December 21, 2011, 3:27 am
The new teacher evaluation system that is being unrolled in NYC is based on a Teacher Effectiveness Rubric designed by Charlotte Danielson. In order to test this new initiative, 111 schools across six networks have agreed to take part in a pilot program called Talent Management. The pilot was set up, according to Chancellor Walcott's team, to gather data and feedback from educational professionals and to ensure that all evaluative practices are fair (Teacher Reference Guide, 2011). The program is meant to assess both teacher practices and student outcomes resulting from these practices. Each participating school has been provided with a Talent Management Coach, who works with the school administration to assess each teacher's ability, according to the agreed-upon Teacher Effectiveness Rubric. Administrations are expected to "conduct frequent observations" and "deliver quality feedback" so that the school community will "norm to excellence" (Talent Management Pilot, Summer 2011, p.15).
Although it is assumed that the new evaluation system will open a dialogue among educators about effective teaching, in practice, it removes practicing teachers from the decision-making process and asks for their feedback only after the system has begun to be tested. By marginalizing teachers, who should have been participants from the outset, the program dooms itself before it even begins. Teachers from the participating schools could have looked at the program's design and content and immediately identified what would and would not work. It seems as if the program's creators do not believe teachers can be helpful in designing an effective program and are useful only in offering suggestions for minor changes. Even school administrators are not used effectively. They were provided with a three-day crash summer course with several follow-up sessions throughout the school year, if they chose to attend. The rubric’s creator did not certify administrators, even though she does offer certification for a nominal fee. Therefore, ill-prepared administrators, who may know less about instruction and the developmental stages of students than the students’ teachers do, are being asked to observe and brand teachers as ineffective, developing, effective or highly effective.
Beyond the focus on teacher practices, there is also a focus on how the quality of instruction affects student outcomes. This part of the development model leaves many of us in participating schools scratching our heads. In order to assess how student outcomes can be used to measure and evaluate teacher improvement (Talent Management Pilot, Summer 2011, p.15), schools have been assigned performance task assessments to be conducted in selected grades. My school received a kindergarten math performance task and assessment, a third grade social studies performance task and assessment and a fourth grade science performance task and assessment.
The fourth grade science performance task asks students to look at pictures of various birds and their beaks, gather data from these pictures, come up with a hypothesis about what food birds might eat according the shape of their beaks, and then defend the validity of that hypothesis. Without actually conducting experiments, students are expected to write lab reports and defend conclusions they drew with little background knowledge or experience. The teacher directions and student materials provided for the task contained inconsistencies, vague instructions and developmentally inappropriate vocabulary. Kindergarten teachers are asked to spend roughly 15 minutes of one-on-one time with students, assessing a standard that assumes a stage of development students cannot have begun to attain so early in the year. These assessments are to be completed in an unreasonably short amount of time. Moreover, the kindergarten teachers are responsible for gathering materials to be used because none are provided.
There are many thoughtful teachers in my school who are more than willing to use performance tasks to teach new concepts, but such a seemingly hastily designed and ill-conceived initiative can only be seen by them as evidence of a lack of respect for their professionalism. Without regard to important consequences both for teachers' careers and students' learning, we are being asked to proceed with a poorly thought out plan, perhaps to satisfy the perceived political need to create an evaluation system of any kind, rather than take the time to design one that is useful and effective. The Chancellor's office, school administrators and teachers should join forces to design a system, which could much more successfully be based on the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric, to solve the teacher evaluation and student performance measurement goals. It is clear to me that these important problems can only be solved with thoughtful cooperation. Implementing this new program can only lead to failure and force us to start afresh, once again, in a few years.
Tips for Parents (27)
December 21, 2011, 3:27 am
The new teacher evaluation system that is being unrolled in NYC is based on a Teacher Effectiveness Rubric designed by Charlotte Danielson. In order to test this new initiative, 111 schools across six networks have agreed to take part in a pilot program called Talent Management. The pilot was set up, according to Chancellor Walcott's team, to gather data and feedback from educational professionals and to ensure that all evaluative practices are fair (Teacher Reference Guide, 2011). The program is meant to assess both teacher practices and student outcomes resulting from these practices. Each participating school has been provided with a Talent Management Coach, who works with the school administration to assess each teacher's ability, according to the agreed-upon Teacher Effectiveness Rubric. Administrations are expected to "conduct frequent observations" and "deliver quality feedback" so that the school community will "norm to excellence" (Talent Management Pilot, Summer 2011, p.15).
Although it is assumed that the new evaluation system will open a dialogue among educators about effective teaching, in practice, it removes practicing teachers from the decision-making process and asks for their feedback only after the system has begun to be tested. By marginalizing teachers, who should have been participants from the outset, the program dooms itself before it even begins. Teachers from the participating schools could have looked at the program's design and content and immediately identified what would and would not work. It seems as if the program's creators do not believe teachers can be helpful in designing an effective program and are useful only in offering suggestions for minor changes. Even school administrators are not used effectively. They were provided with a three-day crash summer course with several follow-up sessions throughout the school year, if they chose to attend. The rubric’s creator did not certify administrators, even though she does offer certification for a nominal fee. Therefore, ill-prepared administrators, who may know less about instruction and the developmental stages of students than the students’ teachers do, are being asked to observe and brand teachers as ineffective, developing, effective or highly effective.
Beyond the focus on teacher practices, there is also a focus on how the quality of instruction affects student outcomes. This part of the development model leaves many of us in participating schools scratching our heads. In order to assess how student outcomes can be used to measure and evaluate teacher improvement (Talent Management Pilot, Summer 2011, p.15), schools have been assigned performance task assessments to be conducted in selected grades. My school received a kindergarten math performance task and assessment, a third grade social studies performance task and assessment and a fourth grade science performance task and assessment.
The fourth grade science performance task asks students to look at pictures of various birds and their beaks, gather data from these pictures, come up with a hypothesis about what food birds might eat according the shape of their beaks, and then defend the validity of that hypothesis. Without actually conducting experiments, students are expected to write lab reports and defend conclusions they drew with little background knowledge or experience. The teacher directions and student materials provided for the task contained inconsistencies, vague instructions and developmentally inappropriate vocabulary. Kindergarten teachers are asked to spend roughly 15 minutes of one-on-one time with students, assessing a standard that assumes a stage of development students cannot have begun to attain so early in the year. These assessments are to be completed in an unreasonably short amount of time. Moreover, the kindergarten teachers are responsible for gathering materials to be used because none are provided.
There are many thoughtful teachers in my school who are more than willing to use performance tasks to teach new concepts, but such a seemingly hastily designed and ill-conceived initiative can only be seen by them as evidence of a lack of respect for their professionalism. Without regard to important consequences both for teachers' careers and students' learning, we are being asked to proceed with a poorly thought out plan, perhaps to satisfy the perceived political need to create an evaluation system of any kind, rather than take the time to design one that is useful and effective. The Chancellor's office, school administrators and teachers should join forces to design a system, which could much more successfully be based on the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric, to solve the teacher evaluation and student performance measurement goals. It is clear to me that these important problems can only be solved with thoughtful cooperation. Implementing this new program can only lead to failure and force us to start afresh, once again, in a few years.
Susan Horowitz