exploring the evaluation cyndi patterson, glenda ross ... · like columbus’s exploration for new...

Running head: EXPLORING THE EVALUATION

Exploring the Evaluation

Cyndi Patterson, Glenda Ross, Kevin Thomas, Sabra Tucker, Tim Pelletier

Oklahoma State University

Fall 2012

EXPLORING THE EVALUATION 2

Abstract

Like Columbus’s exploration for new lands in 1492, the new Teacher Leader

Effectiveness (TLE) presents school administrators and teachers with new adventures into

teacher evaluations. This study analyzes administrator and teacher beliefs and behaviors within

the initial stages of implementing the Tulsa Model Teacher Evaluation Tool. Through the

exploration of data collected from an Oklahoma high school, this study presents variables that

influence the teacher evaluation system. With little research available in understanding how the

change in educators’ performance evaluations will impact Oklahoma schools, this study provides

education leaders insights to the TLE model as Oklahoma sails toward new horizons in

improving teacher quality.


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction and Background

Besides believing that the world was round, Christopher Columbus must have believed

that the there was a better way to travel. Since most people believed the world was flat,

convincing them otherwise had to be an unprecedented achievement. History reveals that many

a naysayer surrounded Columbus’ decision to set voyage. However, Columbus had researched

evidence that enabled him to believe that the world was, indeed, round. With this belief, he set

sail. His faith gave him the ability to break down societal barriers. These barriers had kept

people enslaved to ignorant ways of thinking. Their ignorance would not let them embrace all of

the different possibilities associated with new ideas of scientific exploration. When Columbus

revealed his findings, people saw firsthand the outcomes of his labor. His findings opened the

door of possibilities for future research. These outcomes motivated people to explore other

possibilities associated with different pathways. These pathways later led to the discovery of the

new world.

Like Columbus’ discovery, the new evaluation system, Teacher Leader Effectiveness

(TLE), presents an evidence based belief system that links student academic achievement

directly to teacher quality. In 2012, the TLE ship set sail across parts of Oklahoma. The ship

was designed to remove barriers in improving student academic success through quality teaching.

This legislative voyage was intended to position the state of Oklahoma to compete for the first

round of Race to the Top funding. The Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 2033 (2010)

that created the Teacher Leader Effectiveness (TLE) system. This legislation in effect created a

new system of performance evaluation for Oklahoma educators, including both teachers and


administrators. This new system requires that 50 percent of the measure be qualitative in scope,

while the other 50 percent considers quantitative measures.

In 2009, Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) had already begun developing a new performance

based evaluation through the collaborative efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

(Tulsa Public Schools, 2012). The prompting of the new evaluation system came, in part, from

40 years of research that evaluated the effectiveness of schools. This research indicates that

there exists, “Significant, definitive correlations between high performing, effective teachers and

increases in student performance. The converse is also true. Low performing teachers have had

an adverse affect on the performance level of students” (TPS, 2012, p. 9). Additionally, research

indicates that leadership from both the building and district levels must support student academic

achievement within schools. However, “the genesis for change occurs in the classroom” (TPS,

2012, p. 8). Upholding the need for change, Tulsa Public Schools developed a teacher and leader

evaluation system that clearly and specifically defines effective and ineffective personnel. Over

a three year period, high-performance teachers impacted student achievement as much as 53

percentage points over a low-performing teacher (Sanders and Rivers, 1996).

The new evaluation system was legislated for full implementation during the 2012-2013

school year. Districts across the state could choose one of three different models--the Charlotte

Danielson Model, the Marzano Model, or the Tulsa Model. Over 500 districts out of 527 in

Oklahoma chose the Tulsa model (Eger, 2012). Districts had to choose a model by April 2012

and training occurred during the summer of 2012. The initial training required three consecutive

days and two subsequent days of training during the fall of 2012 and spring 2013.

Improving teaching practices is a major issue in national school reform as emphasized in

the Race to the Top competition (USDE, 2011). Recently, Oklahoma adopted the Teacher


Leader Effectiveness system, which is an evaluation instrument used to improve teaching

practices. Since the system is in its implementation period, information regarding the outcomes

for the new evaluation instrument has yet to be determined. Through the exploration of data, this

study will present different variables that may or may not affect the new success of the system.

The limited information regarding the system’s outcomes has caused great concern for both

administrators and teachers alike. This study is an unbiased exploratory look regarding these

concerns. The exploration of data will provide dialogue that will foster improved

communication between administrators and teaching faculty. The information gained through

the study will push the development of improving teacher quality in the right direction. In

addition, the findings in the study will serve as a basis for further research regarding the

effectiveness of the new evaluation system for improving teacher quality.

Problem Statement/Rationale for Study

Very little research is available to understand how the change in educators’ performance

evaluations will impact Oklahoma schools, educators, and ultimately, student achievement.

Principle Proposition: The ultimate goal of “Race to the Top” and the Oklahoma TLE is to

improve student achievement. In order to improve achievement, schools must improve teacher

performance (USDE, 2011; Looney, 2011).

Interacting Proposition: Evidence implies that Oklahoma’s Teacher Leader Effectiveness

System models will improve teachers’ classroom practice in some cases; however, it may not

improve practice in others (Vroom, 1964; Looney, 2011).

Speculating Proposition: Research indicates there are multiple speculations on why this occurs,

but research does not exist on implementation of the Tulsa Model (Wilson, 2011; OSDE, 2011).


Purpose of the Study

Tulsa Public Schools have been developing the Tulsa Model over the last three years, and

have made adjustments based on feedback and research during that time. Moving from usage by

one district to over 500 districts should lead to significant feedback about the model in the

coming years. However, substantial research about the model and its impact on student

achievement has yet to be analyzed. This study seeks to explore the initial reactions of

implementing the Tulsa Model in a single school setting. The effects of the Tulsa Model upon

the teachers, administrators, and school culture at one school site will contribute to the budding

body of research on the Tulsa Model and the new Oklahoma Teacher Leader Effectiveness

System. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore teachers and administrators’ thoughts,

perceptions, and actions during the implementation period of the Oklahoma TLE System,

specifically the Tulsa Model in a selected school.

Research Question

What influences teacher evaluations at an Oklahoma large suburban high school?

Theoretical Orientation

Victor Vroom, Expectancy Theory of Motivation, (1964) states that employees are

motivated by the degree to which a person desires a reward or outcome. An individual is

motivated by the perceived effort needed to reach result the desired outcome. If employees are

motivated to improve performance, then the desired outcome is accomplished. Other possible

outcomes includes greater employee job satisfaction and other intangible rewards. Merit pay is a

possible tangible award for teachers dependent on student achievement outcomes in the future as

outlined in Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 2033 (2010).


Procedures

Upon receiving permission from administration and staff from the sample school, the

research team interviewed a sample of both administrators and teachers during a three-week

timeframe. Observations were conducted to assess the culture of the school. In addition,

artifacts were collected producing a variety of information to analyze. The research team

collected and analyzed the data to form conclusions regarding outcomes. This study will report

findings that are significant to the purpose of the study.

Significance of the Study

The Teacher Leader Effectiveness System is in its first year of implementation in

Oklahoma. The Tulsa Model of Observation and Evaluation is in its infancy and although the

Model was developed based on teacher quality research, the body of research documenting the

efficacy of the model is limited to a study conducted by two independent bodies. According to

Tulsa’s own research brief:

Tulsa has subjected its evaluation system to two types of validation studies—a rigorous study conducted through the Bill and Melinda Gates’ MET Validation Engine project as well as a correlational analysis of Tulsa’s own, “real-world” evaluation and value-added data by the University of Wisconsin’s Value-Added Research Center. Both independent studies validated the Tulsa model (n.d.).

Additional studies related to the Tulsa Model would add to the data available to provide

information about the model. This study was conducted as an exploration into nuances of the

implementation of the model and perceptions of teachers and administrators.

