Results

So what do teachers want from the evaluation process?  After a few months of inquiry and working with my local unit SAEA, the results of the survey that was a collaborative effort are in.  Of the 519 respondents, 51% were from the elementary level and 46% were from the secondary level.  The remaining were from preschool or below.

Respondents were asked to rate the current evaluation system in our district. The telling response was that fifty percent of the respondents found the system to be ineffective in some manner.  This alone should prompt a serious discussion when it comes time to examine the current system.  Many of the respondents included commentary along with their respective rating.  One teacher stated " it does not truly allow for reflection and improvement - it's just a snippet of a day - how does it truly evaluate my performance?" Another commented "How can someone with no teaching experience evaluate a teacher?" Insightful comments were made by non-classroom certificated staff which leads me to believe there is a true gap in the expertise of administrators to evaluate such personnel.

The second group asked the following questions: Rate the following statement "The current evaluation system benefits me as professional educator". Fifty-eight percent of the respondents responded positively and forty-eight percent responded with a negative response.  Once again with that many negative responses it is clear that changes need to be made to the current system.  Many teachers feel that the system is broken and administrators are not qualified to assess instructional practices because they lack sufficient classroom experience in the subject area that the teacher is being evaluated which related to the statement "My administrator is qualified to evaluate me in my subject area."   Perhaps this is a sign that there is a need to bring an additional person into the evaluation process.  Based on the final statement from the group ""The system is fair", a overwhelming majority (68%) stated that they agreed with the statement.  While this seems to conflict with earlier statement about the effectiveness of the system, there is still a clear message that most teachers desire a change.

In the final statements of the survey respondents were asked to evaluate the post-observation process along with evaluation options.  The majority of the respondents stated that procedures were being followed properly by administrators.

What is next in this process?  It is clear to me that there is a need for change, but this can only happen with dialogue from both sides along with reasonable options to overhaul the system.  Fortunately we are in era where plenty of school districts have shared their current evaluation systems.  Some involve peer evaluations coupled with administrative evaluations, others provide the option for teachers to select their own type of evaluation process, while others focus improving the teacher as a professional. Ultimately this decision must be made by teachers and their respective districts, not policy makers and those far removed from the educational setting.

.

Everyone On Board

In a short article published in the T.H.E. Journal today the issue of teacher evaluations was addressed, but from the perspective that administrators are also faced with issues that make judging teacher efficacy difficult. David Nagel addressed the many obstacles school administrators face in Teacher Evaluations: Principals Need More Support for Effective Implementation.  The issue of timeliness and the ability to complete the evaluation process is one such article.  Interestingly enough this sentiment is also echoed among teachers which complain that their is very little time for conversations about teaching and the actual conversations about teaching are largely ignored.  

Nagel  alluded to the seven basic tenets that both the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary Schools Principals agreed upon that would greatly improve the process. 

1. First that states and districts be required to spend 10 percent of ESEA Title II funds "on high-quality professional development tied to new federal reforms that have changed school leadership roles and responsibilities";

1. That principals be given ongoing professional development and credentialing specifically addressing teacher evaluation systems;

1. That principals be allowed to give direct feedback on the evaluation models they have to work with, and "respect the professional judgment of principals in the teacher evaluation process";

1. In the case of teachers who demonstrate effectiveness early on, that the number of direct observations be reduced and instead focus their evaluations on "professional growth plans to maximize the time for principals to engage in instructional coaching";

1. That funding be made consistently available for hiring assistant principals "and other school administrators who provide direct support for teachers in every elementary, middle and high school";

1. That teachers themselves be given individualized professional development; and

1. That principals be provided with "effective technology and related tools to facilitate efficient observations and support them to disseminate timely feedback to teachers as well as personalize professional development and learning opportunities."

It appears that all parties involved agree that the system needs to be overhauled.  Now we need the policymakers to hear us instead of focusing on the short-sighted agendas that strictly focus on using test scores as the guiding instrument  in assessing students.

Holding Pattern

With the continued debate on teacher evaluation being tied to test scores it is interesting that the CORE (California Office to Reform Education) are divided on the implementation of an evaluation system that would incorporate such a venture.  Currently LAUSD and Long Beach Unified have signed on to include the agreed upon system as stipulated in the NCLB waiver. The options for teacher evaluation reads as follows

• The Massachusetts alternative: Based on that state’s NCLB waiver, results from standardized and other tests would be used indirectly, as a check. If test scores didn’t agree with an evaluation based on classroom observations and other criteria, the district would take a second look to identify the discrepancy and could create a one-year improvement plan for the teacher.

• The 20 percent minimum: Growth in student achievement, based a model that the CORE districts will develop, will comprise a minimum of 20 percent of a teacher’s or principal’s evaluation. Districts with their own models, like Los Angeles Unified, could seek approval to use their variations from the CORE board of directors.

EdSource August 6th, 2013

So what does this mean for teachers. So far I have not found any information about how this fits into the collective bargaining agreement for these districts, but I do know that the remaining districts have not agreed to any stipulations regarding the teacher evaluation component.  For LAUSD and LBUSD the evaluation system is negotiated.  Still there are huge gaps in the Massachusetts alternative in that test scores for standardized tests are no longer relevant as California transitions to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) tests. Even looking at the 20 percent minimum is problematic in that it requires a solid background in what constitutes student achievement and how that can be accurately measured considering the myriad of variables that can enhance or inhibit student achievement.

Being a secondary teacher who no longer is required to give the CST 8th grade History test which in itself was a totally unfair and inaccurate test of student achievement (it tested students for 6th, 7th, and 8th grade material), I find relief from not having to focus on testing.  However, how is student achievement measured?  If it were to focus on grades, one would assume that if the majority of students are failing a class, the teacher is ineffective. I would dispute that of course. So it behooves educators and administrators to create a accurate measure of student achievement.  This is not something that is thrown together in a few short meetings.  Furthermore since teaching at the elementary, intermediate, and high school vary immensely due to subjects and other variables how is one to find a common ground for student achievement.  

I am not saying that this impossible, but that it requires considerable thought and input from all stakeholders.  Ultimately, teachers are looking for a method that provides for comprehensible input that allows for them to grow as a professional.  They are not looking to be thrown under the bus by tyrannical leaders whose goal is to rid their site of teachers who are not in line with their agenda nor are they looking for the run of the mill evaluations with the usual platitudes that one may seem every time they are evaluated.

Thus I am looking forward to receiving input from our district's teachers who are the best measure of what is needed in a teacher evaluation.  With some effort I hope we will be able to change the current system which has no considerable impact on most teacher's instruction.