|
   Equals  Get up, stand up, fight for your rights! nyceducator.com/2011/03/uft-time-to-take-stand.html Value-added creates horror stories like this one where a respected teacher ranks way too low: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php Even Time weighs in on the crap-value of value added: www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2020867,00.html Value added in NYC: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly: edlab.tc.columbia.edu/index.php New York's Plan to Use Value Added Data to Evaluate Teachers Is Destructive articles.nydailynews.com/2010-10-25/news/29440622_1_teachers-student-english/2 Sanderson Defends His Use of EVAAS Data & Verifies His Data With His Data: www.sas.com/resources/asset/Response_to_Criticisms_of_SAS_EVAAS_11-13-09.pdf Act Before May 12: Let the HISD Trustees Know Their TNTP-based new teacher assessment plan is poorly written, highly subjective, and anti-teacher. The vote to approve this atrocious plan may be a done deal but in no way should it be a comfortable bill for the seven trustees who will support it. Political heat - as hot as possible - must be the after effects. All TNTP teacher evaluation analysis has been written by houstonisdwatch.com Discussion of TNTP Teacher Assessment Plan Domain 1: Instruction Remember the HISD trustees in favor of TNTP's evaluation plan do so because "too many teachers receive positive evaluations." The current HISD board is not the brightest educational leadership group to ever convene. Concern the district has too many "good" teachers coupled with trustee Moore's concern that seniority rules are not fair because they "protect bad teachers" paints a vivid yet ugly picture. The surgical instrument that will literally put a new face on the district is the TNTP plan. But how will it operate? Why will experienced teachers be more at risk? Keep in mind the founder of TNTP is Michelle Rhee, the disgraced former Washington, D.C. school leader who fired 1000 teachers during her tenure. To the veteran teacher, love of job is a self-nourishing process precisely because teaching is an art every bit as much as it is a science. TNTP will mandate proscribed lessons and strategies in part because the front line assessors, HISD's assistant principals, do not have the time and many do not have an interest in becoming true instructional leaders. The art of teaching will be buried. Why do you think Saavedra's executive principals' main job was instruction? They were not to be mediators, decision-makers, or the final word. Somehow Saavedra believed instructional leadership in its truest form was not successfully carried out by managers. They didn't call administration certification programs "mid-management" for nothing. Standing guard duty at the bus stop and breaking up fights are not necessarily behaviors of great instructional leaders. There are some assistant principals who will relish the role of classroom specialist. I pity any teachers whose assessor dons that title without having done the research to truly be effective. TNTP's plan is a magnet for imposters and "yes men" who will be more concerned about pleasing the non-campus brass and looking good than becoming skilled coaches and evaluators. After all, any assistant principal worth his or her salt is supposed to dream of becoming a principal. Many experienced teachers are pedagogical experts, content specialists, and excellent student managers. Even the best, most experienced teachers cannot reach every student. The TNTP assessment plan mandates humanly impossible displays of trying on the part of teachers then holds them accountable for the failure to get the moment, the timing, the flow, the intervention, and the variety just right. You might be thinking that reasonable assessors would never allow the failure of one or two students to dramatically influence an evaluation. That assumption is based on trust and, unfortunately, the TNTP is void of trust. For example, a teacher will be downgraded for "interrupting the flow of the lesson" even as he or she attempts to address student misunderstanding. This teacher could be given a score of Level 2, "slightly below expectations." To receive a score of "Effective" in Domain 1 - Instruction a teacher must check for understanding (ok), accurately diagnose the student misunderstanding (and obviously the assessor not the teacher defines "accurately") and - get this one - at "key" moments in the lesson using a "variety of methods." Key and variety are two problematic words here. Will a list of the "varied ways to check for understanding" be published? Will they be the same across disciplines? How much "variety" does a 55-minute period allow for? How would an assistant principal who is not a content specialist or even have much content knowledge be able to define a "key" moment? In Domain 1, line 5, under "Differentiates instruction for student needs by employing a variety of instructional strategies points 1 - 4" describing attributes of an Effective Teacher are expectations from the PDAS-assessment model