Leadership Matters September 2014

Let’s join hands to solve evaluation problems for good of students

longer live in the parent's basement.

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

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

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

24