24
Let’s join hands to solve evaluation
problems for good of students
As I work with public school
teachers and public school
administrators on issues such as
performance-based
teacher
evaluation, I sometimes become
depressed with the contentious
nature of the discussions. For
example, when discussing how
to implement the use of student
growth for teacher evaluation
rating, the conversation between
teacher
leaders
and
administrators
is
usually
collaborative and problem solving until the subject of
how to apply a teacher rating to the student score.
During this discussion the parties often disagree on
how to apply the student growth scores to a teacher
rating.
I can understand why this becomes a difficult
subject to reach consensus. The final rating given by
the evaluator to the teacher is a high stakes decision
and could be career ending. In addition, there is little
to no research that supports the use of student
growth scores for teacher evaluation purposes.
Despite this lack of research the U.S. Department of
Education continues to support the use of student
growth scores for teacher evaluation purposes. In
Illinois, the performance-based teacher evaluation
language includes the word "significant" in the rules
regarding the use of student growth for performance-
based teacher evaluation.
My worry is that teacher union leaders and school
evaluators will be at the "discussion table" concerning
the content of the PERA Teacher Evaluation Plan and
the goal of looking at student growth, but the ultimate
goal of maximizing the educational experience for
each child will be lost. Instead, the participants will
debate which "scores" the students earn should
translate into a "rating score" for the teacher. Lost will
be the focus on the student. The focus will be on the
adult.
When will we educators stop focusing on adults
and instead start focusing on the students? When I
am speaking to teachers and/or administrators I often
describe for the participants my definition of NCLB. It
is No Child Left in my Basement. As an older adult
with three adult children, I am extremely happy that
none of our children live in our basement and we are
not paying their bills. This is the goal of all parents, for
all their children to gain enough skills so they no
longer live in the parent's basement.
22 : 10 : 8 : 1 or is it 1 : 8 : 10 : 22?
You might be wondering just what the heck I am
writing about by the above listed title. These numbers
are my way of explaining the Danielson Frameworks
for Teaching (FFT) to teacher evaluators and
teachers.
There are 22 components in the four FFT
domains. Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) and
Domain 4 (Professional Responsibilities) contain 12
components. I ask workshop participants to put these
12 components on the back burner for now. Subtract
12 from 22 and the result is 10, the second number in
the string.
Teacher evaluators in Illinois were formally
trained on eight of the 10 components in Domain 2
(Classroom Environment) and Domain 3 (Instruction).
They were not trained in 2e Organizing Physical
Space nor 3e Demonstrating Flexibility and
Responsiveness. Subtract these two components
from 10 and the result is 8, the third number in the
string.
Danielson writes in her books and says on her
videos that Domain 3 (Instruction) is the heart of the
frameworks and 3c Engaged Learning is the heart of
the heart of the FFT. Thus subtract 7 from 8 and the
result is 1, the fourth number in the string.
The next phrase is "or is it 1 : 8 : 10 : 22?" By this
I mean that if the teacher and/or the teacher evaluator
start with 3c Engaged Learning then they will be able
to rate all the other components based on evidence
seen in the teaching or in the reflective conference
with the teacher.
I show a short 8-minute sequence of a teacher
teaching a fourth grade math lesson. I ask the
participants to record evidence of Engaged Learning
demonstrated by the students. Danielson defines
Engaged Learning to be "the student is intellectually
engaged in the classwork, the student is a participant
and not a spectator." Virtually every participant of the
trainings records student intellectual work. We then
rate the teaching using the FFT rubric and the teacher
always receives a "Distinguished" FFT rating.
I then ask the participants to tell me evidence
relating to the other seven components in the FFT for
Domains 2 and 3 and they are able to recall
numerous evidence statements in these Domains.
We then rate the teacher for each of these
components and the teacher again receives a
Dr. Richard Voltz
IASA Professional
Development