Definition of Terms

PDP--Personal development plan. A specific plan of action for teachers who have been

identified as ineffective or in need of improvement based upon observations and evaluation by


their supervising administrator. It can also be developed based on a specific incident that requires

a teacher to immediately change a behavior (Tulsa Model Training Manual, 2012). Formerly

referred to a plan of improvement. The PDP represents one of the levels of feedback and support

required in Oklahoma Senate Bill 2033.

“Push-pin”—a less formal, yet documented approach to remedy an area or areas of

ineffectiveness or areas needing improvement (Tulsa Model Training Manual, 2012).

Approaches might include a brief conversation, in passing or in a private office, a written note in

teacher’s mailbox, or an email to teacher. These methods of feedback ensure compliance with

Senate Bill 2033.

Summary

This study examines the perceptions of teachers and administrators at a large Oklahoma

suburban high school. Limited research exists to provide knowledge about the Oklahoma

Teacher Leader Effectiveness System and specifically, the Tulsa Model. Although the initial

impetus for a new system in Oklahoma was perpetuated by the Race to the Top competition

under the Obama Administration and the United States Department of Education, the TLE

System is now a part of Oklahoma Statute. This represents a new reality in the operations of

Oklahoma schools.


CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of the review is to examine existing literature that outlines standards for

conducting quality teacher evaluations. The teacher evaluation system was put in place as means

to improve teaching standards in compliance with Oklahoma SB 2033. Since TLE is new to

Oklahoma, data is currently being recorded regarding the implementation of the new systematic

approach. The information gained from the literature targets the outcomes associated with the

new evaluation system. The TLE target is to improve student academic achievement through the

development of teacher quality (Marzano, 2011). This literature review notes the behaviors and

standards associated with highly effective teaching (Wilson, 2011). The literature review also

recognizes the challenges associated with the recruitment of qualified teachers who can be

further developed.

Highly effective teachers are life-long learners, who are both intrinsically and

extrinsically motivated. These motivators provide assistance for the implementation associated

with TLE. Administrative leaders motivate teachers to increase performance by addressing a

teacher’s strengths and weaknesses through TLE’s systematic approach (TPS, 2012). In turn,

teachers will intrinsically choose to improve teaching practices once they review the results of

their own current teaching. (Vroom, 1964). The systematic approach to teacher evaluations

allows for reflection (Wilson, 2011). By reflecting on current teaching standards, teachers can

assess current strengths and weakness. At the same time, the systematic approach provides

teachers insight into the qualities associated with great teaching (Wilson, 2011).

According to researched data, the focus on supervising teachers has shifted to evaluating

them (Marzano, 2011). With this in mind, student achievement is now at the forefront of an

EXPLORING THE EVALUATION

10

evaluation system (Marzano, 2011). In the past, the focus of supervision determined a teacher’s

academic credentials, rather than emphasizing a teacher’s instructional effectiveness (Marzano,

2011). In addition, these methods did not measure student achievement (Marzano, 2011).

Another study regarding past practices associated with evaluation practices in the United

States is the “Widget Effect.” This effect “describes the tendency of school districts to assume

classroom effectiveness is the same from teacher to teacher”. (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern,

Keeling, 2001, p. 4) When districts take this stance to evaluating teachers, they miss the mark in

developing teachers. Teachers are individuals and are not interchangeable. What works for one

teacher may not work for another. The research denotes that this practice is quite disrespectful to

teachers because teachers do not work on an assembly line. At the same time, this stance

regarding teacher supervision “gambles with lives of students”. (Weisberg, et al., 2001, p. 4)

The literary review underscores that student achievement directly links itself to quality

teaching (Wilson, 2011). Research shows that all students regardless of area, become

“academically endangered” if they experience a poor teacher for three years in a row (Wilson,

2011; Sanders and Rivers, 1996). Research also indicates that elementary students who come

from a lowered economic status achieve test scores that are comparable to those students who

come from middle-class peers (Wilson, 2011). In order to ensure an increase in academic

standards among all students, school districts should adopt a systematic approach to improving

teacher quality. An effective system reveals that school leaders must recruit the right candidates

for the profession, while working to retain teachers who do well (Wilson, 2011). These

systematic approaches work to improve standards among low performing teachers because

systems provide guidance that motivate and assist teachers. Research states that the effective

systems for retaining highly qualified teachers “offer strong initial preparation, and provide good


11

working conditions and quality professional development.” (Wilson, 2011, p. 1) Research also

indicates that quality teaching depends on the schools where teachers work, the types of

materials used, and the professional learning communities in which they choose to belong

(Wilson, 2011).

Researchers have found that teacher credentials serve as a poor indicator of teacher

quality (Looney, 2011). The Teach For America program supports this research because these

teachers have managed to be successful without obtaining a specialized teaching degree (Wilson,

2011). In other words, whether or not a person has quality credentials does not determine a

person’s ability to effectively teach. Research indicates that another component associated with

quality teaching is a life-long learning (Looney, 2011). Teachers “must continuously update

knowledge and skills over the course of their careers to reflect changes in curricula and new

knowledge on effective teaching (Looney, 2011).

In order to assist teachers in becoming life-long learners, a well-designed teacher

evaluation system that is “aligned with professional learning and professional development” is

necessary (Looney, 2011, p. 440). Teachers from other countries find that their evaluations are

ineffective because evaluators often lack training. These teachers claim that evaluators use tools

that do not measure quality teaching or that professional development does not align with their

needs (Looney, 2011). If an evaluation system is going to serve as an effective means to shape

teaching quality, administrators must provide detailed descriptions of classroom practices to

teachers in a timely fashion (Looney, 2011).

A significant body of research reveals that teacher quality and student achievement are

“at the core of educational practice” (Looney, 2011, p. 440). In order to assist with defining

quality teachers, a system must be in place that is tied to a clear set of standards and


12

competencies”. (Looney, 2011, p. 440) Since there are many different variables associated in

education, there is no single indicator for defining teacher quality. In order to determine

effective teaching, educational leaders must reflect on summative teaching performance and

observable affect on student achievement. Educational leaders have determined that quality

teachers develop relationships with students. When the teacher student relationship is

established, communication takes place (Looney, 2011). In these relationships, teachers are able

to motivate students to achieve high academic standards. Educational leaders have also

determined that effective teachers are intellectuals that possess significant knowledge of subject

matter (Looney, 2011). Another quality of successful teachers is their ability to exercise orderly

classroom management, while presenting lessons in a well-organized fashion (Looney, 2011).

Quality educators monitor student growth and modify lessons to meet the learning needs of

students (Looney, 2011).

Peer collaboration among teachers is essential for the development of a positive and

unified school climate (Looney, 2011). Quality educators provide peers with mutual support as

they share in the responsibilities associated with meeting student needs. When teachers work

together, there is overall improved school performance.

There are many different forms of teacher evaluation systems. However, all of them

focus on individualized teaching performance. Meaningful teacher evaluation systems must all

contain basic core components. These include: elements of peer reviews, student ratings, student

academic achievement, as well as internal and external inspections (Looney, 2011).

In order to focus on teaching performance, evaluations must examine student

achievement. An effective teacher evaluation systems, provides for means to compare local

student achievement with the regional and national standards over time (Looney, 2011).


13

Effective evaluation systems also examine peer reviews and student ratings regarding the quality

of instruction received. An evaluation system must also contain an appraisal component that

provides for a formalized evaluation conducted by a school supervisor (Looney, 2011). Teacher

evaluations should also reflect value added assessments, which are academic student gains over a

given period. A school’s value added assessments are partially, attributed to teacher

performance. Value added assessments reflect how teachers “promote student progress beyond

the level predicted by a student’s socio-economic status” (Looney, 2011, p. 445).

The National Council on Teacher Quality reported that many states are reluctant to deal

with the content component of an evaluation system (Keller, 2004). Many teachers do not have

adequate knowledge to teach subject matter. The article places blame on No Child Left Behind

because the politically charged endeavor holds highly experienced teachers to the same

knowledge base, as the new ones (Keller, 2004). Quality teachers, however, do not stop learning

about their subject’s content after their formalized education. They continue to educate

themselves regarding subject matter and are life-long learners.

