TEACHER EVALUATIONS

It is imperative that school administrators become scholar-practitioners particularly in their approach to conducting informal and formal evaluations of their faculty.  Administrators that are able to develop their own observation protocols that are based upon quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method elements, tend to provide feedback to teachers that are empirical and not anecdotal in nature.  The formal evaluations that become part of a teacher’s overall record should be based upon the cumulative non-formal evaluations that have been conducted by the administration. This is why the evaluation should be structured in such a way as to provide high levels of descriptive data that will allow the teacher to proactively incorporate the feedback into his/her teaching methodology.  In my experience, the utilization of mixed-method observation protocols will provide the most complete information concerning a given teacher’s performance.  The inclusion of quantitative data within an evaluation in the form of frequency checklists, student on-task marks or teacher walk-through patterns, can go a long way in providing the teacher with objective and actionable information.  All too often I have seen administrators who are either too lazy or uninformed to include quantifiable data within their evaluations.  Many administrators feel more comfortable writing down subjective notes based upon their own experiences and opinions rather than taking the time to include numerical data.  

TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPCK)

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is a theoretical framework used to describe the specific kinds of knowledge that are needed by teachers in order to incorporate technology within the learning environment.  Most teachers today are mainly concerned with what kind of technology they are using in the classroom and not the rationale behind why it is being used in the first place and if it will ultimately raise levels of student achievement.  According to Mishra & Koehler (2006) “Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations” (p.1029).  This total package of technology, content and pedagogy must be integrated by teachers within their instructional planning and curriculum development.

      Because our district adheres to STEM, our school has put a major emphasis on the use of emerging technologies in the classroom.  Each student has an iPad and our teachers are encouraged to use technology as part of their instructional delivery.  However, in my walkthroughs, I have noticed that most of our staff utilizes technology at a very basic level and essentially as a replacement for the more traditional paper and pencil activities.  I have only witnessed a couple of teachers whose TPCK is well-developed as they use technology at a richer and deeper level.  As such, our district has decided to put together a group of teachers and experts who will access the TPCK levels of our teachers and then put together a comprehensive ongoing professional development plan that will instruct teachers how to use technology in a strategic, varied and conscious manner.  The ultimate goal is to createtechnology literate educators.  According to Davies (2011) “technology literacy in educational situations is defined as the ability to effectively use technology (i.e., any tool, piece of equipment or device, electronic or mechanical) to accomplish required learning tasks. Technology literate people know what the technology is capable of, they are able to use the technology proficiently, and they make intelligent decisions about which technology to use and when to use it” (p.47).

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.

Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45-52.

BLENDED LEARNING

Secondary students would benefit from a hybrid program (part online and part face-to-face) because this is reflective of how students will operate in the working world.  Students must get familiar with doing their work in an online environment and then sharing this work in face-to-face meetings. We have not reached a point in our technological development where human interaction has been totally eliminated, but we are at a point where the use of technology has become an integral element of the working environment.  A blended learning environment will allow students to get needed experience in preparation for working within technologically interdependent working groups. According to Hoffman (2011) “With the expansion of the global workforce, and the continuous shifting of global economic factors, the time for blended learning has arrived” (p.10).  More and more secondary schools around the country are making the shift to a blended learning environment because students today are coming to the classroom with pre-skills in technology and blended learning can offer a flexible and customized education to students.

Hofmann, J. (2011). Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Training, 48(2), 12-13.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING

                                                  

For many years teachers have been faced with the dilemma of how to accurately grade a student in a way that will represent how the student has been performing in the classroom. The solution for most teachers has been the traditional point-based grading system which incorporates scores gleaned from assignments, behavior, extra points and a slew of other non-academic/subjective sources. The question that consequently needs to be addressed is whether this type of grading system is truly descriptive of what the student has leaned in the class? It turns out that the answer to this question is a resounding no. The movement towards common standards for all schools has forced the education community to devise a system of grading that will be more objective-based and representative of the proficiency the student has attained on well-defined standards. The new system is called standards-based grading and it would entail a major transformation for schools and teachers. Teachers would need to become more discerning in what they grade and they would need to do away with ingrained preconceptions about grading that have been passed down through educational circles for many years. For learning organizations such as academies or charter schools, this shift into standards-based grading would not require a substantial transition. However, schools that are more bureaucratic in nature that stress the status quo and business as usual would have the hardest time making the necessary changes into the new system. So, in this instance, how does the leader within a bureaucratically-oriented school go about making the transformational changes from a traditional point-based system into a standards-based system.

