By Tom
Last Wednesday I found myself in a conference room as part of a task force focused on implementing Washington State’s new evaluation system in our school district. As the day progressed, I learned five important things:
1. Thank God for the WEA. As the legislation behind the new system made its way through Olympia, our teachers’ union worked feverishly to insure that most of the important details would be worked out at the local level – where teachers themselves would have the greatest chance of being heard. That’s essentially why I was sitting in that conference room instead of teaching in my classroom. The reason why the WEA worked so hard on this front is open to interpretation. If you’re an idiot and/or an editorial writer for the Seattle Times, it’s because the union is greedily trying to maintain the status quo by giving ineffective teachers a greater chance of keeping their jobs. The rest of us understand that no one’s interests are served when teachers are treated like voiceless, dispensable cogs in a system where every decision is made from the top down. Like I said; it’s open to interpretation.
2. People will be losing their jobs. Early in the meeting a principal sitting across the table said something that startled me: “At least a third of my teachers are going to fail under this evaluation system.” I was taken aback, “How can you know that, when we haven’t even fleshed out the details?” “I’ve been in their rooms,” he said, “I know how they teach, and I know how they’ll score on this evaluation.” The WEA, along with OSPI and local school districts have tried to emphasize the potential to tie this evaluation system to professional development, and I’m sure they’ll succeed, to a point. But make no mistake: this system was originally conceived and is currently perceived as a way to facilitate the removal of poor teachers.
3. This is an entirely unfunded mandate. After my short conversation with the guy across the table, I turned to one of our assistant superintendants, “Does our district have the resources to support that many failing teachers?” You don’t get to be assistant sup by responding to loaded questions with one-word answers: “We currently have about fifty thousand dollars dedicated to this project, but I think I might be able to find some additional funds.” In other words, “No.” Supporting – even processing – up to one-third of our district’s teaching staff is time-consuming. Which means expensive. We were talking about having two or three professional development coaches at each school to work with teachers who score low on the first round of evaluations. Fifty thousand dollars would barely cover their copier costs.
4. Principals will have their hands full. As they day continued and we unpacked the various components of this new system, it became clear that its success will depend largely on the work of building principals. Who, by the way, haven’t exactly been standing around with nothing to do. These people are essentially being given a second, full-time job on top of the one they already have. And remember, their evaluation system also changed with this legislation, and a key component of their evaluation involves their ability to implement teacher evaluations. My greatest fear is that our best and brightest principals will bail (who could blame them) leaving a huge leadership vacuum across the state.
5. You need to get involved. There is a ton of work left to do across the state in implementing the many details that will ultimately determine the success of the new evaluation system. And since each district gets to decide most of those details (Thanks again, WEA!) most of that work will be done at the local level. If you’re smart and open-minded and you care about the future of the teaching profession in Washington State, now is the time to get involved. Trust me, the new evaluation system will leave a mark on every conceivable facet of public education in Washington state into the foreseeable future. Unless you want to spend the rest of your career complaining about it, get involved now, while it’s still being created.
I am always shocked by how few of my colleagues know even teh basics of the new evaluation system coming our way. Which make the train a timely and appropriate visual. It’s not that my friends and co-workers have their heads in the sand. I am disappointed by how little information and conversation about TPEP has been shared at any level in my district. We are just now starting to pilot the process. Teachers have been given the opportunity to volunteer to be in the pilot and still few have any sense of what it entails. I feel like the only reason I even have a clue about TPEP is bcause of the reading and writing I do here which has led me to seek out more information. Regardless, the career altering implications TPEP brings-for better and worse-is going to feel like train to most people I work with.
Thanks for sharing the perspective from the northwest. Hopefully teachers everywhere will be learning more about how these kinds of changes might affect them. I appreciate the candor as well; we’ll see about the extent to which new evaluation systems light a fire under some of our colleagues.
I get you, Tom. I think I was reading through the wrong filter. The oncoming train is an apt metaphor.
Tom,
Is your district considering a change of model now that her online system requires a payment each year?
We use Marzano, so it’s free for us.
I agree, Mark, that it’s a good thing to say goodbye to folks who can’t get their act together. I was simply trying to make the point that we’re entering a new reality, and I’m not sure everyone gets it yet, or will get it in time to make the necessary changes.
(Hence the picture of the oncoming train.)
I see I misread you…I thought you had written “a three or lower” but I see that you wrote “below a three.”
Also, the rating which would result in a formal contract plan of improvement is based on the summative end-of-year rating, not the ongoing formative assessments. Those formative assessments, if carried out properly (IF) would result in ongoing reflection and re-adjustment of the practice which resulted in the formative low rating. To me, such a plan of improvement would essentially be a further formalization of our yearly PGP or PD goals as already required… but, as you point out, with some more teeth (which is a good thing, imo).
And if the person you were sitting next to was right and so many teachers would not do well based on what that admin has seen in the classroom, wouldn’t this be a good thing? For a teacher to all out fail is to give excess power to the rubric… If a teacher recognizes (via the rubric) that some aspect of his or her performance is not to broader standard, then they ought to be a professional and try to improve…if they don’t make effort to improve, I’m okay saying sayonara to them. As an activity to get the know the rubrics, some of us rated our own teaching (certainly not an objective measure) in reflection and there were several points at which I had to admit I rated the bottom rating of “unsatisfactory.” The shifts it took in my practice to raise myself to a proficient rating were tiny, sustainable, and ultimately what I really should have been doing all along. I’ll dig through my notes later and get the exact scales/dimensions I’m talking about.
I have been part of a local RIG for almost a year and have not hear anything about being placed on a plan of improvement if you score a three or lower. There are only four points. Everything that I have heard and read indicates that a score of “basic” in any of the eight criteria puts you on a plan of improvement. Where did you hear about the numerical rating? I need to figure out more about that piece.
(We’re on Marzano, maybe that makes a difference in how the numbers/labels come into play?)
Danielson.
Which model is your district using, Tom?
You might be right, Mark, but the thing about this law that makes it different than all current systems is that if you score below a three in your evaluation, you’re automatically placed on an improvement plan.
This thing has teeth; far more so than what we currently have. And like you, I’d like to see a few teachers take up a new career, but I’d prefer to see a system in which we offer quality support and professional development first.
I’m not so sure about your #2… while I’d actually like to see our ranks be culled a bit, I don’t foresee that many more teachers losing their jobs than under the current system. It will still take time, paperwork, meetings, etc., to get a teacher out of a job. Those are all it takes now…and it isn’t happening.
That said, I am very much in favor of this new system… and your #1 item is SO true. Imagine what mess we’d be facing otherwise.