Analysis of Evaluation
-
Upload
shannoncalice -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
0
Transcript of Analysis of Evaluation
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
1/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 1
Analysis of Evaluation
Shannon Calice
ED7541
Teacher Supervision and Evaluation
Shannon Calice
11825 Germaine Terrace
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Phone: 952-947-9142
Email: [email protected]
Instructor: Pat Guillory
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
2/24
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
3/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 3
A nalysis of Evaluation
Introduction
The teacher appraisal policy for St. John the Baptist School is based on an eleven
page booklet with two pages of instructions, one with the general definitions for each
performance level, and eight pages of performance standards categories. This teacher
evaluation form was used as a self-evaluation tool last year. This year, the Performance
Standards for Catholic School Teachers will be used as a summative evaluation.
Evaluation s Designers and the Creation
The Performance Standards, Appendix A was created by a group of Catholic School
Administrators who work within the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
After the administrators had met several times to clarify their performance expectations,
descriptions of behavior were collected and slotted according to their desirability (p. 2).
The group of administrator used four references to create this evaluation tool. The
references were: Charlotte Danielson s Enhancing Professional Practices: A Framework for
Teachers; Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde s Best Practices; Robert J.
Marzonay, Debra Pickering, and Jane E. Palloch s Classroom Instruction that Works; and the
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Teacher Competencies. The initial Performance
Standards were review by local university professors involved in teacher development and
the Archdiocese s School team, and another group of administrators not involved in the
creation of the evaluation tool.
A ssumptions and Framework
The Performance Standards assumes all teachers start off at the minimally qualified
level and with work move up to the outstanding level. The not acceptable level is meant to
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
4/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 4
be a list of unacceptable behaviors. The assessment begins as a self-evaluation instrument,
which assumes that teachers will be reflective and honest in their evaluations of
themselves. The framework is based around seven performance categories that are listed
in order of importance: development of students (25%); instructional practices (20%);
dedication and commitment (15%); learning environment (10%); planning and
preparation (10%); maturity and cooperative teamwork (10%); and parental and
community relationships (10%). Each category is broken down in to performance levels
and for each performance level there are statements to describe performance. An example
is: under the development of students category a descriptor for a fully qualified teacher is
Develops and implements strategies that focus on students strengths and enhances them
(p. 4).
Formative or Summative
The Performance Standards is meant to be a summative evaluation. On the second
page of the Performance Standards booklet it states that this evaluation will help explain
what is expected of you in striving to be a master teacher. When your administrator and
you do a formal scheduled performance evaluation, it will be based on the Standards and
other criteria. The other criteria mentioned were the performance evaluation form,
Appendix B, which includes goal setting, informal observations, testing data, self
evaluation, surveys. There is also a section for other feedback and teacher comments.
The process of performance standards requires teachers to show evidence of their
self-rating. The collection of data for every category can be somewhat of a challenge in a
single year. The process is similar to the creation of a portfolio to demonstrate the level of
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
5/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 5
competency. However, not every category is required each year, a completed portfolio is
required every three years.
A lternatives
St. John the Baptist School also has an informal observation form that is used as a
formative assessment tool, Appendix C. The administrator stops in for ten to twenty
minutes to observe the teachers class and completes the form. A follow up conference was
to follow the observation, but the completed form and the conference never occurred in the
eleven years of working at St. John s.
The Informal Observation form consists of four sections: Objective and learning
environment; number of students oriented; observed instructional strategies of the
students; and observed instructional strategies of the teachers. The lesson plans-objective
needs to be visually displayed for the administrator to see and the plan needs to include
standards. The checklist gives a snapshot of what was occurring during the drop-in
observation.
Effective Instruction
The administration has been stuck for the last six years on bringing in a character
development program for the students. Three different programs have been introduced
and have failed to come part of the school s curriculum because of lack of training and on-
going support for the program. This year the focus again is on another new character
development program. The frustration of the teachers is obvious and the school truly needs
to focus on other areas of improvement.
St. John s will start the Fall with a new reading textbook and language arts program.
The teachers had a clear voice in the selection of the textbook, but if the past is any
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
6/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 6
indicator, only one training section will be given for an hour before school starts. This lack
of training on how best to use the textbook and the accompanying technology is a recurring
theme. The administrator has requested that every teacher use differentiated instruction in
their classroom but no professional development has ever been presented.
R esources for Programs
The funds for programs come from tuition and school of choice state funds.