and are sound. Point 5, "Students engage in learning experiences or performance tasks that allow for interest-based choice in processes or products." It's encouraging to see TNTP acknowledge that students are human beings and that they have choices to make in their own education. But "processes and products" as a measurable outcome that is easy enough to witness in a formal teacher evaluation? Maybe. This one sounds like a time-drainer that will involve teachers presenting student work to assistant principal/assessors who will be obligated to review it carefully and score the "processes and products." Domain 2: Planning "Develops student learning goals" has a problem because it uses the term "ambitious." "Teacher develops annual learning goals that are ambitious given student skill levels at the beginning of the year." The urban dictionary describes ambitious as "Trying hard to make a goal of some kind; opportunistic, driving, determined and eager" with the caveat "usually ends up only half-way there." It's the "half-way there" part that prompted TNTP-oriented HISD employees (no one making less than $70,000 annually) to add this note: "Ambitious" would be defined during appraiser training and would be aligned with district norms. Development of student learning goals may be assessed during conference period with teacher. TNTP will allow for "group" learning skills if you happen to teach at a "departmentalized secondary classroom." Type-casting students into groups and lowering the bar beyond the realm of standardized testing is one of the defects in the entire TNTP approach. Its thread runs through the use of value-added data and you see it again here. It's one of the many dehumanizing features of this terrible plan. Keep this key point in mind: Teachers can only be assessed on the students they have had from the beginning of school, or appraisal training, until the end. Teachers will need to keep careful check of the constant turnover of students and make sure their appraiser has done the same. This feature is possibly pro-teacher but it is another time distraction of a plan that demands 24/7 subservience. Collects, tracks, and uses student data to drive instruction Obviously, this goal of Domain 2 creates time-intensive labor out of a planning strategy teachers have always used within the limits of data. "Data to drive instruction" is straight KIPP-talk, it removes spontaneity and creativity from the student-teacher relationship, and it requires test focus 24/7. The district purchases multiple-choice tests from its buddy Pearson, but houstonisdwatch.com readers have said the timing of the content and difficulty of using results to plan instruction - based on the number of Pearson tests and the time of return - render the benchmarks pretty much useless. The plan tells us in the notes (and read the notes which are definitely a "cover the district's ass" situation) that "This indicator is distinguished from the 'Instruction - Differentiates Instruction for Student Needs...criteria because it focuses on using data for planning rather than implementation of differentiated instruction." Why? Why make a precision cut down the middle here? This language is particularly bad and demonstrates why the plan will engender contentiouness from teachers and appraisers. It is clear to see again idiots were at the helm to write this plan. The footnote to item 6 in this section of Domain 2 is problematic. "Students articulate their performance and progress relative to unit objectives and annual goals." Semi-okay with that. Of course, since the evaluation of the teacher is based on the students who have been with him or her all year, the interviews demanded by the "Note" here - "This indicator would be assessed by the appraiser by asking students directly" requires the assessor to know exactly which students to interview. houstonisdwatch.com has a real problem with this notion of systematically, officially, interviewing students to grade a teacher. Of course, appraisers and assistant principals talk to kids about teachers and classes. When there are chronic discipline problems in a learning environment oftentimes instructional modifications that should be made are not made. Student feedback can be very helpful. An official interview or set of questions to ask students will lead to more lost instructional time, along the lines of test prep, as teachers ready their students for conversations that officially turn upside the authority structure in a school and put the school's most vital resource - its teachers - in an uncomfortable and unacceptable position. Handled with care and trust, the action of an appraiser interviewing students for the purposes of appraising could be highly beneficial and enlightening to all. The TNTP is not written in a spirit of care and trust. If it were, the HISD trustees - Paula Harris, Manuel Rodriguez, Harvin Moore, Mike Lunceford, Larry Marshall, Greg Meyers, and Anna Eastman - who voted to implement the plan at the May 12, 2011, board meeting would have deferred to their colleagues