Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 1

Analysis of Evaluation

Shannon Calice

ED7541

Teacher Supervision and Evaluation

Shannon Calice

11825 Germaine Terrace

Eden Prairie, MN 55347

Phone: 952-947-9142

Email: [email protected]

Instructor: Pat Guillory

Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 2

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Evaluation’s Designers and the Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Assumptions and Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Formative and Summative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Effective Instruction Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Resources for Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Assessment of Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Appendix A: Performance Standards Booklet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Appendix B: Performance Evaluation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendix C: Informal Observation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 3

Analysis of Evaluation

Introduction

The teacher appraisal policy for St. John the Baptist School is based on an eleven

page booklet with two pages of instructions, one with the general definitions for each

performance level, and eight pages of performance standards categories. This teacher

evaluation form was used as a self-evaluation tool last year. This year, the Performance

Standards for Catholic School Teachers will be used as a summative evaluation.

Evaluation’s Designers and the Creation

The Performance Standards, Appendix A was created by a group of Catholic School

Administrators who work within the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota.

After the administrators had met several times to clarify their performance expectations,

“descriptions of behavior were collected and slotted according to their desirability” (p. 2).

The group of administrator used four references to create this evaluation tool. The

references were: Charlotte Danielson’s Enhancing Professional Practices: A Framework for

Teachers; Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde’s Best Practices; Robert J.

Marzonay, Debra Pickering, and Jane E. Palloch’s Classroom Instruction that Works; and the

Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis’ Teacher Competencies. The initial Performance

Standards were review by local university professors involved in teacher development and

the Archdiocese’s School team, and another group of administrators not involved in the

creation of the evaluation tool.

Assumptions and Framework

The Performance Standards assumes all teachers start off at the minimally qualified

level and with work move up to the outstanding level. The not acceptable level is meant to
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 4

be a list of unacceptable behaviors. The assessment begins as a self-evaluation instrument,

which assumes that teachers will be reflective and honest in their evaluations of

themselves. The framework is based around seven performance categories that are listed

in order of importance: development of students (25%); instructional practices (20%);

dedication and commitment (15%); learning environment (10%); planning and

preparation (10%); maturity and cooperative teamwork (10%); and parental and

community relationships (10%). Each category is broken down in to performance levels

and for each performance level there are statements to describe performance. An example

is: under the development of students category a descriptor for a fully qualified teacher is

“Develops and implements strategies that focus on students’ strengths and enhances them”

(p. 4).

Formative or Summative

The Performance Standards is meant to be a summative evaluation. On the second

page of the Performance Standards booklet it states that this evaluation will “help explain

what is expected of you in striving to be a master teacher. When your administrator and

you do a formal scheduled performance evaluation, it will be based on the Standards and

other criteria.” The other criteria mentioned were the performance evaluation form,

Appendix B, which includes goal setting, informal observations, testing data, self

evaluation, surveys. There is also a section for other feedback and teacher comments.

The process of performance standards requires teachers to show evidence of their

self-rating. The collection of data for every category can be somewhat of a challenge in a

single year. The process is similar to the creation of a portfolio to demonstrate the level of
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 5

competency. However, not every category is required each year, a completed portfolio is

required every three years.

Alternatives

St. John the Baptist School also has an informal observation form that is used as a

formative assessment tool, Appendix C. The administrator stops in for ten to twenty

minutes to observe the teachers class and completes the form. A follow up conference was

to follow the observation, but the completed form and the conference never occurred in the

eleven years of working at St. John’s.

The Informal Observation form consists of four sections: Objective and learning

environment; number of students oriented; observed instructional strategies of the

students; and observed instructional strategies of the teachers. The lesson plans-objective

needs to be visually displayed for the administrator to see and the plan needs to include

standards. The checklist gives a snapshot of what was occurring during the drop-in

observation.

Effective Instruction

The administration has been stuck for the last six years on bringing in a character

development program for the students. Three different programs have been introduced

and have failed to come part of the school’s curriculum because of lack of training and on-

going support for the program. This year the focus again is on another new character

development program. The frustration of the teachers is obvious and the school truly needs

to focus on other areas of improvement.

St. John’s will start the Fall with a new reading textbook and language arts program.

The teachers had a clear voice in the selection of the textbook, but if the past is any
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 6

indicator, only one training section will be given for an hour before school starts. This lack

of training on how best to use the textbook and the accompanying technology is a recurring

theme. The administrator has requested that every teacher use differentiated instruction in

their classroom but no professional development has ever been presented.

Resources for Programs

The funds for programs come from tuition and school of choice state funds.

