If “ peer mentoring” is research-based and helpful, we should do more than “consider implementing” it—particularly if we are telling schools to “develop a review team” (d). I would reword “h” to be proactive: “Instructional coaches, mentoring and professional learning communities for teachers should be implemented to assist less effective teachers to improve in order to protect students and reassure parents” (or something like that—it seems quite negative as it is. Once again I believe that “j” needs to be reworded or deleted as noted above. Is it really needed to be repeated 4 times?
8. Recommendation 8 and feeder recommendations are clear and concise as they are.
9. Recommendation 9 and feeder recommendations are clear and concise as they are.
Summary: What an absolutely fabulous job you have done! I believe these recommendations could lead to teacher evaluation systems that will help teachers to be involved in their continued growth to better teach students. I saw only 2 omissions: parent input and culture. Where did the need for parent input go? It is noted in the feeder recommendation “a” of Recommendation 4, but does it need a higher priority. From all of the discussion, it would seem to need a higher priority in the teacher evaluation process. And “culture” was alluded to by Abigail Garcia as part of evaluation, observations, student achievement data, and student/parent feedback. Does “culture” need to be noted, perhaps in a feeder recommendation under Recommendation 8 or 4?
Finally, I wanted to share that we use the Professional Appraisal System (PAS) based on the Charlotte Danielson model. It is an ongoing evaluation process and is fluid. As the director of special education, I was pleased that there are specific rubrics to fit school psychologists, early childhood teachers, social workers, speech-language pathologists, occupational/physical therapists, and other related special education personnel. Staff teams through our sponsoring school district developed these rubrics prior to Danielson doing so and most recently updated these rubrics.
Thank you for allowing me this input. I only wish that I could have participated throughout this process. Best wishes to all of the fine professionals who participated in this product that should truly make a difference for students that we serve! Thank you, Hope Street Group, for leading this worthy cause!
Very sincerely,
Betty A. Amos, Ph.D.
Executive Director of Special Education
Central Kansas Cooperative in Education
Salina, KS 67401
My family: husband Bruce (married 30 years), children
Darin, age 27, Kara, age 25 (on left), Megan, age 24
(picture on attachment)
-
Note: The layout once posted may not hold my formatting...the attached document is clean and easy to read/review.
Hello all, I am one of the absentee participants...but no more! I am so utterly impressed by the work of this group and wish I had been able to participate more actively up till now. With so much comprehensive work already complete and excellent feedback flowing through this thread, I add my comments here.
Attached is the full set of recommendations/feeder recommendations with my comments and suggested edits. I could not help but take my editing eye to some of the layout, language and grammar (thanks teachers!) and also made substantive commentary as well. My comments and suggestions are highlighted in blue:
RECOMMENDATIONS FEEDBACK
RECOMMENDATION 1
1) Multiple objective measures of student achievement must be a major component of teacher evaluation. (Feeder Recommendations)
- The word “multiple” is redundant since the word “measures” is pluralized, but no harm if left in.
Feeder Recommendations:
a) Multiple and varied measures/ data sources are necessary at the classroom level to accurately assess teacher effectiveness and provide quality documentation of job performance.
i. Clear expectations, goals and outcomes are a necessary component of evaluation at the classroom level. Clear goals must be set at the beginning of the year.
ii. Student goals are the basis of teacher expectations. Goals are established based on school standards and on individual goals for students. Teachers and evaluators agree on outcomes and plan how to achieve them.
iii. Data should be collected at multiple times throughout the course of the school year to determine progress toward established goals.
iv. Teachers should be informed of the measures that will be utilized to determine goal/outcome achievement as part of the expectations/goal setting phase so they know the basis of their performance evaluation.
b) Teacher evaluation should be supported by a coherent system that collects and presents information and data from a range of sources. While each source should be technically adequate in itself, technical perfection is less important than designing the system as a whole to maximize immediate use in schools, maximize the credibility of decisions, and avoid absolute reliance on a source of information that teachers, parents, and the public distrust, or any single trusted source.
c) Student achievement data should be central to
gathered forthe teacher evaluation processpurposesbut should not be the only measures relied upon for teacher evaluation.d) There needs to be public investment in data collection for evaluation and use
that isbeyond standardized tests and administrator/peer review. Key targets should be video of teaching performance, public exhibitions of student work, and student/family feedback.- What about teacher participation beyond formal instruction such as individual advising, club advising, committee service, and other elements of teacher contribution? Where do they fit within teacher evaluation?
e) Student work needs to be included in measuring teacher effectiveness.