Julie Stipeche and Carol Mimms Galloway who voted against it and HFT who has asked for a delay. There is no common courtesy or employer-employee respect here. Again, it is easy to see the "gotcha" nature of TNTP's plan in requirements like this one. Here you don't need to read between the lines to see an attempt to debase teachers in action. Domain 2 contd.: Planning/develops higher level thinking skills/communicates content and concepts to students/maximizes instructional time Engages in higher level thinking skills. This section of Planning includes "Engages students in work that develops higher level thinking skills;" "Communicates content and concept to students;" "Maximizes instructional time." This is one of the better written sections of this plan. Again focusing on what describes an "Effective" teacher, point 2, "Communicates content and concepts to students" is right on the money: 1. Teacher explains concepts and skills clearly and coherently. 2. Teacher conveys accurate information to students. 3. Teacher emphasizes key points needed to master lesson objectives. However, in "Maximizes instructional time" the phrase "selecting high-impact instructional strategies that lead students to mastery..." says nothing about the kind and nature of high-impact activities the teacher should plan and the assessor should observe. Doman 3: Engagement This domain includes "Students expected to perform at high levels" and "Students actively participating in lesson activities." Draw a distinction here if you can from the "Notes": "These indicators are intended to be distinct from the indicators in "Classroom Environment - Classroom Routines" because the criterion focuses on the degree to which class time is maximized, as opposed to the execution of routines. " Okay, just what in the hell does that mean? Apparently, the phrase "time on task" has gone by the wayside like, "Wait 'til your father gets home," Furthermore, perhaps "execution" is not the best word to use in a teacher evaluation instrument? Point 2 under "Students expected to perform at high levels" states this: "Teacher communicates and reinforces expectation that all students are expected to meet annual learning goals, and connects this achievement to students' long-term or personal goals." How and when does that become scorable data? And how will the third point in "Students actively participating in lesson activities" become scorable: "Students connect their own interests, perspectives, experiences, or backgrounds to the lesson"? So when the appraiser is in the teacher's classroom the lesson takes on an Oprah Winfrey show direction? Call me simplistic or old-fashioned, but observing student engagement in a lesson is just not this complicated and it shoudn't require warm chatting with students by the appraiser to be seen and scored fairly. Domain 4: Classroom Environment "Sets and implements classroom routines and procedures" seems to be pretty routine. However, in pt. 3, "Students assume responsibility for routines and procedures, executing them in an orderly and efficient manner that requires little or no direction from the teacher" seems superfluous here. If the first two points are covered, there is no need for a third. This point seems to be ripe for the picking if a student decided on a particular day to make things rough for the teacher. Word does spread. "Sets and implements discipline management procedures" is more problematic. In pt. 2 "Teacher consistently communicates high behavioral expectations with students..." is followed by pt. 3: "Teacher maintains lesson momentun because there is no inappropriate or off task behavior." Once again, the educrats and central office fat cats are falling over themselves in their rush to see who can write the most punitive plan. Folks: You can't have it both ways. Kids will be kids. Kids - do you remember who they are? Whoever wrote "No inappropriate behavior" has no creditability, hasn't been in a classroom in years, and had no business being anywhere near this plan. Once again, in the next descriptor this atrocious TNTP Plan uses ambiguous, subjective language suitable for a "gotcha evaluation" when it states: "Teachers ...follows through on consequences that are logical..." Time to lawyer-up guys. And the note to pt. 3 is another WTF situation: "Appraisers should use discretion in rating this indicator in extreme situations where the teacher needs to stop lesson momentum in order to safely and appropriately address student behaviors." Redirecting student behavior, if it is "subtle and preventative" is okay, but everything else should be scored??? The last point in Domain 4: "Builds a positive, respectful classroom environment" doesn't present a red flag until the last point: "Students actively listen and respond positively to each other and the teacher." Great point and great idea. Teen-agers have all kinds of crazy ways to show respect and often the most frequent way is to hurl a barb or insult. In a gotcha evaluation, will that point be taken into consideration?? Part 3: Professional