New teacher evaluation system has potential

Valley teachers face many new challenges this year: we have new curriculum in several subject areas, new state testing to replace the Alaska Standards Based Assessments and High School Graduation Qualifying Exam, and some schools, like the Mat-Su Day School, have brand new buildings.

One new feature this year that is making a big difference to teachers and administrators is our new statewide evaluation system.

I’d like to be perfectly clear here: a great deal of education reform nationwide in recent years has focused on the idea of teacher tenure, and how that system makes it “nearly impossible” to fire an ineffective or incompetent teacher.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every single teacher contract includes a clause indicating that teachers can be fired “for cause,” with cause including a range of behaviors.

The tenure system was designed years ago to protect due process for teachers, and to preserve academic freedom, ensuring that teachers cannot be dismissed for political or social beliefs or at the whim of a disgruntled parent.

That protection is invaluable and must be preserved.

Every teacher I have ever worked with believes in a strong evaluation system used cooperatively by teachers and administrators to preserve the integrity of the teaching profession and the quality of our teachers. Believe me, no teacher wants to work with a colleague who is not doing good work; that makes all of our jobs more difficult and degrades all of us. Every teacher I have ever worked with also is invested in the idea of quality education and helping students as much as possible, and we recognize that a quality teacher evaluation system is a benefit to all of us and the educational system as a whole.

The new evaluation system rolling out this year is based on the work of Charlotte Danielson, a woman who began with the simple idea of setting out the basic qualities of good teaching, organized into categories and clear language so that teachers could reflect on their own practice and consult with their colleagues to determine areas in which they were strongest and those where they needed growth and improvement. Her work has been adopted by many states in recent years because it provides teachers and administrators a common language, helping them to collaborate on the ways to best serve students.

Here in Mat-Su, many teachers began preparation for the new evaluation system last year, when schools received copies of Danielson’s book, Enhancing Professional Practice: a Framework for Teaching.

In her book, Danielson divides the practice of teaching into four domains: planning and preparation; classroom environment; instruction; and professional responsibilities. Each domain includes multiple components that come together to show a complete picture of what good teaching looks like.

The instruction domain, for example, includes components such as “communicating with students,” “using questioning and discussion techniques,” and “using assessment in instruction” among others. The new Mat-Su evaluation asks teachers to consider their work in each of the four domains; the district has chosen 10 of the components from across the domains to highlight. These components were chosen by committees of teachers and administrators who selected them because they lined up with district goals and standards.

Evaluations begin with a teacher’s self-reflection, where each of us looks at the four domains and 10 required components and evaluates his/her performance in each of those areas, choosing from “unsatisfactory, “basic,” “proficient,” or “exemplary.”

I can understand how some people might think teachers would just call themselves exemplary in all areas, but I can attest that nothing is further from the truth. One colleague, for example, whom I have long admired for her efforts in communicating with parents and community members, rated herself “basic” in that area; I would have unhesitatingly rated her “exemplary.”

Like our students, we tend to be hard on ourselves when we self-evaluate. Once the self-reflection is complete, teachers meet with administrators to discuss the self-reflection and plan the next step of the evaluation, in which the teacher assembles artifacts that will demonstrate proficiency in a particular area. For example, in the “using assessment in instruction” component, a teacher might submit standardized testing data for students as well as examples of projects, presentations, and/or written assignments given in a particular curriculum area. Administrators can request particular artifacts be submitted, and teachers have the opportunity to submit items of their choice as well.

Our former evaluations were good. Many experienced teachers developed a specific goal each year, worked on it throughout the academic year, and submitted a written statement at the end of the evaluation period to administrators Other teachers were observed regularly over the course of the year.

The big difference that most of us are excited about with the new system is that it allows for much more collaboration, both among teachers and between teachers and administrators. This year, for example, about 20 staff members at Colony High are collaborating as we work our way through the new process. We meet weekly to refresh ourselves about on four domains and 22 components and what those look like when well done, and we’re helping each other determine what artifacts we can submit that demonstrate our work in the required components.

For all of us, the goal is a teacher evaluation system that helps determine areas of strength and areas for improvement, allowing us to grow as a district in the ways we help our students.

Prudence Plunkett has been reading and recommending books to Valley students for more than 20 years.