In order for a leader to begin to move a faculty towards the use of standards-based grading, the conversation must begin with the obvious question of what is the purpose of grades.  According to Brookhart (2011), “Standards-based grading is based on the principle that grades should convey how well students have achieved standards. In other words, grades are not about what students earn; they are about what students learn” (p.10).  This is the fundamental question that any faculty that is attempting to move into a standards-based grading system needs to address.  It does not come down to whether “D’s” should be removed or assigning a cut-off for an “F” grade.  This is inconsequential minutia that in the long run has nothing to do with whether or not a student is truly learning the material that is being presented.

Once it is established that grades are about learning, school leaders need to help the faculty understand that “omnibus” letter grades only serve to differentiate among students that are based on factors that have nothing to do with well-defined standards.  “Grades must always be based on clearly specified learning criteria. Those criteria should be rigorous, challenging, and transparent” (Guskey, 2011, p.18).  Teachers must be made to understand clearly that the use of grades is a measure used to develop talent and not select talent amongst students.

School leaders must be very clear with the faculty, that the switch to a standards-based grading system will require teachers to delineate between points that are acquired from work done concerning learning targets and non-academic items.  According to Berger, et al (2014), “grades for academic learning targets and grades for work habits are kept separate. Work habits (like timeliness, effort, and class participation) are important and should be graded, but these grades should not be combined with grades for academic achievement”(p.9).  Creating this separation will allow teachers to grade based upon product, process and progress that defines actual academic achievement.

The transformation to a standards-based grading system is as great a change for students and parents as it is for teachers.  Schools and teachers (with the assistance of the administration) need to be encouraged at the beginning of the school year to contact parents and students and fully inform them about the rationale and the specifics involved within the grading change.   According to Amundson (2011), “Changing to a standards-based assessment and grading system can be difficult for students. Many are anxious; they miss the comfort and familiarity of overall scores and letter grades on assessments” (p.3).  Students and parents need to be constantly reminded that the achievement of proficiency on the learning objectives is more important in the long run than receiving a letter grade. In order for school leaders to ensure a smooth transition into standards-based grading, professional development sessions and workshops need to be presented to the faculty on a consistent basis.  At first, the movement towards a standards-based grading system may seem mysterious and nebulous to many teachers.  According to Simon et al (2010), “It also highlights the need for ongoing support for teachers to develop the knowledge and understanding of grading principles and policies that should inform their professional judgment” (p.548).  Teachers need to have time to review and digest the current research on standards-based grading, they need to have opportunities for open discourse and they need time to develop meaningful rubrics and assignments that completely address learning outcomes.

If a school leader wishes to transform a faculty from using a traditional point-based grading system into using a standards-based grading system, then an open and honest discourse needs to be initiated.  There are a number of issues that need to be clarified and resolved before the transition can take place.  First off, the staff must determine the fundamental purpose for grades.  Is it to separate and delineate students based upon the grades that they earn or is it to determine if a student has achieved proficiency on a set of learning outcomes?  Second, leaders must make it very clear that any grades that the students earn should be based upon clearly definable standards that are applied to all students.  Third, there must be a clear understanding that non-academic items such as participation, effort, etc. are not to be included in standards-based grades.  Fourth, the administration and the faculty need to spend ample time explaining the grading shift to the parents and students in order to reduce anxiety and misunderstandings that may develop.  Finally, school leaders need to develop professional development sessions and workshops that allow teachers to review the research on standards-based grading and consequently allow them to develop assignments, assessments and rubrics that incorporates the new information.  “Leaders who have the courage to challenge the traditional approach and the conviction to press for thoughtful, positive reforms are likely to see remarkable results” (Guskey, 2011, p.21).

 References

Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10-14.

Guskey, T. (2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership,69(3), 16-21.

Berger, R., Rugen, L., & Wooden, L. (2014). Leaders of their own learning. Jossey-Bass, 1-12.

Amundson, L. (2011). How I overhauled grading as usual. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 1-4.

Simon, M., Robin, T., Forgette-Giroux, R., Charland, J., Noonan, B., & Duncan, R. (2010). A secondary school teacher’s description of the process of determining report card grades. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 45(3), 535-554.