Summary

A quality teacher in a classroom clearly impacts student performance (Wilson, 2011;

Sanders & Rivers, 1996). The goal of an effective evaluation system is to improve teacher

performance (Marzano, 2011). For an evaluation system to impact a teacher’s performance, the

evaluator must have the knowledge and skills to identify effective teaching practices (Looney,

2011). The synergy between the above factors is necessary to implement an evaluation system

with fidelity, which in turn, should lead to increased student achievement (Marzano, 2011).

Teachers are motivated to improve performance by the expectation of an extrinsic or intrinsic


14

reward (Vroom, 1964). By examining the variables involved in teacher evaluations, the system

can be improved to ultimately lead to increases in student achievement.


15

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The methodologies used were through several means that were relevant to the problem

statement. A small sample of chosen participants for the study was selected from the

administration staff and teaching faculty of a large Oklahoma suburban 6A high school. The

study explores their thoughts and actions regarding the implementation of Teacher Leader

Effectiveness, which is the new teacher evaluation system for Oklahoma schools. The sample

results will inform educational leaders of the thoughts and actions to the over 500 school districts

that chose the Tulsa Model (Appendix A) as their preferred instrument for teacher evaluation

(Eger, 2012).

The Tulsa Model examines a teacher’s effectiveness through twenty indicators. In order

to conduct the qualitative study, researchers collected and analyzed different artifacts. Among

these artifacts was the TLE Observation & Evaluation Handbook for Evaluators using the Tulsa

Model 2012-2013 (Tulsa Public Schools, 2012). The handbook serves as a reference and process

guide for the TLE evaluation, support system, and process for teachers. The book was developed

through the collaborative efforts of teachers and administrators within Tulsa Public Schools.

Another notable collected piece of data was the Tulsa Model Teacher Rubric document

(Appendix A), as well as an additional document designed specifically to support teachers who

are members of the local association and the Oklahoma Education Association. These

mentioned documents alongside observations of the administration and teacher relationships, and

personal interviews concluded the data collection.


16

According to the Tulsa Model document, teachers are now evaluated in twenty areas.

These twenty can be further divided into sections. The first six indicators concentrate on the

effectiveness of a teacher’s classroom management (Appendix A). Seven through sixteen focus

on an instructor’s effectiveness. Seventeen and eighteen determine if there is “professional

growth and continuous improvement” among teachers. Nineteen solely looks at a teacher’s

“interpersonal skills.” Twenty examines a teacher’s ability to provide effective “leadership.”

In alignment with the requirements of Oklahoma Senate Bill 2033 (2010) and built into

the rubric (TPS, 2012) is a rating scale equated to the five levels of performance from lowest to

highest, ranked one to five—ineffective, needs improvement, effective, highly effective, and

superior. Each of the 20 areas of evaluation receives a rating (or ranking). Any rating of two or

below on any one indicator at the teacher’s evaluation requires the evaluator to document reasons

“why” and to create an individualized Personal Development Plan, known as the PDP.

Most of the findings showing deeper meaning in this study came from the personal

interviews. The interviewees were presented with open-ended questions. Interviews were

recorded and transcribed. All documents including transcriptions pertinent to the problem

statement provided data that were analyzed. Researchers used triangulation as a method to

define richer common themes found relevant to the problem statement. Technology sources

were utilized to divide and group these themes. These themes were analyzed in examining

teacher and administrative opinions and concerns regarding the implementation of the new

evaluation instrument, TLE and specifically, the Tulsa Model.


17

Trustworthiness Table

Technique Examples of Activities Results

Referential adequacy

Interviews, observations, documents, writing assignments,

Methodology: data collection

Peer Debriefing

Engaged in informal and formal discussions with peers regarding research design, problem statement, interview process, and data analysis. Received feedback on writing and found direction in considering various explanations.

Methodology: descriptive data collection and analysis, conclusions, and implications

Member Checking

Participants received transcripts and coded data in order to check information accuracy and to provide any additional information that is relevant to the study.

Methodology: data collection and analysis

Thick Description

The profile of a large suburban 6A public high school; participants; education experience

Organized data for presentation

Purposive sampling The program consists of administrative staff and teaching faculty

Methodology: participants

Triangulation

Data was recorded, grouped, and analyzed

Verify data

Audit Trail Documents including transcripts from interviews, color coded information themes, TLE document, observation, and union rubric

Methodology


18

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ and administrators’ thoughts,

perceptions, and actions during the implementation period of an Oklahoma TLE model,

specifically the Tulsa Model within a selected school. Findings in the study present different

variables that implicate the underlying issues associated with implementing the model. The

information provides both administrators and teachers insight regarding the TLE’s

implementation. This insight will assist them as they implement the plan.

Most of the findings showing deeper meanings in this study came from the personal

interviews. The data implies inconsistencies between the administrators’ and teachers’ behaviors

and the behaviors and expectations as stated by TLE. Further research is needed regarding the

relationships among administrators and teachers within the evaluation phenomenon studied.

Analysis of the data suggests that an individual’s motivation to change results from a

collaborative effort and an established trust in the system. This system is believed to result in a

level of performance that leads to a desired outcome. Within the findings of the research, four

general beliefs and behavior patterns surfaced:

1. Decision-Making Processes

2. Administrator and Teacher Capacity

3. Social Processes

4. Federal and State Control


19

Presentation of Data

Decision-Making Processes

The behavior pattern most consistent in the data implies that the supervisor’s perspective

influences how teachers are evaluated. However, administrator and teacher attitudes are

inconsistent with the purpose of the Tulsa Model evaluation instrument. If administrators lack

knowledge about conducting evaluations, or if they misinterpret the instrument, they can

potentially have negative effects on teacher motivation. Some teachers believe that

administrators have prematurely decided their outcomes before the evaluations have begun.

Other teachers believe that administrators are merely going through the motions of the evaluation

system, rather than working to improve teaching practices.

One teacher stated in an interview, “I had an administrator tell me straight up who the

good teachers are and who aren’t. We see what we expect.” (TI-M, 13) Another teacher, (TI-H,

33) expressed similar administrator decision-making converse to what the Tulsa Model was

designed to do. She claimed that four months into the school year, she had yet to be observed or

supported by her overseeing administrator. The teacher indicated that she believed the

administrator assumed she was hitting all the indicators (TI-H, 35). The Tulsa Model tool

emphasizes the importance of “…an organization that values performance feedback, analysis and

refinement,” and further claims “an intensive focus of training is to support and ensure

evaluators’ inter-rater reliability and accuracy” (Tulsa Model Handbook, 2012, p. 4). All teachers

interviewed felt the decisions made by some administrators lacked good judgment or were

careless. Administrators act unsurely in their interpretations of the evaluation standards, rubric

levels, and teacher’s methodology (TI-M, 80).


20

In addition to not showing teacher support, some teachers believe administrators

misinterpret the defining evidence of teacher quality. Therefore, teacher scores are subjective.

One administrator shows concern for adjusting to the rubric’s descriptors that determine

proficiency levels. She stated, “It’s still in our brains that a 3 might be a ‘C’, which it’s really not.

A 3 really is an ‘A’ teacher, who is really effective with students and has success” (TI-K, 31).

She admits relating the tool’s standard of effective teaching tests her ability to maintain positive

communication with teachers (TI-K, 86). In addition, she fears that teachers might become

discouraged because of their misinterpretations of the rubric. The administrator constitutes a 3

rating as an “effective” teacher and a 4 rating as “highly effective”. Section 6.2 of the Tulsa

Model Handbook (2012) informs how administrators are to determine an indicator score:

“Though a 3 might not be a “perfect fit” for the teacher, the evaluator should still award a 3 for the indicator if a 3 is the “best fit”. To address the fact that the teacher is not regularly using technology as an instructional tool, the evaluator would begin the “push-pin” process developing the expectation level for technology use within the classroom. (If that approach does not work, then there is no reason that a PDP could not be written on that targeted area even if the indicator resides at a level 3).” (p. 16) Teacher M and teacher H recognize administrators’ limitations in implementing the TLE

system. They believe, “ [Administrators] want teachers to get 3’s because then the

administrators do not have to write professional development plans” (TI-M, 10). Administrators

feel that the expectations are unrealistic because there are not enough hours available to them to

complete the observations while remaining vigilant to [other] needs” (TI-H, 33).