Programs at Catholic schools are limited and the administration focuses on fund raising
through the coordination of special events and reaching out to the community. Two years
ago the principal was excited about bringing Smartboards to St. Johns. She reached out to a
community member who donated 10 Smartboards and a set of Smart Responses. Training
was provided by the distributor of the Smartboards to the teachers that were selected to
have them installed in their classrooms.
Best Practices
St. Johns administrator has many opportunities to bring best practices to student
learning. The school used a curriculum map program to demonstrate the learning
occurring in each teacher s classroom. The curriculum maps are to have standards attached
to each lesson. The potential use for the maps could be to educate the veteran teacher how
objectives and standards work together. The maps could also help teachers create essential
questions for their lessons to help the students use higher-level thinking.
A ssessment of Evaluation Process
Clinical supervision is a must in order to improve the school using best practices.
The observations need to focus on instructional improvement. In Eisner s (2002) article he
stated that The kind of schools we need would have principals who spend about a third of
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
7/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 7
their time in classrooms, so they know firsthand what is going on (p. 580). Without the
knowledge of what is happening in the school a principal will not know the areas that need
improvement. The use of action research teams or study groups in a school can be tailored
more specifically to the needs and issues of that school (Glickman, 2002, p. 20). Once the
research group has established a plan of classroom actions, then student data can be
collected and evaluation of the data to determine the progress or lack thereof. Without
research and focus on data, school improvement lacks focus.
Focusing on teacher instruction that leads to student learning is an important part
of school and teacher evaluations. Glickman s chart on the Elements that Influence Student
Learning in Renewing Schools and Classrooms (p. 7), he stated there were three elements
that organize instructional leader s work with teachers. The first element was
focus on what to attend to in improving teaching, observing classrooms, using
achievement data, and considering samples of student work; the human relation
approaches to use to increase reflection, problem solving and improved practice on
the part of teachers; and the structures and formats of various way to work
individually or in groups with teachers. (p. 8)
A principal must be aware of their leadership role in improving student learning. DeFour s
(2002) stated A focus on learning affect not only the way that teachers work together but
also they way that they relate to and work with each student (p. 15). Principals need to
know when to work individually with a teacher and when to arrange professional
development for the whole staff to improve student learning.
The school s mission and goals need to always focus on improving student learning.
The whole staff needs to be part of the discussion on the school-wide goals for the year. A
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
8/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 8
structure needs to be developed to make sure progress is being made toward the goals.
Individual teachers, also, need to create personal goal in order to improve their instruction
and community relationships.
Conclusion
Teacher evaluations are important to the growth of the school, the teachers, and the
students. Whether the observation is formative or summative, it needs to focus on
improving student learning. Clinical supervision with pre-conferences, observations, and
post-conferences is still the most widely used format for evaluation. An important part of
the observation is to collect data in order to keep the observation from becoming a
judgment call. There are many different methods of supervision of teachers. The Teacher
Advancement Program (TAP) is a good example of a model with explicit standards (Toch,
2008, p. 32). The explicit standards are based on Charlotte Danielson s framework. The cost
of using TAP is high and
a new study from National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt
University-although not studying the important question of whether teacher who
received high scores on TAP evaluations tend to produce greater gains in the
students test scores-found that a small sample of secondary school using TAP
produced no higher levels of student achievement than schools that hadn t
implemented the TAP program (p. 36).
This information is disheartening, but the focus on improving student learning through
professional development and honest classroom evaluation must remain the goal of all
schools.
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
9/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 9
References
DeFour, R. (2002). The Learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership . 59(8). 12-15.
Eisner, E. (2002). The Kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan . 83(8). 576-583.
Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed . Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Toch, T. (2008). Fixing teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership . 66(2). 32-37
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
10/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 10
Appendix A
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
11/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 11
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
12/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 12
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
13/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 13
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
14/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 14
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
15/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 15
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
16/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 16
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
17/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 17
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
18/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 18
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
19/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 19
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
20/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 20
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
21/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 21
Appendix A (continued)
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
22/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 22
Appendix B
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
23/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 23
Appendix B (continued)
Additional Criteria for Evaluation
Goal Setting:__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Informal Observations: _________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Testing Data:_________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Self Evaluation: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Surveys: _____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Other feedback: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Teacher comments:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Administrator: _____________________________________________ Date:_______________
Teacher: _________________________________________________ Date: ______________
-
8/9/2019 Analysis of Evaluation
24/24
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 24
Copyright 2009, L.G. Vanden Plas, Human Resource Technologies, Inc.Reproduction of this form authorized only form registered users for internal use.
Appendix C