Expectations Categories for scoring are the following: Below Expectations; Slightly Below Expectations; Meets Expectations; Exceeds Expectations. No disagreement on a below expectations scoring of a teacher who "consisently does not follow district and local school policies." If a teacher needs reminders of support (another area to lawyer up: what qualifies as "needs reminders"? It certainly is quantifiable but it is not. Keep in mind the fine line is drawn on needing reminders. A teacher who flat out doesn't comply with federal, state, and local policies is rated below expectations. A teacher who complies with federal and state laws and policies but needs reminders for local policies is "slightly below." Level 3, "Meets Expectations," describes a teacher who complies with laws and policies at all levels. Perhaps this domain should have been written not to include the fourth "Exceeds Expectations" or compliance should have been considered exceeding. Level 4 - Exceeding Expectations - is one of the most heinous descriptors in an evaluation instrument ever committed to paper. If for no other reason than this one statement: "Teacher follows district and local school policies with no need for reminders or support and finds innovate ways and/or invests an extraordinary amount of effort to help policies succeed. " Who defines extraordinary? Why is it used in reference to school policies? How will this extraordinary effort be evaluated? How will HISD ensure its appraisers are consistent in the application of evaluating "extraordinary" compliance? Why are the HISD trustees and central office staff so disdainful of teachers and principals that they ever concocted this kind of communistic allegiance to state and big brother? Ignorance or board members on the take? HISD trustees invite The New Teacher Project to evaluate the district and thereby invite themselves in: www.scribd.com/doc/30745410/New-Teacher-Project-Report-on-HISD The New Teacher Project Only Cares About HISD Student Performance in the Context of Grabbing More Federal Tax Money for Themselves: There is no "smoking gun" evidence that tying student test performance to teacher evaluations does anything but feed political interests allowing school reformers to attack Middle Class educators "...However, the argument that teacher evaluation based even partially on pupil achievement will improve student learning is a very weak one. There may be some cases where increased attention is positive, but there is no evidence that such a system in fact will improve..." (although written in the 1990s the analysis holds true) Read rest of analysis: www.teacherevaluation.net/Essay/Pupach.html Now Public Disses TNP, the New Evaluation Process for Teachers Highlighted Above & On Previous Pages HISD's new evaluation: creating a two front war against teachers HISD has decided to step away from the state's method of evaluating teachers, and create its own evaluation instrument. One reason is some HISD board members feel too many teachers receive positive evaluations. The involvement of The New Teacher Project (TNP) as HISD's consultant in this process is alarming. Michelle Rhee, founder and long-time leader of TNP, fired 1000 educators and closed many neighborhood schools in three years as leader of the Washington D.C. schools. From what HISD has revealed to the public, the new plan is to base a teacher's evaluation significantly on how students progress on standardized tests. Continue reading at NowPublic.com: HISD's new evaluation: creating a two front war against teachers | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hisds-new-evaluation-creating-two-front-war-against-teachers#ixzz1GJERq64S Read rest of article: www.nowpublic.com/world/hisds-new-evaluation-creating-two-front-war-against-teache Writing punitive teacher evaluation plans will do nothing to improve achievement in schools; NYTimes readers weigh in: Can Teaching Overcome Poverty’s Ills? April 29, 2011 Readers respond to this column: www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/opinion/26nocera.html Re “The Limits of School Reform” (column, April 26): Hats off to Joe Nocera for saying what has been obvious to teachers and principals for years. By the time a child starts public school, at age 5 or 6, he or she has been in an environment since birth that has largely shaped the outcome of his or her school experience. There’s no question that can be modified for the good by dedicated teachers working in well-run schools. But there is serious doubt that school reform alone will accomplish that. Children bring all the baggage of their home experiences with them when they come to school. Couple that with the dismal condition of many of the nation’s public schools, crumbling neighborhoods and parents who have little to no contact with the schools, and you have a recipe for failing schools. Requiring school uniforms, adding hours to the schoolday, providing more rigorous courses — all may be helpful, but no combination of efforts confined solely to the schools will provide the magic