In order to support teachers, the head principal provided a means for teachers to improve

scores. He requested through an email that teachers spend time in other classrooms observing

teachers. The principal indicated that these observations could improve scoring associated with

the professional development portion of the rubric. The request provides teachers with an


21

artifact specifically for the professional development indicator. He motivates teachers by

encouraging them to strive for a 4 or 5 assessment and further interprets “…a 3 as an A, a 4 as an

A+, and a 5 as an A++”(A-3). His memo supports what teachers recognize and administrators

decide to do under pressure, “…learning how to work around it [observed indicators]” (TI-M,

12). His statements, suggest that the tool has a subjective nature in evaluating teachers and

decides to implement a “push-pin” approach through a school-wide memo in order to work

around personal observations and PDP actions.

Administrator and Teacher Capacity

Closely resembling decision-making processes is one’s ability to act with confidence and

integrity. Notably, the process does not imply cruel intent nor does it benefit self-interests. All

the data implies a common underpinning theme regarding the administrators and teachers

inability to perform proficiently during uncontrollable circumstances. The data from interviews

indicate that administrators lack knowledge of subject matter in some areas. Other data indicates

that career teachers lack patience and faith in the evaluation process. Most of the data indicated

that everyone lacks the training and time to effectively implement the program.

In an email, the head principal requested that teachers complete observations of each

other. In doing so the principal supported teachers by giving them an opportunity to gain

artifacts that align with the evaluation rubric. He states, “To provide all of our teachers,

especially our 25 new teachers, with access to effective instructional strategies” (A-3). Teacher

M underscored the administrators’ motives as, “…they’re [principals] having troubles dealing

with a first year teacher hitting all 20 of these indicators as opposed to a veteran teacher” (TI-M,

11). This analysis of data suggests administrators do not have the knowledge, capacity, or time

to observe quality teaching. As a result, they prompt teachers to self-regulate their improvement


22

with documentation to satisfy meeting high standards. “I attended a session at the

“EncycloMedia” conference on the indicators for librarians because our administrators were not

even aware that we had different indicators than the regular teachers” (TI-H, 34).

The data suggests the school climate can negatively impact the teacher evaluation

implementation. All faculty and staff feel that everyone is drowning in paperwork. They are

learning new skills, while maintaining the timeframe required to implement the evaluation tool.

One interviewee feels that the TLE requires a greater workload and higher expectations with

minimal training (TI-M, 17). Another interviewee expresses stress about the unpredictable

nature of the whole process and fears how it will influence employment and salary (TI-R, 51).

Since the administrators and teachers can create a false perception of quality teaching, some

believe that the evaluation tool will not impact teacher quality or student achievement.

Administrators and teachers can create a false perception of quality teaching using pre-scheduled

visits and unobserved artifact documentation. Some perceive this behavior as implementing the

“dog and pony shows” due to the inability to fully address every standard effectively during the

allotted timeframe (TI-R, 60).

Social Processes

The findings note the use of social processes as a means to improve teaching and student

achievement beyond scoring indicators. The implementation of the evaluation tool motivates

teachers and administrators to engage in the collaboration process. The social processes attained

through collaborative efforts enhance the school climate by providing positive ideas regarding

teaching and learning effectiveness. Administrators believe that the collaborative process invites

more transparency to areas needing improvement (TI-K, 30; TI-R, 76). One teacher stated, “I’ve

had a couple of administrators come in and sit down in my class and happy to have them.” (TI-R,


23

78) An administrator expressed her relief that she is able to share her workload associated with

evaluations with the other administrators (TI-K, 28). “Our success depends on each other, and I

believe that this activity encourages teachers to share best practices and to learn from each other”

(A-3). District support that develops administrator social skills is believed to be beneficial (TI-

K, 88).

Federal Control

Besides decision-making, capacity levels, and social processes influencing teacher

evaluation outcomes, data from this study suggests political views are important to consider.

Administrators and teachers connect political beliefs and behaviors with the driving motives

behind teacher evaluations. The school staff and faculty that embrace the negative views about

federal control incentives can strongly influence how implementing the change will look.

Political views can create barriers for schools to overcome. “This was all put together because of

Obama’s Race To The Top. When they put a waiver in from No Child Left Behind, we had to

put in an application to show how we were going to improve education …and get rid of bad

teachers” (TI-H, 65). As a result, teachers feel threatened. They rely on teacher unions for

support, while they express irritation of federal and state control. In some cases, teachers feel

that the union does a better job preparing them for the new evaluation system, rather than the

school administration. District and state unions provide teachers with professional development

that supports teachers through the evaluation process. The benefit of being a union member

advances many teachers’ ability to score high on their evaluations, but non-union teachers are

not so fortunate (TI-M, 3).

One interviewee states that she hates having another new evaluation when the prior one

worked fine (TI-M, 1). She believes the new evaluation tool could not improve student


24

achievement for at least a couple years. In addition, she fears that rote memorization is being

facilitated in classes as a means to increase student test scores (TI-M, 69). She expresses

frustration and believes that the evaluation tool could publically implicate teachers for more

education failures (TI-M, 62). Data implies that political frameworks of stakeholders influence

teacher evaluation rationale, organization, and acceptance of the TLE tool.


25

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Discussions

Decision-making, social processes, knowledge and skill capacity impact how teacher

evaluations are conducted and documented. The study provides information regarding the

reactions to the Tulsa Model evaluation tool and how these affect school culture and climate.

Administrator and teacher beliefs and behaviors impact implementation methods and results,

including how results are interpreted and applied.

Victor Vroom’s, Expectancy Theory of Motivation, (1964) acknowledges that employees

are motivated by what they believe will be the end result. Administrators and teachers express

differing opinions as to how the evaluation tool could impact decisions regarding teacher quality

and student achievement. The powers that motivate positive and negative changes are personal

and political. This study notes the complexity of social institutions. The unpredictability of

processes illustrates the multi-variable nature of teaching and learning.

A critical aspect of implementing any improvements is to plan accordingly using a

realistic timeframe for best practices to result. The amount of time needed to implement the

evaluation tool is a clear concern that influences the degree of efficacy.

Significance of the Study

While Oklahoma schools have been adopting the new evaluation system, both

administrators and teachers have had great concerns regarding the system’s outcomes. The

significance of the study will provide school leadership with pertinent insight about these

concerns by acknowledging the processes learned in the study findings. This insight will aid

schools during the indoctrination of the new system. Since the evaluation system is new to


26

Oklahoma, there has been little to no recorded research regarding the outcomes of the new

evaluation system.

Future Research

The study will serve as foundation for future studies where student achievement can and

will be measured. The new system demands that administrators conduct two observations and

one evaluation for each teacher. According to the new system, administrators must devote more

time assessing teacher performance. The administrative assessment provides a broader scope of

categories associated with highly effective teaching. The different categories provide teachers

with self-reflection. As teachers self-reflect, they can improve teaching strategies to meet

student need. Future studies will determine how self-reflection associated with the new system

improves teaching quality. In addition, future studies will determine how school leaders utilize

the new system as a means to improve teaching performance.

Researchers’ Commentary

Since student achievement is directly linked to teacher performance, Oklahoma adopted a

new teacher evaluation instrument that is broken into categories. The new evaluation instrument

defines the categories associated with highly effective teachers. Since the adoption of the new

system, there has been much concern between administrators and teachers regarding its

implementation. The researchers were impressed by the administrative staff’s ability to

communicate with teachers regarding the indoctrination of the system. For the most part,

teachers at this high school felt at ease with the change in system. The instrument provides a

means for teachers to conduct self-reflections regarding current teaching practice. Great teachers

are life-long learners who look for ways to improve teaching practices. The instrument

motivates teachers to increase performance as a means to improve student academic achievement.


