Through the Looking Glass: Teacher Evaluation Through Self-Reflection, 5(18)
Faith Spitz
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA
fspitz@readington.k12.nj.us
Abstract
Using a nontraditional approach to supervision, teachers in Readington Township, New Jersey, reflect on teaching domains in which they need to grow. These domains contain standards for proficient teaching which include themes of high expectations, developmental appropriateness, differentiating instruction, equity, diversity, and appropriate use of technology.The administrator serves as a coach and mentor collaborating with the teacher. This model treats teachers as professionals and has improved performance, motivation and morale. It has encouraged collegial sharing which has enriched teaching practices and school culture.
Using a differentiated process, the model offers different options for nontenured, tenured, and teachers in need of assistance.
This supervision process requires faculty members to use time beyond the school day for research and reflection. The model stresses growth and encourages teachers to take instructional risks and to raise the learning bar with no penalty for failure to achieve the mark
Introduction
Alice in Wonderland
The roadmap for teacher evaluation in the Readington Township School District led nowhere in the fall of 1996. Items such as "maintains proper lighting and ventilation when possible," and "has appropriate appearance" were used on a teacher observation checklist, which was graded as "commendable," "satisfactory," or "needs improvement." Because a checkmark in "satisfactory" often resulted in a teacher’s written rebuttal, most teachers received a commendable rating in all areas. Administrators and teachers agreed this method did nothing to improve or change student learning.
At the time the district was eager for change, we received an ASCD publication, Enhancing Professional Practice, A Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 1996), which became the backbone and the springboard for a major change in our district’s supervision practices. The administrators came to consensus that we needed to develop Readington Teaching Standards to define what teaching excellence should look like in our suburban, middle-class district of 2,100 grade K-8 students.
Because we envisioned major changes in our supervision model and knew such change necessitated BOE support, we convened a districtwide committee composed of teachers, administrators, and board members. Some staff expressed concern that having board members involved would inhibit teachers from "speaking their mind." In reality, this did not deter "lively" dialogue and having the board members hear the discussion helped greatly in gaining Board of Education support for a major paradigm shift.
This core committee functioned as building liaisons throughout the three-year revision process. Committee participants read the research on supervision and concluded that teachers would only change educational practice when they begin to reflect on their own practice against standards for excellence.
This initiative was based on a central premise that participation in peer coaching and mentoring may be one way in which to build greater collegiality among teachers. The secondary premise of this initiative was that if greater collegiality existed among teachers as a result of participation in alternative supervision models, then there would be greater change in instructional practice and greater faith in supervision as a catalyst to change teaching. Little (1982) reported that in successful schools, more than in unsuccessful ones, teachers valued and participated in norms of collegiality and continuous improvement. Talbert and McLaughlin (1994) concurred that teacher communities that promoted collegial discourse and collaboration set conditions for shared professional standards to emerge and to be enforced. Talbert (1991) suggested that researchers should take a more serious look at the interactive conditions of teachers’ work and experience. "Schools as workplace show the greatest promise where there are expectations for shared work, a norm of collegiality, and expectations for analysis, evaluation, and experimentation, a norm of continuous improvement" (Little, 1982, p. 339).
In September 1997, each staff member received a copy of Enhancing Professional Practice: Frameworks for Teaching (Danielson, 1996). Time for discussion of teaching standards was provided through early-release time days and one full day of staff development. Staff discussed and reflected on the domains of teaching as set forth in Danielson’s framework. Our staff, through long and sometimes heated discussions, agreed to four domains they considered the essential broad aspects of teaching: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional building trust responsibilities.
Next came the difficult decisions as our staff sampled, tasted, chewed and discarded or swallowed the component standards under each of these domains. Over several months, teams of teachers discussed what excellent teaching looks like.
The complexity of teaching required discussions regarding what occurs in the classroom and also outside the classroom walls. Teachers did not entirely accept the standards as noted in Danielson’s framework but used them as a springboard for designing our own. The process was as important as the finished product. Readington’s staff decided that it was important to write the standards at a "proficient" or "distinguished" level since these are the high levels to which all are expected to perform. On June 9, 1998, Standards were adopted by the Board of Education and the teaching staff.
Several themes run through the standards. These include high expectations, developmental appropriateness, accommodating students with special needs, equity, cultural sensitivity, and appropriate use of technology.
Once the standards were established, they represented the "what" (criteria for judging teacher performance) of evaluation. The discussion then turned to the "how" (method to be used). Everyone agreed that a 50-minute classroom observation one to three times annually did not improve instruction, although this had been a primary task of all building principals and some central office administrators.
Judith Warren Little (1982) has provided the most commonly accepted operational definition of collegiality in schools. Collegiality is related to the presence of four types of interactions between and among teachers: (a) teachers engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practice; (b) teachers are frequently observed and provided with useful critiques of their teaching; (c) teachers plan, design, evaluate, and prepare teaching materials together; and (d) teachers teach each other the practice of teaching (Little, 1982).
