Teacher evaluation is a controversial topic, but a necessary
process. Teachers are responsible for providing students with the tools and
recourses to meet the standards through mastering content knowledge and
academic skills, and the role of the administrator to be an instructional
leader in order to foster high quality learning and student success (Stiggins,
2014, p. 8). The teacher evaluation process must be used as a growth-tool to
ensure that students are receiving the highest quality of education possible. Although,
some controversial legal requirements of teacher evaluation are present, the
data collected through teacher observations and the evaluation process is
extremely valuable in fostering instructional growth within the classroom.
New York State Law
Currently, New York State schools are required to evaluate the
performance of classroom teachers and principals in an annual professional
performance review (APPR) (School Law,
2014, p. 381). The teacher evaluation score is based on “multiple measures of
effectiveness” in two categories: student performance and teacher/principal
observation (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, and Ineffective) (School Law, 2014, p. 383). The score is deprived from student assessment or
growth scores, and two classroom observations performed a principal or another
trained administrator (School Law,
2014, p. 384-385). These evaluations directly impact employment, and are considered
a “significant factor” in decisions regarding promotion, retention, tenure
determination, termination, supplemental compensation, and professional
development (School Law, 2014, p.
384).
Using Standardized Test
Scores in Teacher Evaluation
The use of students’ standardized
test scores in evaluating teacher performance poses some controversy. Standardized
test scores are often describes as a “snap-shot” of the students’ actual
knowledge or understanding of the information, and do not appropriately measure
teacher ability. State tests do not measure all aspects of a school’s
instructional ability due to the higher cost of scoring constructed-response
assessments, which causes states to rely on multiple-choice assessments to
collect data (Kane, 2016). Standardized assessments do not provide accurate data
of student knowledge and teacher instructional ability.
According
to Stiggins (2014), “traditional values” in education have placed the
responsibility of learning and academic success on the student, rather than the
teacher, by ranking students based on academic achievement (p. 9). He states
though, that now educators have been given a new mission to “help all students
master essential lifelong learner proficiencies” in several subjects to ensure
that students are prepared to survive and contribute in our “college and
workforce driven” society (Stiggins, 2014, p. 9-10).
Standardized
test scores must represent the ability of the teacher to provide the student
with the instruction to meet the standards, instead of the students’ ability to
learn the material. Standardized assessments then must be developed to measure
for this shift in thinking. In order for an assessment to be appropriate, it
must provide data to actually measure the designed outcome. Unless the
assessments measure the appropriate data, then the use of student achievement
in the evaluation process “is not only unjustifiable, but potentially damaging
to schools” (Stiggins, 2014, p. 12). Unfortunately, the current educational
climate is to use this inaccurate data in teacher evaluation, and is required
on the state-level.
Observing Teachers
Teacher evaluations provide
opportunity for instructional growth. As the instructional leader, it is the
responsibility of the administrator to guide teachers as they continuously
improve upon their instructional practices. According to Thomas Kane (2016), a professor of education and economics at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education, “The goal of classroom
observations is to help teachers improve practice, and thereby improve student
outcomes… In theory, classroom observations allow teachers to be more
discerning about their own practice, and their improved practice will yield
improved student outcomes.”
Teacher evaluation
provides data for administrators and teachers to improve upon educational
practices and foster growth within a school. It is essential that teachers and
administrators understand the culture of their school and the diverse student
needs. Observing classrooms provides data regarding classroom environment,
student and teacher rapport, student needs (academic, physical, or
socio-emotional), as well as many other factors that impact the quality of
education.
Charlotte Danielson’s
framework provides opportunities for conversations regarding instructional
growth, and gives specific feedback regarding several aspects of teaching, in
the classroom and beyond, which can be used for professional growth. The
framework is divided into four domains: Planning and Preparation, The Classroom
Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities (Danielson, 2007,
p. 41-42). Each domain is split into several components, and each component is
split into several elements. Teachers are assessed using a rubric organized
into four levels of performance: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and
distinguished (Danielson, 2007, p. 41). Danielson’s Framework for Teaching was
developed to assist in teacher preparation, the teacher hiring process, with teacher
professional development, and as a tool for instructional improvement
(Danielson, 2007, p. 11-13). Although the framework was not designed to be an
evaluative tool, many school districts use it to score observations in the
teacher evaluation process.
The Danielson
Framework starts the observation process with a pre-conference between the
teacher and administrator to provide focus for the observation and communicate
about the planning process. Then the administrator observes the teacher in the
classroom focusing on the classroom environment and instruction. After the
observation, the teacher and the administrator have the opportunity to reflect
upon the lesson in order to respond together in the post-conference.
Reflection is
“inherent in self-assessment, which leads to a focus for professional learning
and growth” (Danielson, 2007, p. 170). In the post-conference the teacher and
administrator develop a plan of action for future growth, including
professional development opportunities and required supports. Constructive
feedback can improve instruction and ensure the support of all students’
learning needs. Teachers must be able to reflect and respond to their
instructional practices to continuously better themselves. The administrator should check-in with the
teacher in a specifically selected amount of time to ensure instructional
success.
Understanding the Whole Picture
It
is essential that administrators understand the culture of their school
community in their role of the instructional leader and educational evaluator.
Administrators should be present in classrooms on multiple occasions, much more
than the required observations, in order to deeply understand the instructional
abilities of the teachers and the educational needs of the students. Teacher
evaluation systems with “high-quality classroom observations” provide
potential instructional growth through individualized, specific feedback regarding
instructional performance, reflection on teaching practices, and the opportunity
for professional conversations between teachers and administrators about
effective practices (Taylor & Tyler, 2016).
Continuously
working with the school community (teachers, students, staff, parents, other
administrators, community members), and incorporating their needs through focus
groups and surveys, provides better insight into the required growth in and
outside of the classroom. Pairing this information with the data from the
student assessments and teacher observations provides educators and
administrators with the information needed to provide students with a high-quality
educational experience.
References
Danielson,
C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice: A framework for teaching
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kane,
T. J. (2016, March 03). Capturing the Dimensions of Effective Teaching.
Retrieved March 23, 2019, from https://www.educationnext.org/capturing-the-dimensions-of-effective-teaching/
Stiggins,
R. (2014). Defensible Teacher Evaluation: Student Growth Through Classroom
Assessment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
School Law (36th ed.). (2014). Latham, NY: New
York State School Boards Association.
Taylor,
E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2016, March 03). Can Teacher Evaluation Improve
Teaching? Retrieved March 23, 2019, from
https://www.educationnext.org/can-teacher-evaluation-improve-teaching/
Comments
Post a Comment