27

In Conclusion, the new teacher evaluation instrument adopted by Oklahoma schools is to

improve student achievement. The new evaluation system provides for a more systematic

approach to ensuring teacher quality. Implementing a new system requires changes to existing

educational practices. Many educators are reluctant to change making the implementation of the

new system challenging for administrative leaders. Career teachers have concerning questions

regarding the adoption of the new systematic approach to improving teacher quality.

Administrators must be prepared to answer these questions regarding the new system to

implement the system successfully. By clearly stating the goals and expectations associated with

the new system, administrators support teachers through the process of change. When teachers

are supported, the implementation of the new system can successfully work to achieve higher

academic student achievement.


28

References

Eger, A. (2012). Teacher to be evaluated with new statewide models. Tulsa World. Retrieved

from http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20120702_ 19_A1_Public746463

Keller, B. (2004, August). Teacher quality. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/teacher-quality/

Looney, J. (2011, December). Developing high-quality teachers: teacher evaluation for

improvement. European Journal of Education, 46(4). doi: 10.1111/j.1465-‐3435.2011.01492.x

Marzano, R. (2011). Effective supervision supporting the art and science of teaching.

Alexandria, VA, ACSD 2011. Oklahoma State Department of Education. (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness. Retrieved

from http://www.sde.ok.gov/Teacher/Commission Teacher Leader Effectiveness, Title 70 Okla. Stat. § 6-101.6 (2010). Tulsa Public Schools (2012). TLE Observation and Evaluation Rubric--Teachers. Tulsa Public Schools (2012). The Tulsa model teacher and leader effectiveness (TLE)

observation and evaluation system Trainer Manual. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Oklahoma’s Race for the Top. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/oklahoma.pdf Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, Keeling. (2011) The Widget Effect. Wilson, S. (2011). How can we improve teacher quality? Phi Delta Kappan. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.


29

APPENDIX A

TLE Observation and Evaluation Rubric Teachers 2012-‐2013

Domain/Relative Weight Dimension Page Classroom Management 30%

1. Preparation 2. Discipline 3. Building-‐Wide Climate

Responsibility 4. Lesson Plans 5. Assessment Practices 6. Student Relations

2 2 3 4 5 6

Instructional Effectiveness 50%

7. Literacy 8. Common Core Standards 9. Involves All Learners 10. Explains Content 11. Explains Directions 12. Models 13. Monitors 14. Adjusts Based upon Monitoring 15. Establishes Closure 16. Student Achievement

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

Professional Growth & Continuous Improvement 10%

17. Uses Professional Growth as an Important Strategy

18. Exhibits Professional Behaviors and Efficiencies

16 16


30

Interpersonal Skills 5%

19. Effective Interactions/ Communications with Stakeholders

17

Leadership 5%

20. Leadership Involvements 17

© Tulsa Public Schools

Domain: Classroom Management Dimension: Preparation Teacher plans for delivery of the lesson relative to short-‐term and long-‐term

objectives. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement 3

Effective 4

Highly Effective 5

Superior

Does not plan for instructional strategies that encourage the development of performance skills.

Materials and equipment are not ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity.

Occasionally plans for instructional strategies that encourage the development of performance skills.

Materials and equipment are usually not ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity.

Plans for instructional strategies that encourage the development of performance skills.

Ensures materials and equipment are ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity (most of the time).

Plans for instructional strategies that encourage the development of critical thinking, problem solving and performance skills.

Materials and equipment are ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity.

Plans for instructional strategies that encourage the development of critical thinking, problem solving and performance skills and consistently implements.

Materials and equipment are ready at the start of the lesson or instructional activity and learning environment is conducive to the activity.

Domain: Classroom Management Dimension: Discipline Teacher clearly defines expected behavior. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement 3

Effective 4

Highly Effective 5

Superior Standards of conduct have not

Standards of conduct have been

Establishes and posts standards of



1

2

Indicator No.


31

been established.

Students are disengaged and unclear about the expectations of the classroom.

Does not monitor the behavior of students during whole class, small groups, seat work activities and transitions.

Usually ignores inappropriate behavior and uses an inappropriate voice level / word choice when correction is attempted.

established with inconsistent implementation.

Students are usually disengaged and unclear about the expectations of the classroom.

Rarely monitors the behavior of students during whole class, small groups, seat work activities and transitions.

Most of the time ignores inappropriate behavior and / or uses an inappropriate voice level / word choice to attempt to bring correction.

conduct and implements with consistency.

Ensures that students are engaged and clear as to the expectations of the classroom with few reminders given.

Monitors the behavior of students during whole-‐class, small group and seat work activities and during transitions between instructional activities.

Stops inappropriate behavior promptly and consistently with an appropriate voice level / word choice.

established and posted with consistent peer-‐based implementation.

Students are engaged and clear about the expectations of the classroom with no need for reminders.

Monitors the behavior of all students during whole-‐class, small group and seat work activities and during transitions between instructional activities, lunch time, recess, assemblies, etc.

Stops inappropriate behavior promptly and consistently, with an appropriate voice level / word choice, while maintaining the dignity of the student.

established and posted with consistent peer monitoring.

Students are engaged and are clear about the expectations of the classroom and are responsible for their own learning.

Monitors the behavior of all students at all times. Standards of conduct extend beyond the classroom.

Stops inappropriate behavior promptly and consistently, with an appropriate voice level / word choice, maintaining the dignity of the student and encouraging students to self-‐discipline.

Domain: Classroom Management Dimension: Building-‐Wide Climate Responsibilities Teacher assures a contribution to building-‐wide positive climate responsibilities. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement 3

Effective 4

Highly Effective 5

Superior

Is not involved in school projects and initiatives that contribute to promoting orderly behavior throughout the school.

Ignores the

Participates in school projects and initiatives that contribute to promoting orderly behavior throughout the school when specifically requested and only for specified time.

Inconsistently

Regularly and routinely participates in school projects and initiatives that contribute to promoting orderly behavior throughout the school.

Participates actively in school projects and initiatives that promote orderly behavior throughout the school volunteering for extra assignments / time periods.

Follows the

Makes substantial contribution to school projects and initiatives that promote orderly behavior throughout the school. Teacher assumes a leadership role in these projects and initiatives inspiring others to

3


32

procedures, practices and guidelines outlined by the school, district, state and federal laws intended to keep students healthy and safe.

follows the procedures, practices and guidelines outlined by the school, district, state and federal laws intended to keep students healthy and safe.

Follows the procedures, practices and guidelines outlined by the school, district, state and federal laws intended to keep students healthy and safe.

procedures, practices and guidelines outlined by the school, district, state and federal laws intended to keep students healthy and safe. Offers enhancements and suggestions to procedures and guidelines.

participate.

Always follows the procedures, practices and guidelines outlined by the school, district, state and federal laws intended to keep students healthy and safe. Is proactive in intervening on behalf of children and staff.


33

Domain: Classroom Management Dimension: Lesson Plans Teacher develops daily lesson plans designed to achieve the identified objectives. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement 3

Effective 4

Highly Effective 5

Superior

Only develops a brief outline of the daily schedule, which shows no alignment with state/common core standards and does not address student diversity and learning styles.

Plans are not completed.

Never plans with other members of the grade-‐level/school planning teams (when it is an expectation of the campus).

Never provides substitute plans,

Develops instructional plans that are not in alignment with State / common core standards and does not address student's diversity and learning styles.

Plans are rarely completed.

Rarely plans with other members of the grade-‐level/school planning teams (when it is an expectation of the campus).

Rarely provides

Develops instructional plans that are in alignment with State / common core standards including an amount of strategies that address student diversity and learning styles.