Barth (1990) suggested that better decision-making, greater trust and morale among adults, increased and energized adult learning, and even higher motivation among students who are taught by teachers who share, were outcomes of collegiality.
Talbert, McLaughlin, and Rowan (1993) suggested that the contexts of teaching have greater effect on instructional practice than previously thought and that effective teaching is the product of "the setting in which teachers work and learn" (p. 2).
The committee proposed a differentiated model of assessment that would encourage and facilitate professional growth and enhance performance. Performance would be directly linked to the identified standards for effective teaching, which provided staff with a common language for defining competence.
Our rationale for a differentiated model included
- Teachers as professionals should be offered options and choices.
- Collegiality is fostered by enabling teachers to work together.
- Administrators focus efforts on those teachers needing or requesting assistance.
- Teachers will focus on student learning outcomes.
All options require teachers to set goals, timeframes, designate responsibilities, and discuss progress and outcomes. Teacher professional improvement plans (PIPs) reflect the year’s experience and inform goal setting for the following year. Smylie (1988) also reported that greater collegiality gave rise to greater experimentation by teachers.
Non-tenured teachers are placed in a developmental program to enhance their instructional skills. Staff development and supervision, including three observations that reflect the standards, are a part of this process. The teacher is asked to continually self-reflect and is coached by an administrator and a mentor. In addition to classroom observations, the non-tenured teacher may choose from several options available to tenured staff. Proficiency in all four domains is used to make tenure decisions.
For the very few tenured staff who may be in need of assistance, an action plan is collaboratively designed and implemented to assist the teacher in meeting the expected level of proficiency required.
During the 1998-99 school year, we began to pilot this new system. We had hoped the teachers on the core committee would volunteer to try the alternate supervision options. We were overwhelmed with the staff response.
At our middle school, 28 tenured teachers engaged in portfolio development, peer coaching, curriculum projects, collegial partnerships and teacher-designed projects. Twenty-two tenured teachers opted to use the classroom observation model. At the elementary schools, the results were even more remarkable. At Three Bridges School, 24 out of 25 teachers chose the alternate models. At Whitehouse Elementary School, 28 teachers engaged in new model options, while six teachers chose classroom observation.
To assist teachers in the new roles, we hired a consultant to work with staff. Throughout the year, we provided opportunities for staff to meet together and with this consultant. Administrators also met with the consultant to seek advice and assist in future planning. We were all learning together. Giving up some measure of "control" was a concern. Though we had hoped administrators would have more time by instituting the new model, this was not the case. The teachers were very excited by the projects, journals, portfolios, etc., reflecting their growth and the growth of their students, and they wanted to share this with administrators at many junctions along the way.
We had built into our process formal opportunities for teachers to meet with administrators twice yearly. Additional numerous informal meetings and discussions took place.
At the conclusion of the pilot year, we reconvened our core committee and discussed concerns and next steps. All agreed that the projects were exceptional. Teachers had self-reflected on practice and shared areas in which they wanted to grow. They described the problems they encountered as they struggled with real problems to better meet the needs of all of their students. The committee agreed the biggest problem was finding time to implement the projects.
The 1999-2000 school year dawned with 82 tenured teachers requesting to pursue alternate supervision projects. Only 37 tenured teachers continued to pursue the traditional observation model. Although the teachers knew the alternate models required greater effort on their part, most felt the rewards justified the means.
This year, we asked all staff to self-reflect on their performance and on their growth plan. Our teachers have shown that, given time, encouragement, and resources, they are capable of assuming responsibility for much of their own professional growth and development. In an effort to provide this support, our district designed and offered several Continuing Education Unit (CEU) courses to assist staff. Many of the projects and CEU courses involved differentiation of instruction, using technology to enhance learning and developing literacy. In addition, we offered a course in alternate supervision so teachers could collaborate and dialogue on professional practice. Professional Development opportunities greatly assisted staff as they worked to self-assess and improve.
Teachers presented the progress of their models at Board of Education meetings and to other faculty members. At the 3rd grade level, the entire staff of ten teachers, seven tenured and three non-tenured, worked on a two-year curriculum project entitled "The Millennium." During 1999-2000, they planned and researched the integrated thematic unit, and, during 2000-01, they implemented this program as part of the 3rd-grade curriculum.
As the 1999-2000 year came to a close, each teacher provided his/her administrator with a self-reflective summary of the progress on his/her project and the four domains of teaching, which led to the development of a growth plan for the 2000-2001 school year.
Keys to Success
Having the members of the core committee represent all constituent groups was key to our success. The teachers’ union executive board was well represented. Also represented was the Board of Education, which needed to give the seal of approval to this major shift in focus. All of the teachers had major input in developing the standards and designing the models.
Teacher Self-Reflection
The research is clear that organizational change is the result of individuals changing themselves and their personal practices, not of "top-down" mandates (Airasian & Gullickson, 1997). Self-reflection gives teachers a voice and control over their own practice.
