New Evalutation Dynamics Get Results: K–8 Early Adopters React

Posted on Oct 16, 2013

New Evalutation Dynamics Get Results: K–8 Early Adopters React

Public debate about how to evaluate teachers still fuels talk shows, opinion blogs and cocktail parties. Perhaps the nationwide discussion is passionate because a teacher’s competence and skill affect student outcomes more powerfully than any other factor. Milton’s Strategic Plan prioritizes student experience, and that leads directly to building a top-notch community of educators. We depend upon teachers who are in touch with each other and the world, their disciplines, and up-to-date, effective practices. The Strategic Plan builds on Milton’s tradition of a strong faculty. Milton is committed to setting and reinforcing the highest standards for the teaching profession and to providing faculty with the support to achieve. Quality professional development is crucial, and a rich, productive evaluation system is at the core. This past year, 10 K–8 faculty members piloted a new evaluation and professional development program. Their reactions outline what was important to them, and set the bar for results.

“The new system seemed intentional, thought-out and holistic,” says Corey Simonson, who teaches sixth-grade science and computer classes. “It wasn’t a top-down process. You felt your peers had a hand in developing the evaluation system’s content. I looked forward to participating, because it was a chance to have comprehensive feedback, something everyone knows is lacking.”

Derek Palmore, who teaches seventh-
grade boys’ English and eighth-grade English, also welcomed the chance. “People should know what I’m doing in my classroom, and I should know what others are doing in theirs. It is necessary to articulate what you do and why you do it, and to outline what you are good at and areas you want to focus on.”

The K–8 evaluation system is not a rubric-style matrix, checking or grading teachers against each criterion. Instead, the three-part process begins with a teacher’s careful reflection about his or her own teaching, and a meeting with the evaluating administrator to articulate the process, goals and timeline.

Fourth-grade teacher Tamara Nikuradse describes herself as a “corporate refugee” accustomed to formal review processes. The Harvard M.B.A. worked as a brand management executive at Fortune 500 companies before taking time to raise her daughters and volunteering in their school. This led her to pursue a master’s in education at Lesley College and a career in teaching. She came to Milton two years ago.

“As a relatively new teacher, I’m excited about this process,” says Tamara. “I bring a lot of different experience but a person can always enhance her craft. Going through this, I’m seeing and learning what I can do to become a better teacher. My goal is to be the best I can be and to improve my skill sets. I like that we have input into this evaluation process, whereas in the corporate world the process is already set.”

When Marshall Carter came to Milton in 2008 as the K–8 principal, developing an effective evaluation process was among his top priorities.

“I wanted to design a constructive and engaging process so teachers would get feedback, talk thoroughly about their teaching, reflect on where they were strong and focus on where they wanted to improve,” says Marshall.

Beginning in fall 2011, Marshall worked with a committee of three faculty—Barbara Kennard, Middle School English; Jerrie Moffett, Grade 1; and Bridget Sitkoff, K–8 technology specialist, to review other schools’ processes and gather from K–8 faculty what they felt was important in their teaching.

The committee wanted to guarantee comprehensive self-reflection, collegial dialogue and formal evaluation.

The following spring, faculty volunteered to pilot the result of their work. The committee “hoped those faculty would model a level of leadership. We didn’t want the faculty to perceive the experience as threatening. Instead, we hoped they’d see it as colleagues’ helpful eyes observing their work, and assistance in learning to reflect on their practice.”

After the pilot, Marshall and the administrative team attended an intensive course, Observing and Analyzing Teaching, offered by Research for Better Teaching, which publishes The Skillful Teacher, a resource for many teachers. The course educates staff about recording observations from the classroom and afterward, giving helpful feedback. Marshall says, “undergoing our own training was important because we wanted to have credibility and greater skill when we sat in someone’s classroom.”

During their initial meeting, the teacher and the evaluator generate two to three questions to explore during the evaluation process. The teacher then nominates two to three peers, and the administrator chooses one to be the observational partner.

Tamara’s main questions were, “How can I incorporate more technology into my teaching, and how can I provide more one-on-one teaching to meet the students where they are?” She chose Liz West, Grades 4–8 learning specialist, as her observation partner because “she brings a whole set of skills as a learning specialist. She brings that experience to observing me, in my classroom.”

Corey, in his eighth year of teaching at Milton, also chose Liz as his observation partner. “I was interested in how my teaching style and my pace affected students of different learning profiles. Was I going too fast or too slow? Did I use too few or too many visuals in my teaching? Liz validated things I knew I was doing well, but also encouraged me to add to my lessons to reach the diversity of learners that are out there.”

Derek’s goal was to work on the more informal, “in-between” conversations with students. He chose Sue Austin, Grade 7 dean and Middle School science teacher, as his peer reviewer because, Derek says, “she is really good at those informal conversations and learning moments with students.”

“Middle schoolers can be tricky,” says Derek. “So much of what they remember doesn’t come from the structured time you spend with them, but rather from a one-on-one that occurs. If they say something brilliant or out of line, how do I respond to that immediately? Students tend to remember those moments the most.”

During the evaluation’s second phase, the teacher assembles a “narrative portfolio” of assignments and student work. The administrator or the observation partner visits the classroom for three to four full lessons. Some of the long observations are scheduled and some are unannounced. Four to six short “pop-in” visits happen at various times. Brief follow-up conversations afterward keep a dialogue going, and a more substantive conversation takes place when all the observations are completed.

“One of the things that struck me was how many times I was observed, which was great actually,” says Corey. “Coming into the classroom once is one thing, but coming in five or six times is effective because you always need to be on your toes. They have a good data set for the 
follow-up, and those conversations are more meaningful.”

During the third and final part of the evaluation, the faculty member receives a written summary that includes insights, commendations, areas for growth and input from the observation partner. The summary names future goals, a professional development pathway and a timeline.

“Faculty shouldn’t find surprises at the end of the process,” says Marshall. “It should lead to a supportive and precise professional development plan.”

Tamara’s growth plan involved attending Summit Core, a program about teaching with technology, and a language arts seminar called “Visualizing and Verbalizing,” over the summer.

Derek says the evaluation process influenced the final spring project he assigned to his seventh graders.

“Students broke into groups and each group chose a book from a list of eight novels I compiled. To encourage student interaction, each student in the group taught his classmates about the book’s themes. The seventh graders had to learn how to make things relevant and engaging, which is tricky. It resulted in some very cool moments, students using online tools and the smart board, and asking thought-provoking, open-ended questions. I don’t think I would have come up with this idea without having participated in this evaluation process. I was reminding myself that what is meaningful to them matters.”

Marshall hopes that the whole K–8 faculty will complete the evaluation process within three years.

“A good evaluation process opens up the doors, allows air in and conversations to take place. It asks faculty to reflect about what they do in the same way that we ask Milton students to reflect about what they do. This introspection and reflection powers us all to become lifelong learners.”

–Liz Matson