Plans are developed consistently and on time based upon an analysis of data.

Plans with other members of the grade-‐level / school planning teams (when it is an expectation of the campus).

Develops instructional plans that are in alignment with State / common core standards and addresses student diversity and learning styles through differentiated instruction.

Plans are developed consistently and on time, or in advance, based upon an analysis of data.

Plans with other members of the grade-‐level/school planning teams (when it is an expectation of the campus).

Revises plans according to student data analysis and shares same with fellow staff members to the benefit of the grade level, curricular area or building.

Has long and short-‐term instructional plans that are aligned with State / common core (CCSS) / district PASS standards and address student diversity and learning styles through differentiated instruction and other research-‐based learning strategies.

Plans are developed consistently and on time, or in advance, based upon an analysis of data, with inherent opportunity for continual revision.

Plans with other members of the grade-‐level / school planning teams (when it is an expectation of the campus or based upon collegial decision-‐making). Revises plans according to student data and performance, sharing same with fellow staff members to the benefit of the grade level, curricular

4


34

classroom rosters, seating charts, behavior plans, emergency plans and identification of diverse learning groups.

substitute plans, classroom rosters, seating charts, behavior plans, emergency plans and identification of diverse learning groups.

Provides substitute plans, classroom rosters, seating charts, behavior plans, emergency plans and identification of diverse learning groups.

Provides in sequenced and organized fashion substitute plans, classroom rosters, seating charts, behavior plans, emergency plans and identification of diverse learning groups.

area or building.

Can serve as a grade level, curricular area and/or building-‐wide model for substitute plans, classroom rosters, seating charts, behavior plans, emergency plans and identification of diverse learning groups.

Domain: Classroom Management Dimension: Assessment Practices Teacher acknowledges student progress and uses assessment practices that are fair

and based on identified criteria. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

5


35

Assessment is inconsistent and insufficient to determine student's overall progress and is not based on the district’s grading policy.

Assessments provide delayed and inadequate feedback for students to assess themselves.

There is no evidence that the teacher recognizes student progress or achievement.

Assessment is inconsistent and is not based on district’s grading policy.

Assessments provide delayed and inadequate feedback for students to assess themselves.

There is some evidence that students are recognized for their progress and achievement; however, recognition is sporadic.

Formative and summative assessments are recorded consistently based on district’s grading policy and are used to guide instruction.

Provides adequate and timely feedback from assessment results for students to reflect and set goals.

Recognizes student progress and achievement at significant intervals and encourages behaviors that would result in student success.

Formative and summative assessments are recorded consistently based on district’s grading policy and are used to develop and evaluate instruction.

Assessments provide useful and immediate feedback that assists students in assessing themselves in meeting their learning goals.

Students are informed regularly regarding their progress and achievement and are provided opportunities to improve and achieve academic success.

Formative and summative assessments are recorded consistently based on district’s grading policy and utilized to develop, refine and evaluate instruction.

Assessments provide useful and immediate feedback that assists students in assessing themselves to develop and evaluate their progress with their learning goals.

Learning goals are not only designed by the teacher but the student has an opportunity to direct his/her own learning by contributing goals.

Students are informed regularly regarding their progress and achievement and are provided opportunities to improve and achieve academic success. The teacher informs parents on a timely basis of their student’s progress and achievement through systematic communication procedures.


36

Domain: Classroom Management Dimension: Student Relations Teacher optimizes the learning environment through respectful and appropriate

interactions with students, conveying high expectations for students and an enthusiasm for the curriculum.

1 Ineffective

2 Needs

Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Oral, written and nonverbal communication with students is inconsiderate, as characterized by insensitivity, demeaning language and condescension.

Does not consistently display an interest in the curriculum or high expectations for most students.

Oral, written, and nonverbal communication may not be considerate or respectful.

Does not consistently display an interest in the curriculum or high expectations for most students.

Oral, written and nonverbal communications with students are considerate and respectful.

Consistently conveys a generally positive view of learning and of the curriculum, demonstrating high expectations for most students.

Oral, written, and nonverbal communications with students are considerate and positive, demonstrating genuine respect for individual students and the class as a whole.

Consistently displays a genuine enthusiasm for the curriculum and high expectations for all students

Oral, written, and nonverbal communication with students is considerate and positive. There is abundant evidence of mutual respect and trust between teacher and student, as well as between students.

Exudes a passion for the content and actively exploring the curriculum with students. Students appear to have internalized the value of the content as well as the teacher’s high expectations for them.

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Literacy Teacher embeds the components of literacy into all instructional content. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

6

7


37

Literacy, the practice of reading, writing, developing vocabulary, spelling, listening and speaking, is not embedded / woven into instructional lessons; rather, literacy is presented as a single, stand-‐alone skill.

Does not appear to value or recognize that literacy is the “bonding agent” for all learning.

Literacy, the practice of reading, writing, spelling, listening and speaking, is rarely embedded / woven into instructional lessons as an explicit learning objective; rather, literacy is presented as a single, stand-‐alone skill.

Demonstrates weak recognition of the importance of literacy as the “bonding agent” for all learning.

Literacy, the practice of reading, writing, spelling, listening and speaking, is embedded in ALL content as an explicit learning objective.

Displays basic recognition of the importance of literacy as the “bonding agent” for all learning.

Literacy, the practice of reading, writing, spelling, listening and speaking, is embedded in ALL content as an explicit learning objective and its definition is expanded to include visual representations, expressions of ideas, making decisions and solving problems.

Leverages literacy as the “bonding agent” for all learning

Includes the narrative descriptions in performance category 4, plus the additional definitional components of literacy to include: innovative use of multimedia, computer, information analysis and technology.

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Common Core Standards

Teacher understands and optimizes the delivery focus of Common Core State Standards and the expectations derived from same on student learning and achievement.

1 Ineffective

2 Needs

Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Neither understands nor participates (at even the “conversation / awareness” level) in the multi-‐year conversion process from PASS to CCSS.

Neither understands nor participates (at even a minimal implementation level) in the multi-‐year conversion process from PASS to CCSS.

Understands and participates in the multi-‐year conversion process from an emphasis on PASS to an emphasis on CCSS as evidenced by use of alternate instructional strategies and modified content focus aligned with CCSS.

Has participated in available learning opportunities to assure a strong foundation of understanding the conversion process from PASS to CCSS and regularly and routinely uses alternate instructional strategies and modified content focus aligned with CCSS.

Includes the narrative descriptions in performance category 4, plus serves as a “change agent” and/or grade level, curricular area, building-‐wide, or departmental presenter / facilitator for the implementation of the conversion from PASS to CCSS. This participation level could be initiated via

8


38

volunteering or being asked.


39

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Involves All Learners Teacher uses active learning, questioning techniques and/or guided practices to

involve all students. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Students are not mentally engaged in active learning experiences during any significant portion of the class.

Does not ask any type of questions or use questioning techniques during the lesson to involve all learners.

Student participation is not monitored or the teacher response is inconsistent, overly repressive or does not respect the student's dignity.

Displays no knowledge of students’ interests and skills.

A few students dominate the lesson, and only a few students are minimally engaged in active learning experiences 50 percent of the class time.

All or most questions used are recall questions.

Typically calls on students who raise their hands first and responds to students who blurt out answers.

Displays little knowledge of students’ interests and skills and rarely uses them as a strategy to engage them.

Engages most students in active learning experiences 80 percent of the class time.

Uses questioning techniques throughout the lesson, scaffolding to at least the mid-‐level of Bloom's taxonomy. Provides wait time for some student response and does random checking to ensure the involvement of all learners.

Engages students by incorporating their general skills and interests into the lesson.

An overwhelming majority of students are cognitively engaged and exploring content in active learning experiences 80 percent of the class time.

Uses consistently high-‐quality and varied questioning techniques, scaffolding to the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy and providing adequate wait time for most students to respond.

Engages students by incorporating their individual skills and interests into the lesson.

