I work in Washington, DC and my entire teaching career has been in one public charter school. My school uses the Danielson Teaching Framework, which contains four domains: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. Each domain is made up of several components. These components describe features of the domain and are outlined in a rubric. At a minimum, we get assessed once a year by an administrator who comes into the classroom unannounced. The observer stays for the duration of the lesson and takes notes on two domains- classroom environment and instruction. After the observation, the teacher and observer meet to debrief the lesson and review each component’s score. At this time, the observer reviews what they saw, their score for each component, and an explanation for the score. The teacher is given the opportunity to give context, clarify, present evidence, and ask questions about the lesson and score. In addition to this formal observation, we meet with our principal for a mid year evaluation and end of year evaluation. In these meetings, we discuss the remaining domains of the Danielson Framework. The teacher comes into the meeting prepared with evidence that showcases their work with planning and preparation and professional responsibilities. Each component for these domains are scored after a conversation and presentation of evidence. If a teacher receives a high score, they do not receive a second formal observation. If they receive a low score, an improvement plan is put into place.
The DC Public School (DCPS) system uses a high stakes teacher evaluation system called IMPACT. In this system, there are two groups of teachers: Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 teachers teach in a subject area that is assessed by the state using PARCC. These assessments (IVA) make up 35% of the teachers’ evaluation. Additional students assessments are also used to calculate teacher performance, but the second set of assessments are teacher assessed student achievement data (TAS). Although, group 2 teachers do not receive IVA scores, both group 1 and group 2 teachers incorporate TAS into their evaluation. Furthermore, for group 1 teachers, 30% is based on Essential Practices, 10% Student Surveys, and 10% Commitment to Community (professional responsibilities). Those who do not have IVA scores calculate Essential Practices as 65% of their score. The overall score determines a teacher’s rating, which is tied to retention and salary bonuses. I believe a teacher evaluation system that includes an observation, professional responsibilities, and some form of student data is important. The idea of a teacher assessed student achievement data that DCPS uses seems interesting. It seems less fraught with errors that a statewide assessment might have. The major error that comes to mind is the ability of students to transfer their thinking to a computer. I’ve seen my best writers produce very little writing when prompted on a computer test. Using technology is a very specific skill that we need to teach kids if we are to truly see their capabilities. Lastly, an evaluation system should not be tied to firing decisions unless coupled with intense coaching. Many great teachers began as unsure first year teachers. We must give novice teachers as many opportunities to grow without the fear of getting fired.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorDon't judge me for these blog entries. I find these topics important, but teaching and going to school is hard. Archives
February 2018
Categories |