- “Student work” is a bit generic. Does this mean grades (which is a comprehensive representation of student work), student engagement? What about individual and class progress/improvement in their work?
f) Evaluation data should be collected throughout the course of the school year including formal outcome measures at specified points in time as well as informal data (honors/awards, letters, etc) as it emerges.
g) Data should be collected across different content areas. (For teachers in single content teaching areas, data should be varied measures in that content area. Whenever possible, data should include quantitative and qualitative data.
h) Value-added measures need to be more comprehensive in assessing student content knowledge versus specific performance objectives and should occur more than once per school year. Inclusion of value added measures needs to be weighted and equitable.
i) States/districts should establish a fair system for evaluating teachers’ performance. Again, effective collaboration with collective bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s worth. A fair system cannot be based on just one type of measurement. It should be linked to student achievement, but go beyond test scores to include evaluation of the teacher within his/her classroom. In addition, teachers should have access to an appeals process if they feel that they are being unfairly or inaccurately assessed.
- Consideration should be given to making an appeals process item “n” in this section rather than a throw-away line at the end of item “i”. A clearly articulated appeals process is critical to completing the evaluation cycle and is important to bargaining units.
- All evaluations have “worth”, although some are more accurate or useful than others. Perhaps the phrasing should be changed to bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s “efficacy” or “balance” or “content” instead of worth.
j) States/districts should establish a fair formula with adjustments as needed for weighting measures while factoring in various teacher roles/responsibilities. This would not only include differentiation of school and individual incentive pay as it applies to value added measures, but also to differentiation of teacher evaluation ratings as is weighted with performance based measures (teacher inputs) vs value added measures (student achievement). For example, a music teacher may be weighted more heavily on teacher inputs vs value added measures because they do not do standardized assessments. Again, effective collaboration with collective bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s worth.
- See comments for use of the term “worth” in previous item.
k) If teacher incentives and/or evaluation ratings are tied to student achievement data, value-added scores with adequate individual student historical data driving predictions, should be used instead of attainment goals. This would include teachers of special needs populations requiring individual plans (i.e. IEP's, 504 plans, etc) who should therefore be evaluated on these plans using performance based measures (teacher inputs) vs student
achievement data.l) Create a system with multiple touch points, creating ongoing observations from multiple parties. This system should be consistently applied across content areas/grades as much as possible.
m) Outcomes for Teachers and Administrators: Teachers and Administrators will experience a formative assessment that accurately reflects the needs of the whole child, current assignment and skills, professional growth needs and opportunities, and is collaborative in nature. Assessments would differ based on levels of experience.
RECOMMENDATION 2
2) Clearly defined standards
offor quality instruction should be used to assess a teacher’s classroom performance.Feeder Recommendations:
a) Performance standards and sample indicators
canshould be developed or adopted to insure consistency.b) Rubrics and/or checklists need to be calibrated to reflect the agreed upon criteria, and for consistent application across grades, classes, districts, content areas, and so forth.
c) Documentation should include evidence of varied teaching techniques and decisions made to accommodate the needs and levels of different students.
d) Student achievement data should be gathered for teacher evaluation purposes but should not be the only measures relied upon for teacher evaluation.
e) States/districts should establish a fair system for evaluating teachers’ performance. Again, effective collaboration with collective bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s worth. A fair system cannot be based on just one type of measurement. It should be linked to student achievement, but go beyond test scores to include evaluation of the teacher within his/her classroom. In addition, teachers should have access to an appeals process if they feel that they are being unfairly assessed.