All students are cognitively engaged and exploring 80 percent of the class time. Students initiate or develop their own activities to enhance their learning.

Uses consistently high-‐quality and varied questioning techniques, scaffolding to the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy and leading students to formulate many of their own questions. Provides adequate wait time for most students to respond.

Engages students by incorporating and expanding their individual skills and interests.

9


40

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Explains Content Teacher teaches the objectives through a variety of methods. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Does not use cooperative learning activities, advance organizers, or other teaching strategies that foster student participation and an understanding of the objectives. Students are provided with activities from the textbook, specific to the content, but there is no attempt to use a variety of activities to support instructional outcomes and no attempt to differentiate tasks to address a variety of student needs/learning styles / multiple intelligences. Technology is not used as designed and not used as an instructional tool.

Uses limited cooperative learning activities, advance organizers, or other teaching strategies that foster participation and an understanding of the objectives. Attempts, but does not successfully use a variety of activities (e.g. modeling, visuals, hands-‐on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language and thematic instruction) to support instructional outcomes and meet varied student needs/ learning styles / multiple intelligences. Technology is rarely included in the planning process to support instruction, and technology is not used on a regular basis as an instructional tool.

Uses cooperative learning activities, advance organizers, or other teaching strategies that foster participation and an understanding of the objectives. Uses a variety of activities (e.g. modeling, visuals, hands-‐on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language and thematic instruction) to support the instructional outcomes and meet varied student needs/ learning styles / multiple intelligences. Technology is included in the planning process to support instruction, and technology is used on a regular basis as an instructional tool.

Uses knowledge of student skills and interests when selecting and using cooperative learning activities, advance organizers, and other teaching strategies that foster participation and an understanding of the objectives. Successfully uses a variety of activities (e.g. modeling, visuals, hands-‐on activities, demonstrations, gestures, body language and thematic instruction) to support the instructional outcomes and meet varied student needs/ learning styles / multiple intelligences. The activities maximize student potential and most require significant cognitive challenge. Technology is woven into / serves as a foundational base in the planning process to support instruction, and

Uses all of the characteristics of Level 4. In addition, continually seeks out new strategies to support instructional outcomes and cognitively challenge diverse learners. Willingly shares discoveries and successes with colleagues. Students are included in planning for methods of instructional delivery.

10


41

technology is used on a common-‐place basis as an instructional tool.

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Explains Directions Teacher gives directions that are clearly stated and relate to the learning objectives. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

11


42

Directions and procedures are confusing to students.

Does not offer alternative, clarifying directions.

Does not give students directions for transitions and does not plan for transitions.

Spoken language is inaudible or written language is illegible. Spoken or written language contains errors of grammar or syntax. Vocabulary may be inappropriate, vague, or used incorrectly causing students to be confused.

Directions and procedures are initially confusing to students and are not clarified.

Attempts to give students directions for transitions but does not plan for transitions.

Spoken language is audible and written language is legible. Usage of both demonstrates many basic errors (mispronunciation, misspelled words, etc.). Vocabulary is correct, but limited, or is not appropriate to the students’ ages or backgrounds.

Provides directions and procedures, in a variety of delivery modes, e.g., verbal, modeling, visual, demonstration, etc., that are clearly stated / presented and relate to the learning objectives.

Gives students directions for transitions and includes transitioning in the planning process to optimize academic learning time.

Uses spoken and written language that is clear and correct, conforms to standard English, vocabulary, and is appropriate to students’ ages and interests.

Directions and procedures, in a variety of delivery modes, are clear to students. Anticipation of possible student misunderstanding and/or confusion is incorporated in the initial direction and clarified.

Gives clear directions for transitions between lessons and between instructional activities while optimizing academic learning time.

Spoken and written language is clear and correct and conforms to standard English. Vocabulary is appropriate to the students’ ages and interests. Teacher finds opportunities to extend students’ vocabularies.

Uses all of the characteristics of Levels 3 and 4. Facilitates students in constructing their own understanding of how the directions relate to the learning objectives.

Plans for smooth, structured transitions between lessons and instructional activities and gives clear, concise directions to accomplish same while optimizing academic learning time.

Spoken and written language is correct and conforms to standard English. It is also expressive with well-‐chosen vocabulary that enriches the lesson and extends students’ vocabularies. Teacher seizes opportunities to enhance learning by building vocabulary skills and experiences based on student interests or a spontaneous event.


43

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Models Teacher demonstrates / models the desired skill or process.

1 Ineffective

2 Needs

Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Does not demonstrate or model the desired skill or process.

Demonstration or modeling of the desired skill or process is infrequent and unclear to students.

Provides demonstrations and modeling of the desired skill or process that are clear and precise to students.

Demonstrations are clear and precise to students with anticipation and preemptive action to avoid possible students' misunderstanding.

Demonstrations will match all characteristics of Level 4. Additionally, teacher’s modeling will assist students in achieving the lesson’s stated objective. Students will demonstrate the skill or process.

12


44

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Monitors Teacher checks to determine if students are progressing toward stated objectives. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Never moves around the room while students are working on guided practice.

Never uses student response techniques to increase active engagement.

Seldom moves around the room while students are working on guided practice to promote and reinforce positive student behaviors. When movement happens it is to the same area of classroom.

Seldom uses student response techniques to increase active engagement.

When appropriate, moves to all areas of the room while students are working on guided practice to promote and reinforce positive student behaviors.

Uses different types of student response techniques, both individual / group.

Uses student response techniques to increase active engagement.

Moves to all areas of the room with efficiency and effectiveness while students are working on guided practice to promote and reinforce positive student behaviors. Makes eye contact with all students often.

Routinely uses developmentally appropriate student response techniques to increase active engagement by the students.

Moves throughout the room to assure optimal instructional impact while students are working on guided practice to promote and reinforce positive student behaviors. When a problem is observed reviews / re-‐teaches it to the whole class.

Delivers upon all of performance category 4 and varied response techniques are used to provide immediate feedback to re-‐teach / review the concept(s) misinterpreted or

13


45

Never uses feedback concerning student’s understanding.

Never uses wait time after voicing a question to the students.

Seldom uses feedback concerning student’s understanding.

Seldom uses wait time after voicing a question to the students.

Student’s understanding is evaluated by feedback.

Uses wait time of 3-‐5 seconds (more for more complex questions) after voicing the question. Provides opportunity for students to formulate more thoughtful responses and allows time for the student to consider supporting evidence.

Uses immediate feedback concerning student’s understanding.

Routinely uses wait time of 3-‐5 seconds (additional time for more complex questions) after voicing the question. Provides opportunity for students to formulate more thoughtful responses and allows time for the student to consider supporting evidence. Re-‐phrases the question after hearing student response to probe for deeper understanding of concept utilizing appropriate wait time.

not learned, while actively engaging all students.

Delivers upon all of performance category 4 and is able to assess when question / wait time is no longer effective and employs a different strategy / technique.

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Adjusts Based Upon Monitoring Teacher changes instruction based on the results of monitoring. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Does not adjust instructional plan to meet the needs of students. Lesson pace is too fast or

Inconsistently monitors student involvement and makes some effort to adjust

Consistently monitors student involvement and makes efforts to adjust instructional

Is aware of student participation and smoothly makes appropriate adjustments to the

Is always aware of student participation and successfully engages all students in the

14


46

slow to accommodate for students’ questions or interest.

Does not assess mastery of the new learning to determine if independent practice or re-‐teaching is appropriate.

There is no evidence that the teacher uses data from various assessments to modify instruction and guide intervention strategies.

instructional plans to engage more students.

Inconsistently assesses mastery of the new learning to determine if independent practice or re-‐teaching is appropriate without making adjustments as necessary.

There is little evidence that data is used from various assessments to modify instruction and guide intervention strategies.

plans to engage more students.

Assesses mastery of the new learning to determine if independent practice or re-‐teaching is appropriate and makes adjustments to lessons.

Reviews data from assessments to modify instruction and guide intervention strategies.

lesson successfully accommodating student questions or interests.

