Supervisory Leadership post 2

Critical Analysis of Evaluation of Teachers

Introduction

            The evaluation policy for teachers (5001) of the Brandon School Division, Brandon, Manitoba, was adopted by the Board of School Trustees on June 7, 2007. The foundation for this supervisory policy is the belief that it is of vital importance for promoting the delivery of a quality education program and that professional growth of staff will enable students to reach their full potential. To this end, teachers are to develop their own professional growth plan while adhering to the guiding principles and standards of excellence in teaching as outlined in the complementary policy document Supervision and Evaluation of Educators – The Professional Growth Process which was adopted June 2003.

Conceptual Framework

            The evaluation criteria for educators is based on a teacher developed growth plan that employs the open-ended questions in the appendices of the policy document for teacher self-assessment reflection, and goals setting. This is to be done in a consultative manner with dialogue between the teacher and the principal, utilizing collaborative conference logs and mediated self-directed learning guidelines. The guiding principles for the supervisory process are: 1.Professional growth is a continuous and progressive process, 2. Motivation is intrinsic, 3. Professional growth is a constructive social process, 4. Educators have a right to know and discuss what is expected of them in terms of professional practices, 5. Educators are accountable for their professional performance, and 6. Professional growth is facilitated by system supports. The 8 standards of excellence in teaching must also be used in this reflective growth process. A personal report on professional growth is required by all new teachers, those new to the division, as well as seasoned veterans, who will maintain a growth track report. Within the first year a teacher will receive a written assessment at November and April. All educators are expected to submit annual professional growth and will receive a written report every four years. More rigorous assessment scheduling is afforded for teachers who are deemed “at risk” and those who are on probation.

Key Terms

Eight Standards of Excellence in Teaching – Use to define measures of success and as areas of professional reflection. They are 1. Learning environment, 2. Classroom climate, 3. Curriculum/classroom planning, 4. Instructional diversity, 5. Student assessment, 6. Contributions to school and community environment, 7. Interpersonal relationships, 8. Professionalism and shared leadership

Professional Growth Plan – the overall success of an organization based on the response of the stakeholders regarding the achievement of common goals

Growth Track – All new, experienced, “at risk”, and on probation teachers need to submit their intentions as to how they will proceed in practice and education for the betterment of themselves, their students and the division; clearly outlining needs, options and the plan for growth with the school administrator

Focused Evaluation Track – for teachers deemed 1. “at risk” or 2. on probation.

1. Review the concerns affecting professional practice and work cooperatively with the administrator to implement a plan for improved practice. Quarterly reports.

2. On probation is an escalation of “at risk” status. The plan created previously in stage one, must be accepted with a more intense effort, by the teacher and the school administrator to rectify the teaching performance issues. There are to be monthly reports

 Critical Analysis (positives, drawbacks and issues)         

Positives

·         Detailed, specific roles and responsibilities for all four categories of educators and for both levels of administration.

·         Collaborative cyclical evaluation process.

·         Written reports every 4 years to provide a longitudinal record of ongoing growth

·         Allows for self-reflection with emphasis on professional growth and collaboration with administrators

·         4 tiered approach to focus on different educator demographics

Drawbacks

·         New or veteran educator priority sequence in the assessment model not explicit  

·         No deliverable time markers for growth plans within a year No milestone markers for mid or late-stage teacher assessment.

·         No timeframe for scheduled dialogue recurrence for new or veteran educators to ascertain whether performance, quality, or effectiveness of desired personal and institutional outcomes are being met.

·         No exemplars of individual growth plans are provided, nor are there any examples of administrator feedback

·         There is no mentorship component to assist new or struggling teachers with this assessment process.

·         There are no criteria or defining characteristics, for any level of administration, to use a metric to specify an educator as being either “at risk” or requiring probationary status.

Issues

      I am currently in my eleventh year of teaching at the Brandon School Division and there has never been an attempt to evaluate my performance. In discussions with Principals it has been pointed out that contract position teachers have precedence for evaluation since they need these assessments to apply for positions. The identified process appears to be thorough and focused on professional growth but it is sorely lacking in implementation because of divisional mandates that do not allow time for supervisors to complete these extremely valuable measurement for the benefit of all stakeholders in this process. This is unfortunate, since the same sort of collaborative and supportive and ongoing feedback that professional educators are expected to give their students, they are not afforded themselves. In 11 years, I have only been asked once to submit a professional growth plan and have never had a dialogue with any administrator about my performance, personal and professional growth or growth within the division or the institutional framework.