I have spent approximately ten hours so far jumping through the hoops that comprise the Comprehensive TPEP. First was taking the Self Assessment which covers the 8 essential criteria of teaching and ranking myself. Here I can also upload and link to evidence as to why I believe I meet the criteria (proficiency) or exceed it (distinguished). Of all the time spent on TPEP so far, this was actually the most useful as it provides a report that gives a decent breakdown of where I am on the continuum. And it seems to confirm what I already suspected about myself as a teacher, although that really shouldn't come as a surprise since it's a self-assessment. I didn't keep close track of how much time I spent self evaluating, but it isn't really something you can honestly do in one sitting.
Next came entering my Goals. There are two areas: one for evaluator assigned goals, and one for self-assigned. And to be perfectly honest, this is not what I did next, because as a computer electives teacher my goals are pretty much the same every year, so I waited quite a while to complete this section in eVAL. And since computer electives aren't tested by any standardized test, I am sort of a free agent as far as setting the goals for my students. One day, which I have been told is coming, computer skills will be part of mandatory testing and the fun will stop. That is not to say that I approach teaching computer skills to my students all willy nilly. Over the years my Professional Learning Community (PLC) has gone over the NETS and STEM standards (here I would provide a link, but there are no official STEM standards. Google for yourself and see) and we have aligned our curriculum and projects with these standards to provide what we believe to be an educationally sound introduction to computing for middle school students. But as this is a Comprehensive TPEP and my initial goal of 6th graders demonstrating growth in keyboarding speed and accuracy wasn't enough, I also must show student growth with some sort of test. (The speed and accuracy test in keyboarding not being enough for some reason). So, I have assigned self-growth goals to my 8th graders and can show their pre & post test scores via Edmodo posts. This I suppose would come under evaluator assigned goals, but my evaluator has informed me that she is not using the eVAL system for a variety of reasons not least of which she believes I am the only teacher in the building (about 60 teachers) who is using eVAL and that she is retiring at the end of this school year. And who can blame her? I would be retiring if I were in her shoes as well and had to manage 20+ TPEPs from throughout the year. Entering my goals into eVAL did not take long at all.
Observations are next in eVAL, but since my evaluator isn't participating electronically, I guess I will have to scan her notes and upload them. The observation went fine as they always do. My classroom management skills are excellent, and the students were performing a self-assessment on the RPG games they had created. No time has really been dedicated toward observations via eVAL so far.
Evidence ugh. If anyone is still reading this, and this is a blog post that only a mother or someone with a huge interest in TPEP could love, this is where I begin to seethe with resentment. This is soul-sucking. Create the Artifact (most likely a screenshot of an email, or a file that demonstrates hallowed student growth, etc), Title it, Describe it, What is the alignment of the selected artifact to the district's adopted instructional framework? What is its context? Describe the setting, purpose, and background of the selected artifact. Choose from amongst the 35! choices available to you in the State Standards and the 26! choices available in the Instructional Rubrics Alignment and THEN reflect: What is the significance of the selected artifact? Why was it selected as an example of your proficiency? How does it demonstrate growth? Now repeat this ad naseum. Well, not exactly ad naseum. Repeat this for each one of the 8 teaching standards. For some reason I have uploaded 11 artifacts. Here are some random rants that bounce about in my head as I click and type away: Why is this my responsibility? Why do I have to 'prove' anything? Who thought this was a good use of my time? When did my evaluation become my job? To be fair, I appreciate the opportunity to give some input, but this is ridiculous. Who thought this would be a good use of anyone's time? I know teachers WHO ARE TAKING TIME OFF to do this. Did the legislators forsee this? With each addition I make there's a box I can click that says, "Notify your evaluator of changes'. Can you imagine that? Let's say there is a school that has its teachers ALL using eVAL and they are ALL constantly updating the principal on their TPEP changes. Is this really the best use of the principal's time? Is this supposed to help me be a better teacher, if so how? A teacher who excels at this kind of stuff is probably the most boring teacher in the world. Where was the union when this was pushed through? How could they allow such nonsense? Now I am NOT a union type of guy, but going through this makes me want to sign up to be a rep!
Resentment: noun
- 1.bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly.
It is very unfortunate that your district is choosing to implement this way. All of what you describe here (use of eVAL, gathering of artifacts) are actually not stated in the law, they are local decisions. As a union rep for my building myself, I hope you follow through on your last thought! It does not have to be implemented the way you've described.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Mark. I'm curious as to how this can be since the eVAL site is state run. I would also like to know if you have heard that a teacher can be fired if they receive two basic evaluations two years in a row, as we were told this as wll.
ReplyDelete(sorry if this comment shows up multiple times... I had trouble with submitting)
DeleteHi Pat, eVAL isn't state run, it is built by a consortium of sorts in ESD 113/PSESD (I think those are the right ESDs) and is a free web based tool that districts can opt to use. Many are not using it, some are using tools by their framework authors (UW, Charlotte Danielson or Robert Marzano), others are using tools of their own design. Where I teach, some admin/teachers have dabbled with eVAL, but it is not a requirement. eVAL is appealing to some because it is free, and Scott Poirier (WEA, and one of the creators of eVAL) encourages users to adjust their engagement based on their needs, some use it for the self-assessment, some use it as a housing place for artifacts/evidence (more on that below!) and some use it just as a place to record observations. The state does not require the use of eVAL or any other specific management tool. ...Full disclosure, I am a high school English teacher but also am trained by WEA in TPEP implementation/law (and I present workshops on that) as well as by OSPI to train principals in the evaluation system/framework... I know TPEP well :) and see MANY places implementing practices that are not mandated but are not taking due steps to inform teachers about what the law *really* says (hence my work with WEA to inform teachers where their districts are failing to inform them)... too often teachers assume that what their district says is what the law says, when in reality that is not the case.
