What are some ways districts are tiering or differentiating the teacher evaluation process once an experienced teacher has received a highly effective/effective rating on the rubric for five or six years?

Question
in progress 0
JNewblom 9 months 1 Answer 115 views 0

Answer ( 1 )

  1. Some districts are experimenting with tiering the evaluation process so that after several years of demonstrated effectiveness using the basic rubric/process, teachers move to a different rubric or process. This can look like making the process/rubric for entry-level teachers simpler (e.g. only the Instruction Domain is observed/evaluated, artifacts are not required, feedback on planning/professionalism/leadership is formative only). It can also look like a different rubric with more sophisticated expectations for “Experienced and Effective” staff. In this case, certain competencies such as classroom management may drop off, and expectations about more robust individualizing of instruction or assessment may be added. One district I know of adds a leadership component and a personal growth component only after multiple years of effective/highly effective rating.

    In the district where I worked, we ultimately created a second tier process for teachers who had been effective/highly effective for three successive years. It was optional for teachers to move to this new tier. If they felt more comfortable with the process they’d been using, they could stick with it. If they did choose to move to the new tier, they did so with the understanding that they’d use that process for two years, then cycle back through the process used by all staff the third year, continuing to repeat that cycle.

    The new tier included these components:
    1. Set a goal to improve professional practice in some way to positively impact student learning.
    2. Agree with evaluator upon two collegial observations to be done during the teacher’s prep period with a reflection artifact afterwards. Teacher sets purpose for those observations with the evaluator collaboratively and also agrees to BE observed by colleagues if asked.
    3. Set 2 targeted learning objectives (measurable learning goals for specific identified groups of students). Track progress through the year.
    4. Agree to 1 long observation by evaluator during the year with formative feedback using the standard teacher rubric and participate in post-observation discussion about the observation.
    5. Agree to seek student/parent/colleague feedback at some point during the year and create artifact titled “360-degree Feedback” with the collection tool used and reflection on the data collected.

    While this is just one example, it shows how the evaluation process might be differentiated to support a professional’s growth over time. The components were chosen after much discussion with experienced teachers about the things that most inspire them to improve. Other types of components discussed included passion projects, action research, professional development plans, and participation in regular instructional rounds across schools or districts.

Leave an answer