answer. Many of America’s schools are failing because for many Americans our society is failing. Pushing for more charter schools and standardized tests or excoriating teachers’ unions are only diversions if we fail to broaden our efforts beyond the schoolhouse door. CHARLES MURPHY, New York Times reader Durham, N.C., April 26, 2011 www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/opinion/l30nocera.html GRIER & HISD TRUSTEES DECLARE WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS USING TEACHERS AS CANNON FODDER What's about to occur One sunny Saturday afternoon I was driving back to Houston from Galveston on 1-45. Suddenly, a motorcyclist roared in front of me, but by the time I applied the brakes, he had raced ahead, a disappearing figure in the concrete landscape. A minute or two later, I swerved to avoid a side collision with another vehicle as cars scattered everywhere. A major wreck was erupting on the busy highway. I regained my composure momentarily, but lost it as I passed a compact car whiplashed by the cyclist's chaos. Its victims hung upside down in the over-turned car, their dazed stares the stuff of surreal paintings and the catalyst for nightmares. Human suffering was palpable. TNTP is the out-of-control motorcyle, the victims in the over-turned car are the HISD teachers, and the catalysts for the wreck are the Arnold Foundation, Natasha Kamrani, Teach for America, KIPP, and seven inane, well- funded, misguided school board members by the names of Paula Harris, Manuel Rodriguez, Greg Myers, Harvin Moore, Anna Eastman, Mike Lunceford, and Larry Marshall. houstonisdwatch.com Campus administrators, and teachers will need legal representation once TNTP evaluation plan is in effect.... Grier's Descent into Madness: Analysis Remember the HISD trustees in favor of TNTP's evaluation plan do so because "too many teachers receive positive evaluations." The current HISD board is not the brightest educational leadership group to ever convene. Concern the district has too many "good" teachers coupled with trustee Moore's concern that seniority rules are not fair because they "protect bad teachers" paints a vivid yet ugly picture. The surgical instrument that will literally put a new face on the district is the TNTP plan. But how will it operate? Why will experienced teachers be more at risk? Keep in mind the founder of TNTP is Michelle Rhee, the disgraced former Washington, D.C. school leader who fired 1000 teachers during her tenure. To the veteran teacher, love of job is a self-nourishing process precisely because teaching is an art every bit as much as it is a science. TNTP will mandate proscribed lessons and strategies in part because the front line assessors, HISD's assistant principals, do not have the time and many do not have an interest in becoming true instructional leaders. The art of teaching will be buried. Why do you think Saavedra's executive principals' main job was instruction? They were not to be mediators, decision-makers, or the final word. Somehow Saavedra believed instructional leadership in its truest form was not successfully carried out by managers. They didn't call administration certification programs "mid-management" for nothing. Standing guard duty at the bus stop and breaking up fights are not necessarily behaviors of great instructional leaders. There are some assistant principals who will relish the role of classroom specialist. I pity any teachers whose assessor dons that title without having done the research to truly be effective. TNTP's plan is a magnet for imposters and "yes men" who will be more concerned about pleasing the non-campus brass and looking good than becoming skilled coaches and evaluators. After all, any assistant principal worth his or her salt is supposed to dream of becoming a principal. Many experienced teachers are pedagogical experts, content specialists, and excellent student managers. Even the best, most experienced teachers cannot reach every student. The TNTP assessment plan mandates humanly impossible displays of trying on the part of teachers then holds them accountable for the failure to get the moment, the timing, the flow, the intervention, and the variety just right. You might be thinking that reasonable assessors would never allow the failure of one or two students to dramatically influence an evaluation. That assumption is based on trust and, unfortunately, the TNTP is void of trust. For example, a teacher will be downgraded for "interrupting the flow of the lesson" even as he or she attempts to address student misunderstanding. This teacher could be given a score of Level 2, "slightly below expectations." To receive a score of "Effective" in Domain 1 - Instruction a teacher must check for understanding (ok), accurately diagnose the student misunderstanding (and obviously the assessor not the teacher defines "accurately") and - get this one - at "key" moments in the lesson using a "variety of methods." Key and variety are two problematic words here. Will a list of the "varied ways to check for understanding" be published? Will they be the same across disciplines? How much "variety" does a 55-minute period allow for? How would an assistant principal who is not a content specialist or even have much content knowledge be able to define a "key" moment? Grier's Descent Into Madness.. New Teacher Assessment Creates Impossible Hurdles for Classroom Teachers & Appraisers Domain 1: Instruction Facilitates organized, student-centered, objective driven lessons (Effective level) 1. Students demonstrate an understanding of the lesson's objectives and what they will be doing in lesson. 