Teacher Evaluation
Last
summer, in New Jersey, the state of education was altered. Under the Landmark
Tenure Reform, districts were forced to change the way teachers are observed.
Through this change, the effectiveness of a teacher, and the decision of tenure
is now determined based off of classroom observations and student performance,
specifically on statewide standardized testing.
What
is good teaching? That is the question that surrounds the idea behind this
reform. The overall idea is to put the most effective teacher in front of our
students at all times. The state of NJ has developed guidelines to help
districts successfully evaluate teachers. Depending on the model used by the
district, it must require that objective first, “measurement of student
achievement growth be considered in a weighting system of parallel components.
Next it requires teachers be placed into effectiveness categories by assigning
arbitrary numerical cutoffs to the aggregated weighted evaluation components,
meaning a teacher will fall into a percentage which allows a label to be added
(effective, partially effective, etc.). Finally, the modern teacher evaluation
template places inflexible timelines on conditions for removal of tenure”
(NJEA, 2013).
Off
of these requirements, four major evaluation methods are predominately seen in
the schools of NJ. The Marzano Evaluation Model sole focus is that every
teacher will increase his or her expertise to sufficient levels every year. So
the focus is placed on constant improvement and development. Marzano’s approach
is completed through four domains, which serves a blueprint for teachers to
constantly improve. The unique idea Marzano tries to portray with this system
is that the teacher is seen on a developmental continuum. The second approach
that is seen throughout districts in NJ is Danielson Evaluation System. “Danielson
demystified
teaching by defining it through four domains of professional responsibility,
with components such as managing student behavior and engaging students in
learning” (Danielson 1996). Next, the Stronge Evaluation System looks to prove
that, “Effectiveness is the goal; Evaluation is merely the means”. Through this method, the basis of
teacher evaluation is measured on seven performance standards, which allow for
a rating of highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective.
Finally, the McRel system is another evaluation method that is seen often in
NJ. McREL’s Teacher Evaluation System
is based on 21st century standards and five sets of formative rubrics aligned
with these standards.
The common theme in amongst all these
methods is the idea of domains, which allows for a breakdown of how a teacher
should basically construct their day. This is a positive that teacher
evaluation models offer, a comprehensive breakdown of what is expected to be
considered an effective teacher. Also, another benefit using evaluation
methods, is that they are largely research based, so the aspects that are being
measured have been proven to be effective qualities to gain optimal results in
students.
The main drawback with these methods is that
a teachers rating and tenure status also falls on the results of student
performance (i.e. standardized testing). The problem with this is that a
teacher is possibly, being penalized due to the fact that cognitively the
student cannot keep pace on a normative level. That doesn’t mean his teacher is
to blame for this. How can you grade a student considered special ed against a
student in the top of his class and then say the teacher is at fault if the special
ed student cannot score in the norm range. The NJEA likes the idea of observing
teachers in the classroom, but a 35 percentage that is given to standardized
testing and the decision on teacher evaluation and tenure is where the argument
lies. The amount of weight put on standardized testing does not take into
account outside forces that has an effect on the scores. “Some people choose to
ignore it, but parental support and general cultural support matter hugely.
There are whole populations of kids who don’t have that” (Danielson). Finally,
the cost to implement these systems is very high. There are ways to earn grant
money (i.e. Race To The Top, 2009) however this isn’t guaranteed and sometimes
the cost still is in excess to what is given to a district.
Resources:
Calefati, J. (2013). Back to School: Teachers Frustrated, Nervous About
New Evaluation System.
Patterson, M.J. (2012). An Expert Discusses the Pros and Cons of Teacher
Evaluation. http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns-and-schools
Teaching Practice Evaluation Instruments. http://www.Njea.org/issues-and-political-action.evaluation.
No comments:
Post a Comment