Teacher Evaluation Broke New Ground

by Lynn K. McMullin

This past Wednesday, a committee of 7 teachers, 3 administrators, and 2 Board members reunited to review the year-long implementation of a new Teacher Evaluation and Continuous Growth Plan which the BOE voted into effect and implemented last fall.  This wouldn’t be exciting except for the fact that the teacher evaluation portion of the plan was a radical departure from what had been done in the past. And, it worked!!

Five Rubrics for Teacher Evaluation

When our committee first convened in the winter of 2008, we began with a solid bank of nationwide research which showed that despite the fact principals averaged 13 hours per year per teacher writing narrative evaluations, this typical teacher evaluation process did little to impact a teacher’s performance and had no impact on building or culture change.  Armed with that research, and our own combined years of practical experience, we sought something very different.  As a result, we developed five different teacher performance rubrics, one for each of these five domains:
1. Planning and Preparation for Learning
2. Classroom Management (briefly detailed below)
3. Instruction
4. Monitoring and Assessment
5. Professional Responsibilities

Each of these five rubrics is divided into four ratings: “Exceeds Standards” (which is reserved for exceptional performance and should be what all teachers aspire to reach); “Meets Standards” (the norm for most teachers); “Needs Improvement;” and “Does Not Meet Standards.”  We used four standards, rather than three or five, because with four there is no middle ground.  Every teacher ends the year either above the line in the top two bands… or, below the line in the bottom two bands. 

Within each different rubric, we wrote very specific indicators. For example, in the Classroom Management rubric, a teacher who “Meets Standards” would “build positive relationships with students, create a climate of respect; and handle disruption well,” as well as “develop positive interactions among students and reinforce cooperation for all students.”  In contrast, a teacher who “Needs Improvement” has attributes we described as “builds positive relationships with some students, but has regular disruptions in the classroom” and “lectures students about ‘good’ behavior and makes an example of ‘bad’ students.”   A teacher who "Does Not Meet Standards," would "come up with ad hoc rules and consequences as events unfold," and "be sometimes disrespectful to students and create a chaotic climate."  At the very top of the four-point scale, a teacher who "Exceeds Standards" creates a collaborative community of mutual respect in which disruptions are handled seamlessly and students are overtly taught key social skiils.  Within each of the five rubrics listed above, there are six or more indicators written as specifically as these examples.

The plan combines the teacher's self-evaluation using the rubrics with the supervisor’s evaluation.  The supervisor also has a classroom observation sheet which is very tightly aligned to the rubrics.  In brief, what used to be amorphous and subjective has become significantly more directed and objective.  Supervisors used bullet points this year, where in the past they used paragraphs.  As a result, both the administrative team and the teachers reported that they have never had such productive discussions about teaching as they had this year.
Next Steps

On Wednesday afternoon, when we met to review the plan and suggest revisions, the excitement and satisfaction with a job extremely well done was obvious among the committee members.  We did have some changes to make – some of the forms were glitchy, the timelines needed tweaking, and our forms for the Continuous Professional Growth portion of the plan are too cumbersome -- but the problems were minor and easy to fix. 

Everyone agreed, however, that the new plan has so much potential we should provide administrators and teachers with additional opportunities to discuss the rubrics and exemplars of best practices. The belief is our conversations about the indicators will continue to refine our district-wide vision of excellent teaching. The plan should also be incorporated into each building’s strategic planning and professional development, and the administrative team should continue to work together to create a common set of standards for excellence.

If you would like to read the full Teacher Evaluation and Continuous Professional Growth Plan, back up your browser and click on “Curriculum” on the District’s webpage, then click on the Evaluation document… or click the title at the beginning of this paragraph.

Committee Members
Teachers:  Shelley Lloyd (Co-Chair and EAC Representative), Linda Caraher, Jan Schley, Melissa Cook, John Duffy, Lisa Deltano, and Laurie Burrill
Administrators: Mary Dorpalen, Nancy Bean, and myself
Board of Education Members: Susan Crowe and Sue Saidel