- See previous comments on the term “worth” and development of an appeals process.
RECOMMENDATION 3
3) Teacher groups and unions should be included in developing and implementing teacher evaluation systems.
- I believe this should be “Teacher’s groups”.
- Items b, c, and d below are all addressed in recommendations 2 and 3 above. Item a is the only unique item in this recommendation and is an over- generalized statement also covered elsewhere. This suggests that Recommendation 3 does not stand on its own. Perhaps other feeder recommendations are needed or this recommendation or the lead statement should be placed as a feeder recommendation under another.
- Perhaps a statement such as “benchmarks, best practices and standards from leading professional associations should be considered when developing some of the evaluation criteria”.
Feeder Recommendations:
a) Teacher input about collection of data sources and performance criteria is invaluable.
b) States/districts should establish a fair system for evaluating teachers’ performance. Again, effective collaboration with collective bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s worth. A fair system cannot be based on just one type of measurement. It should be linked to student achievement, but go beyond test scores to include evaluation of the teacher within his/her classroom. In addition, teachers should have access to an appeals process if they feel that they are being unfairly assessed.
c) States/districts should establish a fair formula with adjustments as needed for weighting measures while factoring in various teacher roles/responsibilities. This would not only include differentiation of school and individual incentive pay as it applies to value added measures, but also to differentiation of teacher evaluation ratings as is weighted with performance based measures (teacher inputs) vs value added measures (student achievement). For example, a music teacher may be weighted more heavily on teacher inputs vs value added measures because they do not do standardized assessments. Again, effective collaboration with collective bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s worth.
d) Outcomes for Teachers and Administrators: Teachers and Administrators will experience a formative assessment that accurately reflects the needs of the whole child, current assignment and skills, professional growth needs and opportunities and is collaborative in nature. Assessments would differ based on levels of experience.
RECOMMENDATION 4
4) Teacher Evaluation Systems must be continually refined to improve the quality of measures and standards and to ensure fairness.
- ... to improve the quality of measures and standards, “to ensure fairness, and to adapt to changing trends and methodologies”.
Feeder Recommendations:
a) There needs to be public investment in data collection and use that is beyond standardized tests and administrator/peer review. Key targets should be video of teaching performance, public exhibitions of student work, and student/family feedback.
- Items that are repeated from previous recommendations such as a and be in this section should be moved lower in the item list so that unique feeder recommendations such as item c are highlighted.
b) States/districts should establish a fair system for evaluating teachers’ performance. Again, effective collaboration with collective bargaining units will be key to validating the evaluation’s worth. A fair system cannot be based on just one type of measurement. It should be linked to student achievement, but go beyond test scores to include evaluation of the teacher within his/her classroom. In addition, teachers should have access to an appeals process if they feel that they are being unfairly assessed.
c) Establish a comprehensive evaluation system with clear definitions of standards and procedures. The system should include the following: evidence based teaching practices, consistent and well-trained evaluators, methods for appropriate feedback and support leading to professional growth, multiple evaluators, multiple measures, and an evaluation oversight committee to ensure the system’s integrity.
d) Collaborate with district-wide personnel, other school districts, university researchers, and educators that have best practices to share; create online networks and Web libraries documenting master teacher behaviors and evaluation systems if in-person meetings aren’t possible.
- What about the idea of a web based tracking system for teacher evaluation performance measures?
e) Evaluate the evaluation system – hold mentors accountable for the extra services they are providing. Require that records be kept in a way that benefits both current and future participants (i.e. manage them as part of ongoing research efforts, add good examples of teaching to a web library, use video evidence to help track teacher improvement over time.
f) States should accept that more data is imperative for furthering our knowledge on the topic of weighting multiple measures and should drive decision making as research becomes more conclusive. States may decide to set weighting requirements at the state level or leave it to districts,
butregardless of the level of decision-making,eitherit is recommended that they require a defined set of data from all of their districts that over time will help correlate measures of teacher rating systems to student growth based on a diversified set of teacher and student differences.g) Outcomes for Teachers and Administrators: Teachers and Administrators will experience a formative assessment that accurately reflects the needs of the whole child, current assignment and skills, professional growth needs and opportunities and is collaborative in nature. Assessments would differ based on levels of experience.