Programs at Catholic schools are limited and the administration focuses on fund raising

through the coordination of special events and reaching out to the community. Two years

ago the principal was excited about bringing Smartboards to St. Johns. She reached out to a

community member who donated 10 Smartboards and a set of Smart Responses. Training

was provided by the distributor of the Smartboards to the teachers that were selected to

have them installed in their classrooms.

Best Practices

St. Johns’ administrator has many opportunities to bring best practices to student

learning. The school used a curriculum map program to demonstrate the learning

occurring in each teacher’s classroom. The curriculum maps are to have standards attached

to each lesson. The potential use for the maps could be to educate the veteran teacher how

objectives and standards work together. The maps could also help teachers create essential

questions for their lessons to help the students use higher-level thinking.

Assessment of Evaluation Process

Clinical supervision is a must in order to improve the school using best practices.

The observations need to focus on instructional improvement. In Eisner’s (2002) article he

stated that “The kind of schools we need would have principals who spend about a third of
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 7

their time in classrooms, so they know firsthand what is going on” (p. 580). Without the

knowledge of what is happening in the school a principal will not know the areas that need

improvement. The “use of action research teams or study groups in a school can be tailored

more specifically to the needs and issues of that school” (Glickman, 2002, p. 20). Once the

research group has established a plan of classroom actions, then student data can be

collected and evaluation of the data to determine the progress or lack thereof. Without

research and focus on data, school improvement lacks focus.

Focusing on teacher instruction that leads to student learning is an important part

of school and teacher evaluations. Glickman’s chart on the Elements that Influence Student

Learning in Renewing Schools and Classrooms (p. 7), he stated there were three elements

that organize instructional leader’s work with teachers. The first element was

“focus on what to attend to in improving teaching, observing classrooms, using

achievement data, and considering samples of student work; the human relation

approaches to use to increase reflection, problem solving and improved practice on

the part of teachers; and the structures and formats of various way to work

individually or in groups with teachers.” (p. 8)

A principal must be aware of their leadership role in improving student learning. DeFour’s

(2002) stated “A focus on learning affect not only the way that teachers work together but

also they way that they relate to and work with each student” (p. 15). Principals need to

know when to work individually with a teacher and when to arrange professional

development for the whole staff to improve student learning.

The school’s mission and goals need to always focus on improving student learning.

The whole staff needs to be part of the discussion on the school-wide goals for the year. A
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 8

structure needs to be developed to make sure progress is being made toward the goals.

Individual teachers, also, need to create personal goal in order to improve their instruction

and community relationships.

Conclusion

Teacher evaluations are important to the growth of the school, the teachers, and the

students. Whether the observation is formative or summative, it needs to focus on

improving student learning. Clinical supervision with pre-conferences, observations, and

post-conferences is still the most widely used format for evaluation. An important part of

the observation is to collect data in order to keep the observation from becoming a

judgment call. There are many different methods of supervision of teachers. “The Teacher

Advancement Program (TAP) is a good example of a model with explicit standards” (Toch,

2008, p. 32). The explicit standards are based on Charlotte Danielson’s framework. The cost

of using TAP is high and

“a new study from National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt

University-although not studying the important question of whether teacher who

received high scores on TAP evaluations tend to produce greater gains in the

students’ test scores-found that a small sample of secondary school using TAP

produced no higher levels of student achievement than schools that hadn’t

implemented the TAP program” (p. 36).

This information is disheartening, but the focus on improving student learning through

professional development and honest classroom evaluation must remain the goal of all

schools.
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 9

References

DeFour, R. (2002). The Learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership. 59(8). 12-15.

Eisner, E. (2002). The Kind of schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan. 83(8). 576-583.

Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Toch, T. (2008). Fixing teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership. 66(2). 32-37

Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 10

Appendix A
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 11

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 12

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 13

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 14

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 15

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 16

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 17

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 18

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 19

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 20

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 21

Appendix A (continued)
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 22

Appendix B
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 23

Appendix B (continued)

Additional Criteria for Evaluation

Goal Setting:__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Informal Observations: _________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Testing Data:_________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Self Evaluation: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Surveys: _____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Other feedback: _______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Teacher comments:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

Administrator: _____________________________________________ Date:_______________

Teacher: _________________________________________________ Date: ______________
Running Header: ANALYSIS OF EVALUATION 24

Copyright 2009, L.G. Vanden Plas, Human Resource Technologies, Inc.

Reproduction of this form authorized only form registered users for internal use.
Appendix C