PSEA member toolkit: Teacher Evaluation. Teacher evaluation continues to be a subject of public debate in Pennsylvania and across the United States. Pennsylvania introduced a new evaluation system in 2. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2. For more information on ESEA reauthorization, go to www. ESSA. PSEA will continue efforts to make sure Pennsylvania's teacher evaluation system is valid, reliable, and fair.
Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation. Help districts transform their teacher evaluation system into an engine of growth and professional development reflecting gains between teacher evaluation and student performance. NEA advocates the development of new systems of teaching and learning that align student and teacher assessment with. Read Teacher Assessment and Evaluation (December. The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument 2011 Edition by Charlotte Danielson. The Framework for Teaching identifies those aspects of a teacher's responsibilities that.
PSEA Resources PDE Information.
TEACHER EVALUATION GUIDE PLANNING & 2012-2013 Rochester City School District INSTRUCTION Annual Professional Performance Review A Framework for Professional Practice TEACHER EVALUATION PREPARATION LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. Pennsylvania Teacher Evaluation Overview (As of April 23, 2012) State Legislation Related to Teacher Evaluation Title: Senate Bill 1087 Senate Bill 1087 was sponsored by State Senator Jeffrey Piccola, Chair of the Pennsylvania. Some Concerned About New Pa. Teacher Evaluations July 16, 2012 6:05 PM. Filed Under: evaluation, Pennsylvania, teacher evaluation. The official rating tool. A New Teacher Evaluation System for Pennsylvania. A low-performing teacher can have a negative impact on a student. Teacher Evaluation Teacher’s Name Social Security Number Name of School School Year Most Recent Date of Hire Assignment Satis- * Needs to Unsatis-factory Improve factory I. Effective Teaching Preparation A.
The Two Purposes of Teacher Evaluation. November 2. 01. 2 ?
Marzano. An evaluation system that fosters teacher learning will differ from one whose aim is to measure teacher competence. Over the last year, I've asked more than 3,0. If educators think that measurement is the sole purpose of teacher evaluation (that is, that development should not be a purpose of teacher evaluation), they select 1.
If educators think that development is the sole purpose of teacher evaluation (that is, that measurement should not be a purpose of teacher evaluation), they select 5. If they believe that the purpose of teacher evaluation should be half measurement and half development, they select 3. A value of 2 indicates that measurement and development should be dual purposes but that measurement should be dominant. Finally, 4 indicates that measurement and development should be dual purposes but that development should be dominant. To date, educators have responded in the following way: No one selected 1, 2 percent selected 2, 2.
Stated differently, the vast majority of respondents believe that teacher evaluation should be used for both measurement and development but that development should be the more important purpose. Although the 3,0.
I queried do not constitute a representative sample, their responses do raise the issue of what teacher evaluation looks like when its primary purpose is development. Systems That Focus on Development. Teacher evaluation systems that are designed to help teachers improve have three primary characteristics. The System Is Comprehensive and Specific. Comprehensive means the model includes all those elements that research has identified as associated with student achievement. Specific means the model identifies classroom strategies and behaviors at a granular level. Figure 1 contains 4.
Marzano, 2. 00. 7). FIGURE 1. A Model of Classroom Strategies and Behaviors.
Routine Strategies. A. Communicating Learning Goals, Tracking Student Progress, and Celebrating Success. Providing clear learning goals and scales to measure these goals.
Tracking student progress. Celebrating student success.
B. Establishing and Maintaining Classroom Rules and Procedures. Establishing classroom rules and procedures. Organizing the physical layout of the classroom. Content Strategies. C. Helping Students Interact with New Knowledge. Identifying critical information. Organizing students to interact with new knowledge.
Previewing new content. Chunking content into . Processing new information. Elaborating on new information. Recording and representing knowledge. Reflecting on learning.
D. Helping Students Practice and Deepen Their Understanding of New Knowledge. Organizing students to practice and deepen knowledge. Examining similarities and differences. Examining errors in reasoning. Practicing skills, strategies, and processes. Helping Students Generate and Test Hypotheses about New Knowledge. Organizing students for cognitively complex tasks.
Engaging students in cognitively complex tasks involving hypothesis generation and testing. Providing resources and guidance.
Strategies Enacted on the Spot. F. Noticing when students are not engaged. Using academic games. Managing response rates. Using physical movement.
Maintaining a lively pace. Demonstrating intensity and enthusiasm. Using friendly controversy. Providing opportunities for students to talk about themselves. Presenting unusual or intriguing information. G. Recognizing and Acknowledging Adherence or Lack of Adherence to Rules and Procedures.