2. Students practice, apply, and demonstrate what they are learning during the lesson through meaningful learning activities. 3. Students articulate how their work will be assessed or what assessment their teacher is using to measure their learning. 4. Teacher facilitates a cohesive lesson in which all lesson elements are sequenced and organized in order to lead students toward mastery of the objective. 5. Teacher chooses instructional strategies that effectively teach lesson objectives. 6. Students demonstrate an understanding of lesson content and kills through correct responses in student work or by asking relevant clarification or extension questions. Notes: 1--3: Indicators should be assessed by direct observation of actions or comments of students during classroom visit. 2: For example, there should be a balance between teacher-directed and student-centered learning. Checks for student understanding and responds to student misunderstanding. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is effective at this criterion: 1. Teacher checks for understanding and accurately diagnoses student misunderstanding at key moments during a lesson using a variety of methods. 2.Teacher adjusts lessons to ensure student understanding in response to assessments during the lesson and without interrupting the flow of the lesson. 3. Teacher provides feedback to students during the lesson that affirms correctly understood content, clarifies misunderstood content, and extends student thinking. Notes: 1.Examples of check for student understanding include quickly assessing student learning before moving on to the next step of the lesson, partially through the independent practice, and at the end of the lesson through exit slips. 2.Students response to checks for understanding and adjustments to lessons are currently assessed under "Engagement criteria and Instruction - Facilitates organized student-centered objective driven lessons." Differentiates instruction for student needs by employing a variety of instructional strategies. The following indicators decribe an "Effective" teacher in this domain: 1. Students engage with lesson content in more than one way (e.g. using more than one learning modaility), as appropriate to lesson objectives and student learning profile. 2. Teacher adapts the depth, pace, and delivery mode of what is taught in a lesson to ensure students access the lesson at the appropriate level of challenge. 3. Teacher provides extra support, enrichment, or variation of work in order to meet the individual needs of each student. 4. Teacher strategically utilizes flexible instructional groups and varied instructional arrangements that are appropriate to the students and to the instructional purpose of the lesson. 5. Students engage in learning experiences or performance tasks that allow for interest-based choice in processes or products. Notes: 3. Includes meeting student modifications. Strategies might include, for example, flexible grouping, leveled texts, tiered assignments, providing more challenging or extension assignments, etc. Terry Grier's assessment plan: Descent into madness. Proposed Teacher Assessment Plan Brings "Gotcha" to a Whole New Level This assessment instrument was written by collegiate academians who don't have kids, don't know kids, and don't particularly like kids. Develops student learning goals. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher develops annual student learning goals that are: a. aligned with appropriate Texas and HISD Content standards and curricula. b. measurable using student assessments. c. ambitious given student skill levels at the beginning of the year, and d. differentiated to meed the needs of individual students and groups of students. 2. Teacher communicates annual learning goals to students and how those goals will be assessed. 3. Students demonstrate investment in achieving annual student learning goals. Notes: 1. "Ambitious" would be defined during appraiser training and would be aligned with district norms. Development of student learning goals may be assessed during conference period with teacher. 2. Appraisers should take into account the number of students that an individual teaches when evaluating the degree to which learning goals are individualized. While student learning goals should always be aligned, measurable, and ambitiious given student skill at the beginning of the year, an effective teacher in a departmentalized secondary classroom may have differentialed learning goals for groups of students rather than individual students. Collects, tracks, and uses student data to drive instruction. