New evaluation system for teachers New evaluation system for teachers (September 23, 2005)

Focus is on improvement, not punishment
by Rebecca Guyon

Plans to pilot a new teacher evaluation system that provides low performing teachers with skill development, instead of punishment, were reviewed by the Board of Trustees at its most recent meeting.

"We felt the previous evaluation system was lacking in its ability to guide and direct in improving skills," said Larry Aladeen, a social studies teacher at Foothill High School who is also part of the Association of Pleasanton Teachers' negotiating team. The APT was integral to the development of the new system and worked with the district to create its design.

The new system assesses teachers based on how well they are meeting the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, a document that was created and agreed upon by teachers, administrators and credentialing officials across the state. The standards look at how well a teacher engages students, creates and maintains an effective learning environment, organizes subject matter, plans and designs instruction, assesses student learning and develops as a professional educator. Based on these standards, teachers are ranked on "The Continuum of Teacher Development" which lists five performance levels: beginning, emerging, applying, integrating and innovating. The district decided that teachers are satisfactory if they are performing at the applying level, but aims to have all teachers performing at integrating and innovating, said Assistant Superintendent Clem Donaldson.

Being at the applying level means a teacher, "elicits student participation through a variety of instructional strategies" and "checks for student understanding." The key difference between the applying level and the higher levels is the use of a "diverse repertoire" of teaching strategies.

"This evaluation system encourages people to take risks in the classroom and do what's best for the kids," Donaldson said.

Although this ranking system may be new to teachers who have been in the profession for many years, newer teachers are familiar with it because it is the same system used in current credentialing classes.

Each year, teachers will either be assigned a formal year of assessment or a year of self-assessment and inquiry. When on a formal year, teachers will be evaluated by administrators in the district. By assigning a year of self-assessment as well, the implication is that teachers, regardless if they are being formally evaluated, should constantly be looking to improve upon their skills.

During formal assessment years, if a teacher is not meeting standards they are given "formal assistance." The district provides teachers with four options on how to go about improving their skills: partner, portfolio, administrative and administrative-mandated. In the partner option, teachers pair up and work with each other to bounce off ideas and find solutions. The administrative option is similar to the partner option, except a teacher pairs up with an administrator. The portfolio option gives teachers the choice to work solo, asking them to record their classroom interactions and go through self-reflection, which is presented to a district administrator. Those three options are only available to permanent teachers, while the fourth, administrative-mandated, is for temporary or probationary teachers and asks them to report to district administrators.

"Everything we do should be about improving instruction and you do that by approaching people as professionals," Donaldson said. "This provides opportunities for teachers to have informative dialogues with administrators and other teachers, and then do something about it."

Teachers can also choose to sign up for "pre-assistance" when they feel they are slipping in a certain area. This is an informal process that lasts for 10 weeks and, if the teacher shows marked improvement in that time, it will not be documented. The year of formal assistance is documented.

Donaldson reiterated during the meeting that this is the pilot year for the evaluation system and there is still room for "tweaking" if there are flaws. The system may, however, be affected by decisions outside of the district's control as voters will decide in November whether to increase the time it takes for teachers to earn tenure from two years to five. With the initiative still pending on the voters' decision, the district does not know yet if its new evaluation system will be affected.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.