Applying consequences for lack of adherence to rules and procedures. Acknowledging adherence to rules and procedures. H. Establishing and Maintaining Effective Relationships with Students.
Understanding students' interests and backgrounds. Using verbal and nonverbal behaviors that indicate affection for students. Displaying objectivity and control.
I. Communicating High Expectations for All Students. Demonstrating value and respect for low- expectancy students.
Asking questions of low- expectancy students. Probing incorrect answers with low- expectancy students. Note: Items in bold text may be used to rapidly rate teacher competence in the classroom—that is, as a measurement tool as opposed to a development tool. Source: From Effective Supervision: Applying the Art and Science of Teaching (pp. Marzano, Tony Frontier, & David Livingston, Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Adapted with permission. Figure 1 includes three categories of strategies: routine strategies, content strategies, and strategies enacted on the spot.
Routines involve five types of strategies (Elements 1–5) organized into two subcategories: those that involve communicating learning goals, tracking student progress, and celebrating success and those that involve establishing and maintaining rules and procedures. Content strategies fall into three subcategories: those used for new content, those used when students are practicing and deepening their knowledge of new content, and those used when students are asked to apply knowledge by generating and testing hypotheses. There are 1. 8 types of content strategies (Elements 6–2. Strategies enacted on the spot are those that a teacher might not have planned to use in a given lesson or on a given day but that he or she must be prepared to use if needed. These strategies fall into four categories: strategies for engaging students, strategies that acknowledge adherence to or lack of adherence to rules and procedures, strategies that build relationships with students, and strategies that communicate high expectations for all students. There are 1. 8 types of strategies enacted on the spot (Elements 2. I believe these 4.
However, many of the 4. For example, the Rapid Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness (RATE) was designed with an explicit measurement purpose—to effectively and efficiently determine teacher competence in the classroom (Strong, 2. The model includes only 1. Those categories are. Providing clear lesson objectives.
Understanding students' background and comfort with the material. Using more than one delivery mechanism. Providing multiple examples. Providing appropriate nonexamples (illustrations of the wrong way to do something). Maintaining an effective pace. Providing students with feedback about their learning.
Engaging in timely use of guided practice. Explaining important concepts clearly. Keeping students actively engaged throughout a lesson.
Studies on the RATE system indicate that it discriminates between effective and ineffective teachers much better than some popular teacher evaluation models do (Strong, 2. Conspicuously missing from RATE's list are references to such commonly cited elements as the teacher- student relationship and classroom management. These elements are recognized in virtually every major review of the literature on classroom correlates of effective teaching. For example, in their review of the research on 2. Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1.
Over the years, classroom management has continued to be considered an important aspect of effective teaching (Good & Brophy, 2. Likewise, the teacher- student relationship is prominently positioned in the theory and research regarding student behavior (Evertson & Weinstein, 2. Indeed, Sheets and Gay (1.
How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction? How could variables like management and teacher- student relationships, which have research supporting their connections to important student outcomes, not be good discriminators of teacher quality? The answer is that these elements are important correlates with student achievement—up to a point. If a teacher has not achieved a certain level of competence in these areas, student achievement will suffer. However, once a teacher reaches an acceptable level of competence in these areas, further skill development will not have a commensurate positive influence on student achievement.
A number of other strategy areas listed in Figure 1 correlate with student achievement but do not necessarily discriminate well between teachers who represent a wide range of competence. For example, consider academic games (Element 2. Hattie, 2. 00. 9; Walberg, 1. Indeed, a teacher can produce dramatic gains in student learning without using games at all.
If we wished to use the model presented in Figure 1 to rapidly rate teachers, we'd only need to consider 1. In other words, if our goal is efficient measurement, following Strong's model, which appears to discriminate between teachers better than many previous models, we would need only a relatively small subset of elements and could leave out some variables that have historically been associated with effective instruction.
However, if we wished to help teachers develop instead of just measuring them, we'd obtain ratings on all 4. Teachers don't need to be scored on each of the 4.
Rather, they should gradually work through the elements over time as they seek to improve their competence in the classroom. The System Includes a Developmental Scale. A second characteristic of a teacher evaluation system that focuses on development is that it employs a scale or rubric that teachers can use to guide and track their skill development. Such a scale would articulate developmental levels, such as not using, beginning, developing, applying, and innovating (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2. At the not using level, a teacher is not even aware of a particular strategy or is aware of it but has not tried it in his or her classroom. For example, if a teacher were unaware of strategies for engaging students in friendly controversy (Element 3.
Figure 1), he or she would be at the not using level. At the beginning level, a teacher uses a strategy but with errors and omissions. For example, a teacher who simply asks students to state their opinions about a topic with the goal of generating disagreement would be at the beginning level because errors and omissions are in play.