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher uses assessment data to determine student skill levels and develop annual student learning goals. 2. Teacher accurately determines student progress toward, and mastery of, unit objectives and annual student learning goals using multiple methods of assessment. 3. Teacher uses a system to track student assessment data, including individual student and class progress toward meeting unit objectives and annual learning goals. 4. Teacher analyzes student progress data on an ongoing basis and modifies lessons and unit plans appropriately. 5. Teacher uses analysis of student progress data to plan differentiated instruction including intervention and enrichment. 6. Students articulate their performance and progress relative to unit objectives and annual goals. Notes: 1--6: These indicators should be assessed through a review of annual, unit, and lesson plans during conferences and during observations. 1. Assessment data could include diagnostic beginning of the year assessments and the previous year's end of year data. Diagnostic data may be obtained from statewide, district, school, or teacher- generated assessments. 5. This indicator is distinguised from the "Instruction - Differentiates Instruction for Student Needs..." criteria because it focuses on using data for planning rather than implementation of differentiated instruction. 6. This indicator would be assessed by the appraiser by asking students directly. Designs lesson plans, units, and assessments. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher plans units, objectives, and lessons that are tightly alinged to state standards and district curriculum requirements for student performance. 2. Teacher plans units and lessons by first selecting or developing assessments that will measure student mastery of unit learning objectives, and then designing lesson activities. 3. Teacher sequences lessons and objectives within a unit based on prerequisite relationships between concepts in order to ensure student mastery of key concepts and objectives. 4. Teacher allocates adequate time within a unit for students to master each objective while maintaining fidelity to state standards and district curriculum requirements. Notes: 1--4: Indicators may be assessed during beginning of the year conference or during review of teacher unit and lesson plans. Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy. The following indicators describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher designs and implements unit and lesson plans that emphasize key concepts or enduring understandings in the content area. 2. Teacher designs and implements unit and lesson plans that demonstrate vertical alignment with prior and future years' state standards and district curriculum requirements. 3. Teacher designs and implements unit and lesson activities that employ developmentally appropriate learning strategies. 4. Teacher articulates a pedagogically relevant rationale for instructional choices made while designing lesson and unit plans. Notes:; 1--2: Indicators may be assessed during beginning of the year conference or during review of teacher unit and lesson plans. 4. For example, how objectives were sequenced, why choice of content or instructional strategies meet student needs. Domain 3: Engagement Students expected to perform at high levels. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Students demonstrate through formal and informal assessment performance and student work that they are on-task to meet unit objectives and annual and individual learning goals. 2. Teacher communicates and reinforces expectation that all students are expected to meet annual learning goals, and connects this achievement to students' long-term or personal goals. Notes: 1--2: These indicators are intended to be distinct from the indicators in "Classroom Environment - Classroom Routines" because this criterion focuses on the degree to which class time is maximized, as opposed to the executio of routines. 1. Students should be engaged in productive learning activities when not receiving direct instruction by the teacher (e.g., during small group work or after finishing assigned work). Students actively participating in lesson activities. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Students are engaged during direct instruction as indicated by completion of instructional activities, responsiveness to questions, accurate following of teacher directions, and asking appropriate questions. 2. Students display active effort and engagement in learning activities during independent and group work. 3. Students connect their own interests, perspectives, experiences or backgrounds to the lesson. Notes: 1--3: These indicators measure the degree of student engagement during an observed lesson. The degree to which students understand instructional content can be measured in "Students expected to perform at high levels" and "Instruction - Facilitates organized, student-centered, objective driven lessons." Domain 4: Classroom Environment Sets and implements classroom routines and procedures The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher effectively designs, teaches, and reinforces consistent classroom routines and procedures. 