Assesses mastery of the new learning using a variety of methods to determine if independent practice or re-‐teaching is appropriate and restructures lessons to address various learning needs.

Uses data from various assessments to modify instruction and to determine what additional interventions can be implemented to assist students.

lesson. Is able to successfully make adjustments to the lesson to accommodate student questions or interests.

Assesses mastery of the new learning using a variety of methods to determine if independent practice or re-‐teaching is appropriate. Works with individual students or small groups to reteach. Uses peer tutoring to facilitate mastery of skills.

Multiple classroom evaluations, assessments and formal State assessments provide ample and varied opportunity for all students to demonstrate their knowledge and skill set levels. Ongoing assessment is systematically used to modify instruction and guide intervention strategies.


47

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Establishes Closure Teacher summarizes and fits into context what has been taught. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

There is no ending to the lesson. Students disengage at the end of the class with no teacher direction.

Does not connect what is learned to prior learning and does not relate how the learning will be needed in the future.

The teacher ends the lesson without a summary of the main points of the segment of instruction or day’s learning/activity.

Does not connect what is learned to prior learning and does not relate how the learning will be needed in the future.

Ends the day’s learning / activity by summarizing the lesson or asking students to summarize the lesson.

Connects what is learned to prior learning.

Ends the day’s learning / activity by summarizing the lesson in a variety of ways.

Students are able to summarize in a variety of ways and reflect on their own learning.

Relates instruction to prior and future learning.

Ends the day’s learning / activity by facilitating students in summarizing and discussing main ideas.

Students are able to connect the lesson to prior learning and articulate how learned skills can be used in the future. Linkages with real world situations are woven into the lessons.

15


48

Domain: Instructional Effectiveness Dimension: Student Achievement Effective development and use of modified assessments and curriculum for special

education students and other students experiencing difficulties in learning. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

There is no evidence that the teacher is knowledgeable of the IEP or that the teacher modifies instruction for all students on an IEP regardless of student’s learning goals.

There is some evidence that the teacher is aware of the IEP; however, the IEP is not being used to guide instruction for the student.

Modifies assessments for special education student populations in alignment with the IEP.

Provides required feedback to student, roster teacher and/or parent.

Assures that all students have

Modifies assessments for special education student populations as indicated in the IEP and as needed, working with individual students to develop a mutually acceptable plan for "success."

Provides frequent / timely feedback to student, teacher or parent.

Assures that all students have

Modifies assessments and curriculum for special student populations as indicated in the IEP and as needed, working with individual students to develop a mutually acceptable plan for "success."

Provides frequent/timely feedback to student, roster teacher and parent of the results of modifications on student progress and participates as a team member in recommending needed changes in modifications.

The teacher consistently

16


49

Gives up, blames the student, or blames the student’s home environment if the student has difficulty learning.

When a student has difficulty learning, the teacher makes an ineffectual effort and quickly gives up or blames the student or the student’s home environment.

access to standard / common core / district curriculum.

Accepts responsibility for the success of all students.

access and modifications to standard /common core /district curriculum.

When a student has difficulty learning, the teacher perseveres to identify effective approaches to reach the student, drawing on a broad repertoire of strategies.

advocates for all special needs students to have direct access to standard /common core /district curriculum.

Perseveres in seeking effective approaches for students who need help using an extensive repertoire of strategies and soliciting additional resources from the school and community. Maintains contact with the student to monitor and support the student’s success even after the student has moved on to another class.

Domain: Professional Growth and Continuous Improvement

Uses Professional Growth as a Continuous Improvement Strategy

1 Ineffective

2 Needs

Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

17


50

Does not participate in professional development that updates their content knowledge and professional practices.

Participates in a portion of the required minimum hours of professional development. The professional development does not update their content knowledge and current professional practices.

Participates in the required minimum hours of professional development updating their content knowledge and current professional practices.

Participates in the required hours of professional development and seeks additional training to update their content knowledge and professional practices beyond what is required.

In addition to participating in the required hours of prof. development and add'l training, the teacher makes a substantial contribution to the profession through activities such as, coaching and mentoring new teachers, training teachers in professional practices, making presentations, conducting action research, working towards Master Teacher Certification and/or writing articles for grade level, department level, internal / school-‐wide and/or external publication. Writings that could be used as “models” may include classroom newsletters, parent / community communications, etc.

Domain: Professional Growth and Continuous Improvement

Exhibits behaviors and efficiencies associated with professionalism.

1 Ineffective

2 Needs

Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Exhibits documentable patterns of repeated inconsistent reliability-‐based behavior patterns as delineated in performance

Exhibits inconsistent reliability-‐based behavior patterns as evidenced by flawed punctuality and dependability; not adhering to prescribed arrival

Exhibits consistent reliability-‐based behavior patterns as evidenced by punctuality and dependability; adhering to prescribed arrival

Exhibits highly consistent reliability-‐based behavior patterns as evidenced by punctuality and dependability; adhering to

Serves as a model and mentor exhibiting consistent reliability-‐based behavior patterns as evidenced by punctuality and dependability;

18


51

category 3 – Effective.

and departure times; not following notification and reporting procedures for absences; not complying with reporting timelines and other time sensitive info./compliance requests.

and departure times; following notification and reporting procedures for absences; complying with reporting timelines and other time sensitive info./compliance requests.

prescribed arrival and departure times; following notification and reporting procedures for absences; complying with reporting timelines and other time sensitive info./compliance requests.

adhering to prescribed arrival and departure times; following notification and reporting procedures for absences; complying with reporting timelines and other time sensitive info./compliance requests.

Domain: Interpersonal Skills

Effective Interactions and Collaboration with Stakeholders. 1

Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Provides minimal or no information to families and colleagues and makes no attempt to engage them in the educational program.

Does not consult or collaborate with other staff members.

Appears to be inconsistent and inaccurate in providing information to families and colleagues and engaging them in the educational program.

Plans and makes decisions assuming the result will be positive for everyone. Consults infrequently with other staff members.

Interacts with families and colleagues in a timely, consistent, positive and professional manner.

Complies with school procedures for communicating with families and colleagues and makes an effort to engage them in the educational program.

Collaborates appropriately and makes decisions that reflect genuine professional consideration.

Communicates frequently and sensitively with families and colleagues and engages them in the educational program.

Maintains an open mind and participates in collaborative planning, reflection and decision making, respecting and considering the thoughts of colleagues.

Communicates consistently and sensitively with families and colleagues and uses diverse methods to engage them in the educational program and supports their participation.

Communication is clearly understood by diverse stakeholders.

Takes a leadership role in ensuring that all collaborative decisions, planning and reflection activities with colleagues are based on the highest professional standards. Seeks out the expertise and opinion of other professionals before considering collaborative decisions.

19


52

Domain: Leadership

Exhibits Positive Leadership through Varied Involvements. Ineffective 2

Needs Improvement

3 Effective

4 Highly Effective

5 Superior

Consistently declines becoming involved in school or district events when asked.

Impedes colleagues’ efforts to share their knowledge or assume professional responsibility.

Perpetuates biased, negative or disrespectful attitudes or practices in the school that impede the school’s ability to serve all students.

Avoids becoming involved in school or district events.

Makes no effort to assume professional responsibilities or share professional knowledge with colleagues in the school or district.

Rarely contributes to the modification of school practices that would result in students being better served by the school.

Agrees to participate in school or district events when asked.

Finds ways to contribute to the profession and follows through.

Assumes a proactive role in addressing student needs.

Volunteers or eagerly accepts an invitation to substantially contribute to a school or district event.

Actively participates in assisting other educators in their growth as professionals.

Works within a team of colleagues to ensure that all students have a fair and equal opportunity to learn and succeed in school.

Develops or leads important school or district events.

Initiates important activities contributing to the profession, such as mentoring new teachers, writing articles for publication or making presentations.

Leads others to challenge and reject biased, negative or disrespectful attitudes or practices in the school that impede the school’s ability to serve all students.

20