RECOMMENDATION 5
5) Teacher evaluation systems should reflect the importance of supportive administrators and a positive school environment.
- “ a positive school environment, and appropriate resourcing/facilities”.
- Should the concept of safety be included anywhere in the teacher evaluation process?
Feeder Recommendations:
a) Strong administrative support is a key component
offor effective teaching; formal evaluation must be reflective of that ideology.b) Data should include information about affective engagement and self efficacy of students. [This raises some concerns about alignment with Hope Street Group’s education principles].
RECOMMENDATION 6
6) Components of teacher evaluation that rely on observation and discussion must be in the hands of administrators or peers who have sufficient expertise, training, and capacity.
- “Components of teacher evaluation that rely on qualitative or observational data, must be...”.
Feeder Recommendations:a) Components of teacher evaluation that rely on observation and discussion must be in the hands of administrators or peers who have sufficient expertise and training, and there needs to be substantial public investment in building those skills.
b) Data collection needs to be matched to the collection and analysis capacity in a school, and it should stop at the point where a principal cannot find an individual with sufficient time to manage a key task.
c) States/districts need to establish a system to train administrators and others on how to perform teacher evaluations. Collaboration and compromise with collective bargaining units when establishing the system is suggested to ensure partnership when using the evaluation system to dismiss ineffective teachers.
d) States/districts should make evaluation training a priority as it will lead to teachers being properly assessed and can help teachers identify weaknesses and improve teaching. Prioritization of this essential element will only have weight if it is tied to extra funding and broad-based support at the policy level, both within the state and within a teacher’s district. Unless this process is carefully constructed from the beginning, and then regulated, it will not have teeth.
e) Establish a comprehensive evaluation system with clear definitions of standards and procedures. The system should include the following: evidence based teaching practices, consistent and well-trained evaluators, methods for appropriate feedback and support leading to professional growth, multiple evaluators, multiple measures, and evaluation oversight committee to ensure the system’s integrity.
f) Allow schools to maximize existing resources by providing time, support, extra funding, and training for administrators and teachers that can act as instructional leaders. Consider using less-effective professional development funds for this purpose.
g) Consider using technology to post video of classroom observations and allow for mentoring from a distance. Use distance mentoring to individually assess teachers within a network that offers guidance, support, and resources for improvement.
h) Partner with both public and private entities to increase the resources available to schools as they manage a potentially unwieldy evaluation process.
i) Appropriate data entry points should be made for all constituencies with a valid stake in the evaluation process and outcomes including students, parents, teachers, and administrators.
j) Qualitative data should be limited when not complemented or supported by quantitative data.
RECOMMENDATION 7
7) Teacher evaluation must be tied to meaningful outcomes, including improving teachers through targeted professional development and opportunities for growth, supporting students in ineffective classrooms, and licensure and tenure decisions.
- Teacher evaluation must be tied to meaning “and measurable” outcomes...”
Feeder recommendations:
a) All teachers should be frequently evaluated, offered specific ways to improve their craft, and given the support to do so, even if they are already good teachers. Also, professional development is targeted toward the specific needs of the individual teachers (i.e., One teacher might get P.D. on classroom management while another who has already mastered that piece is working on differentiating instruction. Teachers get performance awards if their efforts lead to increases in student achievement.
b) Establish a comprehensive evaluation system with clear definitions of standards and procedures. The system should include the following: evidence based teaching practices, consistent and well-trained evaluators, methods for appropriate feedback and support leading to professional growth, multiple evaluators, multiple measures, and evaluation oversight committee to ensure the system’s integrity.
c) Develop a clearly defined process for teacher improvement plans to be used with teachers who have been identified as not meeting standards. Process should include specific areas in need of improvement, support/resources for improving those areas to include high quality mentoring, timelines for reevaluation, and staff development devoted to teaching the process to all teachers.
