Muczynski, Tammy 1 Competency write-up Winter Clinical Class 2/21/14

st

Competency 4: Curriculum, Instruction and Supervision

4.3 Related Task: Knowledge of variety of instructional methods and skills

4.3.7 Specific Task: Conduct a clinical evaluation cycle including observation in a typical classroom.

Narrative Description of Task: After reviewing state law, local policy and collective bargaining agreement regarding teacher evaluations, carry out a classroom observation and post-observation conference with a consenting colleague using the districts evaluation instrument and procedures. Prepare a written evaluation based on the classroom observation using the district reporting format. Interview the staff member after the formal conclusion of the post conference concerning his/her perceptions about administrative practices or behaviors that facilitate meaningful evaluations and promote growth by staff members. Reflect on the process and what represents good administrative practice.

Process and Rationale: Teacher growth and success is key to student growth and success. The ability to evaluate teachers appropriately is a major component of ensuring student growth and success occurs.

Proper evaluations are also important to maintaining a safe, secure teaching environment for faculty. Faculty can stay focused on student achievement when they feel they are being treated with respect, dignity, and equity.

After reviewing Troy School Districts process for evaluation, studying the Danielson model in a master level course, and researching the State of Michigan laws on evaluation, I evaluated a teacher at Troy High School. Troy School District uses the Danielson model with an additional student growth domain. Troy provides the rubric, the process, and an explanation (with examples) of how to rate each domain area to the faculty on the inner school website. The district is in compliance with the new state requirements. Troy requires annual pre and post evaluation meetings along with independent development plans for newer faculty.

The staff member was well prepared during the pre-evaluation meeting. While in the preevaluation meeting, a summary of the process, dates, times, and areas to target were discussed. After carefully reviewing each area within the domains of the Danielson model during an AP History class, we then discussed areas that were not visible during the evaluation. The faculty member was able to communicate the processes in place to achieve those domain areas effectively. I was then able to provide an overall score and assessment at a post-evaluation meeting. We discussed areas for growth along with the student growth goals that were selected. For example, the faculty member wants to improve in collaboration with the other AP History teacher to determine areas students are having issues through an analysis of test results. The faculty member received highly effective in several domain areas and effective in others. (See attachment A for a summary of the faculty members evaluation.) The faculty member was

satisfied with the evaluation and found it helpful to go through the process and strengthen their knowledge with the new evaluation tool and process.

This faculty member appreciates the new tool as it is makes it clear to them what they should be doing to be a successful teacher. The old evaluation process was not nearly as meaty, and was not broken down into sections as clearly. The only area of concern is the student growth section. Since it is not exactly been made clear by the state what student growth entails, the faculty get to choose how to show student growth. Because it is not clearly defined, it is an area of concern when it comes to equitable evaluations. Some faculty members may push themselves harder than others to show true growth. This particular faculty member used pre and post tests from the beginning to the end of the course.

Reflection: While reflecting on the process and my time in the classroom observation, I realized how much power the administrator has in the evaluation process. There are many ways the administrator can influence evaluation results. For example, simply by selecting an Honors or AP course over a regular or lower level course can make a huge difference in certain domain area ratings. It is much easier to see student engagement and higher order questioning when dealing with high level students. The evaluation process is becoming more and more important as it is now tied to a districts foundation allowance. Administrators need to take advantage of this new pressure to improve teachers and not just go through the motions due to time constraints. Training in the use of the evaluation tool and how to provide successful pre and post meetings is critical. Faculty need to feel safe and secure to provide a real classroom observation. Faculty need to trust the administration is there to help them improve, and not there to punish them. In the same vane,

faculty should respect suggestions for improvement and not get defensive. No matter how good a teacher is, there is an opportunity for growth. With the new attention on teacher evaluations and student success, this will be a continuing area of concern in districts. The ability to maintain a positive, safe, and trusting atmosphere in the midst of the mandated changes will be the key to administrator, faculty, and student success.