Self reflection has been important to my professionalism and my growth, especially this year. Because this is all so new, I have been pretty demanding of myself to "keep track of" what I have done this year and consider how it has worked or fallen short. Keeping a portfolio has helped me to document some target areas. It has also caused me to really reflect on my effectiveness and growth this year. As a result, I am really looking forward to next year for a fresh start. In all, I feel I truly have grown professionally this year. In essence, my whole year has been an action-research for which I have continually sought resources and opportunities to help me improve.
I put a great deal of time into my work but sometimes still feel that I am not doing enough to "challenge" every child to their fullest potential. Time seems to be one of the factors; the other is having the time to share ideas and work with my colleagues to plan for more individual instruction. One person cannot do it by herself.I continue to look for new ways to enhance my lessons and am open to new ideas. Next year, I would like to continue to work on differentiating, especially in the area of math.
Changing Mindsets
With any new initiative, some will embrace the change while others will reject it or "wait and see." This model treats teachers as professionals and has improved teacher motivation and morale. It also has encouraged teacher interaction and collegial sharing, which has enriched the classroom instruction and the school culture. Evidenced by faculty room conversations revolving around professional responsibility and teaching practices, teachers are engaged and invested in their professional growth.
Balancing Control
This evaluation model balances the control between the administrators and the teachers. For most of the teaching staff, the major responsibility for growth is on their shoulders. Current supervision theory states that to be effective, supervisory practices must be regulated in large part by the teacher. The teacher decides what happens in a classroom, and instructional practice cannot improve without these decisions being the best possible. (Danielson, 1996) The role of the administrator has changed from traditional "sage on the stage" to non-traditional "guide on the side."
Providing Time and Resources
There is never enough time to do everything we want to do! Everyone seeks more time. We have tried to provide this through release time during the school day, eight shortened instructional days, three full staff development days, faculty meetings and team planning time. This model still requires that faculty members use time beyond school hours for research and reflection. The administration provides resources such as books, professional development courses, opportunities to visit other classrooms, and videotapes. They also are available for consultation and collaboration with staff as the projects evolve.
Building Trust
It is probably here that the greatest change has occurred. Many of the staff previously viewed evaluation as a "gottcha" model. Any criticisms were seen as punitive. In the new model, teachers are encouraged to take risks and raise the instructional bar with no penalty for failure to achieve the mark. The stress is on "growth." One teacher wrote:
In my traditional situation I always assessed myself in terms of effectiveness; this year I have tried to assess myself more in terms of growth.Last year I felt that I was very good at what I did; my success could be measured by the successes of my students. I was an effective teacher. However, I changed very little as a teacher last year.
I have felt that this year has been remarkable for me in learning how to be effective again, now in my new role. Therefore, I have been assessing my practice more in terms of growth. This year I feel as though my learning curve has spiked again, and my present growth will make me an overall more effective teacher in the future.
Connelly (2001) suggests that the removal of the perceived threat of the results of traditional evaluation by a certified supervisor builds trust in evaluation as a means of improving instruction. He also suggests that a strong interconnection among collegiality, change in instructional practice, and trust in evaluation is part of the dynamics of a peer-coaching model of evaluation.
As a result of the new supervision model, classroom instruction has been enriched and student achievement has increased. Most importantly, teachers are treated and act as true professionals raising their own level of performance. In this year’s self-reflections, most teachers shared areas in which they targeted their own future growth. This would not have happened four years ago!
Given that the model requires greater effort on the part of teaching staff, the question remains as to the long-term effects of this initiative. Will teachers sustain the commitment of time and energy required to meet the demands of their projects, or will they return to the easier 50 -min. "traditional" observation? How will the leadership continue to provide meaningful challenges and positive conditions to sustain the momentum for staff members to excel and develop leadership potential? Will the administrative team develop its own set of "standards" and begin to use these in alternate models of evaluation? These are the ongoing issues staff members are contemplating as we embark on the new school year.
References
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Connelly, R. (2001). The effect of peer coaching. NJASA Perspective, 17(2), 28-30.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-40.
Smylie, M. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30.
Talbert, J. (1991, April). Boundaries of teachers’ professional communities in U.S. high schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Il.
Talbert, J., McLaughlin, M., & Rowen, B. (1993). Understanding context effects on secondary school teaching. Teachers College Record, 95(1),45-68.
Talbert, J., & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Teacher Professionalism in Local School Contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123-53.
Author Notes
Readington Township Board of Education
P.O. Box 807
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
Phone: 908-534-2195, Ext. 7
Fax: 908-534-9799
fspitz@readington.k12.nj.us
Faith Spitz has been the Superintendent of the Readington Township School District in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, since 1996. Prior to that, she served as Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction in Scotch Plains/Fanwood and Montclair in New Jersey. She has been an educator for thirty-four years, spending more than twenty years in the area of special education. She taught elementary school in New York City, South Brunswick, and North Brunswick, New Jersey. She believes success is achieved by empowering staff to take on leadership roles and to seek continuous improvement.
Dr. Spitz received her Ed.D. in Education Administration from Teachers’ College, Columbia University in 1989. She holds M.Ed. and Ed.S. degrees from the College of New Jersey and a B.A. from Brooklyn College.