Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Teacher Evaluation



Today I want to briefly discuss Penn-Trafford’s teacher supervision model.  The model is based on the Charlotte Danielson model of teacher evaluation.  This model is grounded by a 22 section rubric.  The rubric has three domains: Domain I deals with Planning and Preparation, Domain II deals with The Classroom Environment, Domain III concentrates on Instruction, and Domain IV showcases professional Responsibilities.  Teachers are expected to be “proficient” or “distinguished” in all areas.  If not, there is an expectation that help will be given to the teacher and improvement must be made in the areas of deficiency.

The supervision model places teachers in one of three areas. The first area is called the “Differentiated Supervision Model”.  This area is for teachers that are doing a very good job. In this model teachers are informally observed many times a year.  They are evaluated based on how well they have accomplished goals that they have set out for themselves and their classroom for the year.  The second area is called the “General Supervision Model”.  This model is a more traditional model of teacher supervision where teachers are observed twice a year and evaluated at the end of the year.  All teachers are cycled through this model every 5 years. So in any given year a minimum of 1/3 of the teachers are in this model. This allows for a more formal supervision to make sure everything is going well.  This model also serves as a “transition” for teachers if they are moved out of (or into) the Structured Model or Differentiated Model.  The last area is called the “Structured Supervision Model”. In this model there is a team of administrators and teacher colleagues that help support the teachers.  The Structured Model is composed of two parts.  The first is for teachers that do not have tenure or those teachers that are new to the school district.  We want to make sure these teachers get the most support as they start their careers or are coming to the school district with tenure.  The second part is for teachers that are deemed “at risk”.  These are employees that need a lot of support to become good teachers.  Regardless of whether you are new to the district or are considered “at risk”, in this model, a teacher is formally observed a minimum of four times a year and given a formal evaluation twice during that year (typically half way through the year and at the end of the year).  In addition, “at risk” teachers have an improvement plan that they must adhere to in order to reach a satisfactory rating.  

Regardless of being in the Differentiated, General, or Structured Model, the building principals have countless informal observations of the teacher.  Our principals do an outstanding job of being in the classrooms.  A teacher is given a “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory” rating based on their performance in the classroom.  However, the district can always give an unsatisfactory rating (or fire someone) if their behavior warrants those actions.  In other words, the supervision model does not take in all of the discipline options available to the school district.  The school district can start proceedings to fire a teacher once they have received two consecutive ratings of “unsatisfactory”.   Of course it is the responsibility of the school district to show that we have given support and tried to help the at risk teacher. It has always been my goal to make sure I do everything possible to help an at risk employee because ultimately we want the employee to become the best employee possible. In my experience, if the district shows a good faith effort in helping an “at risk” employee, and that employee does not improve, and then the employee usually ends up not working for the school district anymore.  

Pennsylvania has adopted an evaluation system that is similar to the one that I have just described.  It is a Danielson based system.  However, PT’s system is much more rigorous in that we have three different “models” within the system.  The State’s system clumps everyone into one system. One requirement of the new evaluation system is that at least 50% of the teacher’s overall evaluation will be based on the Danielson rubric and the other 50% must be based on data (i.e. test scores).  The 50% for data is broken down in the following way: 15% will be based on building level test data (how well the building does on the PSSA exams); 15% will be based on teacher specific data (how well students in a teachers class do on the PSSA test); 20% is “elective” data.  The elective data is chosen by the school district and can be chosen from the following list:  National Tests, District Rubrics, IEP Growth, Projects, Portfolios or Surveys.  All school districts in Pennsylvania must choose these elective data sets in the upcoming year.

You can find the entire Penn-Trafford Teacher Evaluation here.