d) Develop a dismissal review team. The team should include select Master teachers whose responsibilities include evaluating new and struggling teachers and making referrals with recommendations to a review board. The review board should be comprised of both union officials and district administrators, who will then make decisions about tenure and dismissal. A defined process and timeline should be developed outlining opportunities for progress/improvement toward minimal standards before dismissal is recommended.
e) Design the system to serve a dual purpose as a tool for feedback and growth, instead of solely functioning as a performance measure.
f) Incentivize participants to actively contribute to the current knowledge base and the growth of their colleagues. Potentially offer extra funding to those who are identified as high-achievers in exchange for sharing their methods with a larger network, to create additional shared resources generated by trusted and successful peers.
g) Consider implementing a system of peer mentoring within age-level groups. Ask teachers to help figure out the logistics of a peer mentoring system that they feel would best benefit their practice. Give them some control over how the system will be implemented, and what will need to be done to give their peers enough time to leave their classrooms and observe their colleagues, as well as debrief afterwards.
h) To protect students and reassure parents, teacher evaluation systems should have a plan for teachers identified as being ineffective in order to support the students and ensure learning. Build into the teacher evaluation system a safety net for students who are assigned less effective teachers such as instructional coaches, mentoring and professional learning communities for teachers.
i) If teacher incentives are to be tied to student achievement data, an adjustable formula
should be developed to include school based, team, and individual incentives. This will help ensure fairness in regards to teacher diversity and teaming within a school.j) Outcomes for Teachers and Administrators: Teachers and Administrators will experience a formative assessment that accurately reflects the needs of the whole child, current assignment and skills, professional growth needs and opportunities and is collaborative in nature. Assessments would differ based on levels of experience
RECOMMENDATION 8
8) Information from teacher evaluations should be comparable across schools and districts, and should be used to address equity in the distribution of teaching talent.
- ...equity in the distribution of teaching talent “and rewards/recognition”?
Feeder Recommendations:
a) Use teacher evaluation systems to improve equity in distribution of teaching talent.
b) States should establish a set of guidelines or minimum requirements for ensuring high performing teacher equity in all schools.
- “high performing teacher equity in all schools” is very confusing. Do you mean “ensuring balanced distribution of high performing teachers across schools/districts”?
RECOMMENDATION 9
9) States should be engaged in collecting and analyzing data, setting minimum standards, ensuring equitable access to effective teaching, and building capacity to continue to improve teacher evaluation.
- The phrase “ensuring equitable access to effective teaching” is not a measure nor basis for improving teacher evaluation but is a result of the evaluation process. Recommendation 9 is about data, standards and capacity building. Access to effective teaching is a school access and placement issue as a result of an overall effective process but is not built into the process as a matter of individual teacher evaluation. If there is a teacher who is not an effective instructor, we don’t want to move students to other schools or teachers who are more effective; we want to use the data, standards, and capacity building to improve that teacher’s effectiveness for the students they instruct. Perhaps what was meant was ensuring balanced distribution of effective teachers per comments in item 8
Feeder Recommendations:
a) Collaborate with district-wide personnel, other school districts, university researchers, and educators that have best practices to share; create online networks and Web libraries documenting master teacher behaviors and evaluation systems if in-person meetings aren’t possible.
b) States should accept that more data is imperative for furthering our knowledge on the topic of weighting multiple measures and should drive decision making as research becomes more conclusive. States may decide to set weighting requirements at the state level or leave it to districts, but regardless of either, it is recommended that they require a defined set of data from all of their districts that over time will help correlate measures of teacher rating systems to student growth based on a diversified set of teacher and student differences.
c) Link funding for training and implementation with reporting requirements, to ensure that there is a level of accountability.
Ross A. Papish, Ph.D.
Education & Organizational Development Consultant
currently w/ The Ostroff Group (among others)
I welcome all feedback and comments on my feedback and comments!