2. Teacher implements efficient systems for performing non-instructional duties and procedures. 3. Students assume responsibility for routines and procedures, executing them in an orderly and efficient mannger that requires little or no direction from the teacher. Notes: 1--3: In order to minimize overlap with the "maximizes class time" criteria, this set of indicators focuses on the execution of routines, and the other focuses on the use of class time. 2. For example, attendance, distributing or organizing materials, lining students up, and dismissal. Sets and implements discipline management procedures. The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher develops and effectively implements district and campus discipline management procedures. 2. Teacher consistently communicates high behavior expectations with students, addresses non-compliance, and reinforces appropriate behavior as needed. 3. Teacher maintains lesson momentum because there is no inappropriate or off-task behavior, or because the teacher redirects it in a subtle and preventative manner. 4. Teacher consistently follows-through on consequences that are logical and effective at changing student behavior, when necessary. 5. Students demonstrate a clear understanding of behavioral expectations and rules through their actions, and require little or no redirection from the teacher. Notes: 1--3: Indicators should be assessed during classroom observations. 3: Appraisers should use discretion in rating this indicator in extreme situations where the teacher needs to stop lesson momentun in order to safely and appropriately address student behavior. Builds a positive, respectful classroom environment The following indicators best describe a teacher who is "Effective" at this criterion: 1. Teacher demonstrates respect for all students and communicates and models positive expectations for interaction between students. 2. Teacher communicates and models expectations for respect or individual, cultural, and linguistic differences between students. 3. Teacher encourages and reinforces positive student behavior and high-quality academic work. 4. Students actively listen and respond positively to each other and the teachers. Notes: 1--3: Indicators should all be assessed during classroom observation. 4. For example, students demonstrate interest in each other's perspectives and respond respectfully when a peer answers a question incorrectly. Terry Grier's Teacher Assessment Plan: Descent into Madness contd.: Complies with Policies and Procedures at School Level 1 The following indicators best describe a teacher who falls "Far Below Expectations" for this criterion: 1. Teacher doesn't comply with federal and state laws and policies. 2. Teacher consistently does not follow district and local school policies. Level 2 The following indicatotrs best describe a teacher who falls "Slightly Below Expectations" for this criterion: 1. Teacher complies with federal and state laws and policies. 2. Teacher follows district and local school policies with reminders of support. Level 3 The following indicators best describe a teacher who "Meets Expectations" for this criterion: 1. Teacher complies with federal and state laws and policies. 2. Teacher follows district and local school policies with no reminders or support. Level 4 1. Teacher complies with federal and state laws and policies. 2. Teacher follows district and local school policies with no need for reminders or support, and finds innovative ways and/or invests an extraordinarly amount of effort to help policies succeed. Notes: 1. Federal and state laws and policies include, but are not limited to: IDEA, 504, Title III, and Texas Education Code. 2. District and local school policies include policies governing deadlines for lesson plans, progress reports and report cards, maintaining accurate and clear attendance, homework and grade book records on school's student information system, Student Code of Conduct. To review, the "Detailed Student Performance and Measures"includes four Professional Expectations domains. Domain 1: Professionalism Domain 2: Commitment Domain 3: Parent Collaboration Domain 4: Professional Development To claim community input over his highly arbitrary inspired-by-Haberman teacher assessment instrument, Terry Grier has held the SDMs at HISD campuses hostage. In a sweeping stroke of authoritarian control, the HISD superintendent of schools has co-opted SDMs and made them a narrowly directed focus group for his goals. Link to main site: http://www.houstonisdwatch.com HISD Updates  Use comment tag to express your opinion. Posting is anonymous - create your own handle. We need to hear from HISD insiders!! |
|