It is true that teachers can be fired after consecutive basic evaluations, but that is basic overall, not basic in one area. (RCW 28A.405.100 4.a.ii. and 4.c) It is also true that teachers could be fired under the old system. WEA and other powers have stated to the legislature that it will be no easier to fire "bad" teachers under the new evaluation than the old. The difference, if anything, is that "proficiency" is now far more clearly articulated, which actually (from a union rep standpoint) protects teachers from being improperly targeted with a subjective "unsatisfactory" rating as the old system permitted.
(more in next comment)
As for artifacts and evidence: this is where districts are SERIOUSLY screwing up in their implementation of the evaluation model. No where in the law is there a quantification of number of pieces of evidence NOR is there a requirement about how many elements/subcomponents must be scored in order to achieve an overall criterion rating... for comprehensive folks, you only receive final scores on the big eight (not the little nuggets underneath) and your student growth rubric rating in criteria 3, 6 and 8 (none of which have a direct line between low score and firing).
DeleteThe law does not require you or your evaluator to gather a set number of artifacts and evidence. Leadership at both WEA and OSPI have been vehement in their statements that this is not a portfolio model (nothing about compilation of evidence is mandated by the state) but that local districts can--and are--choosing to go that route despite statements against this route from both WEA and OSPI. Too many larger districts erroneously see a "portfolio" (online or on paper) as easier to administer. It is a waste of everyone's time. OSPI and WEA have both stated very clearly that any time an artifact must be created solely for the purposes of fulfilling an evaluation, then the system is being implemented incorrectly.
Here is an example of how evaluation/artifacts are being implements in places that are doing it better.
1. September: teacher completes self assessment in order to explore potential growth/goal areas.
2. Observations, just as usual.
3. Around mid year, the teacher and the administrator meet. The teacher DOES NOT bring a bunch of papers or evidence to this meeting. Instead, the conversation at the mid-year check is a formative assessment. The teacher identifies where he/she assesses himself (let's say I see myself as proficient in criterion 6) and the evaluator does the same. Let's say my evaluator says he doesn't have enough information from his observations to agree that my overall evaluation for #6 is yet at proficient. We then, at that point, make agreements about how I can show proficiency. This can mean I say, "Oh hey, I know exactly what I can show you, next time you stop by my room let's look at it" or it can mean we make agreements about specific practices I want my evaluator to observe next time he comes to my room. That's all the evidence that is necessary: the evidence we agree to examine, not a pile that I pre-emptively gather in order to defend myself in a meeting. The conversation itself functions as evidence--and districts who are doing a good job with this are working hard to train evaluators on these conversations.
4. Based on whatever our "agreement" is, we follow up with further conversation before the end of the year to determine if our mutual agreement satisfies the requirements for proficient.
5. At the summative end-of-year evaluation, there are no surprises. If the agreements are met, I am proficient or higher. If not, I am basic in THAT CRITERION only. I can actually be basic in a couple of criteria (or more if I have some distinguished ratings) and still be overall proficient. The overall is what matters.
(...and more... yes, I'm long winded!)
DeleteNotice: it is possible that I may never have to upload, printout, email, or otherwise tangibly document anything if my evaluator and I are in agreement that his observation and my self-assessment are valid and can be based on evidence from his observations or our conversations.
There are many factors that figure into the success of this...one major key: an understanding of the scoring rubric by both teacher and evaluator. That tool is The Word in terms of describing proficiency.
I hope that your negative experience with the new evaluation system can be remedied. More than anything, I worry about districts screwing this up, and the result being an even more prescriptive and constricting system foisted upon us by the legislature because "you teachers couldn't get it right when you designed it yourselves, so now we design it" and we'll be mandated to use portfolios and have test scores factor in to rank and sort us. The system in our law is actually very good and permits differentiation at the local level. Some places are differentiating wrong, unfortunately.
If you ever have questions or need to check whether what you're hearing is actually true, don't hesitate to contact me. I am a classroom teacher (HS English 9) and do not hold any aspirations to earn an admin credential. You can email me at mdeweyg(at)gmail any time.
Mark, thank you very much for your words. I am Pat's wife, and we both are doing the comprehensive eval this year. I appreciate your clearing up the details for us. Our district has traditionally tried all the new stuff that comes down the pike and it gets to feeling like the TPEP is just one more thing . . .
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the chance to analyze my practices, but resent the quantification of my qualitative presence in the classroom.
Again, thank you. And may you enjoy a good year of teaching.
Kellie
I think a degree of resentment is absolutely justified, from the way some districts/buildings are implementing. I hope that this is a speed bump for teachers, and that districts can get it figured out in a way that doesn't add to our work, but enriches it. I don't know where you are geographically, but if you are in the Vancouver area, there will be WEA workshops led by Evergreen EA, Vancouver EA, and Camas EA teachers (myself included) to help teachers be armed with knowledge. Be watching for those... I know there is one Saturday 2/22 in Camas, plus several more at locations in Vancouver and Battleground. Elsewhere in the state, local WEA uniservs are leading similar workshops through the new WEA Professional Development Network.
DeleteJenny Clark posted via Facebook: Please sign up to be a rep. Remember me complaining about my year doing ProCert? This sounds just like it. Colossal waste of time away from focusing on the kids. I have PTSD just thinking it. I enjoy reading your blog.
ReplyDelete