|
UESF
Feature
|
|
Teacher evaluations: How do they rate?
Karen Clayman, A.P. Giannini Middle School teacher, attributes most of her professional growth to working with colleagues, experienced paraprofessionals, parents and students, and not the evaluation process.The main objective of evaluations is to assess teacher performance and improve the quality of education, according to Article 16.1 of the Teacher Contract, and is best done in an atmosphere of mutual respect, shared knowledge of the process and trust between the parties. So, why do evaluations stress so many of us out? Do they help us to grow and improve as teachers? Are they accurate assessments of our teaching abilities and performance? Are our contractual rights respected through the process?
Being observed makes many of us feel uneasy. “For one thing,” says Liz Conley, teacher at Hillcrest Elementary School, “the process requires the evaluator to find some fault, to pick some area in which the teacher should improve. Teachers are bound to feel inadequate in some fashion. All of us, even the best teachers, have areas in which we can do better.”
“Anyone can be set up for failure,” says O’Connell High School Building Representative Rich Bruni. He describes a case in which he was asked to serve as union rep. “A physical education teacher received an unsatisfactory write-up from a new vice principal. This teacher,” according to Bruni, “has 60 students. While he is trying to get students to play ball, the VP is sitting on a bench with a few students who are about 40 feet away from the teacher. These students start swearing. Another student about 100 feet away, takes out her cell phone. The teacher is working with a group, trying to get them to play ball. This new VP who has never taught a PE class gives this teacher an unsatisfactory for reasons beyond any teacher’s control.”
Situations like this reflect shortcomings not only in the evaluation procedure but in administrative staffing. “In SFUSD, we have many young and new administrators without the classroom experience needed to be sensitive and adept evaluators,” according to Pat Forte who teaches fifth grade at Fairmount Elementary. Forte who has taught in the District since 1985, was a principal for two years before returning to the classroom.
“When evaluators have little classroom experience, it’s difficult for evaluations to be based on background knowledge and context rather than power and authority,” she says. “Unless evaluators have enough experience at teaching and being evaluated to internalize the process themselves, it’s tough to gain a sense of what is fair and reasonable.”
Are STARSS evaluations better?
Forte is a strong advocate of the relatively new STARSS (Standards, Teaching, Accountability, Reflection & Support System) evaluations. STARSS is a standards-based evaluation system that was developed by the District, SFUSD and the United Administrators of San Francisco. Piloted since 2000 in more than 30 SFUSD schools, Forte says, “it establishes a more objective and consistent standard for teacher performance.”Forte states, “STARSS gives a different feeling and approach to evaluations. Focusing on teaching standards which are selected cooperatively by teachers and administrators, it takes us out of the adversarial role. It takes us away from a 40-minute snapshot of a teacher’s performance, eliminating the dog-and-pony type show that has become so much a part of traditional evaluations.”
Though Patricia Arian of Lakeshore Elementary has found STARSS evaluations to be more objective, she believes the effectiveness of any type of evaluation depends upon the leadership ability of the evaluator.Second-grade Lakeshore teacher, Patricia Arian agrees. Though she finds evaluations stressful in general, she says she found STARSS evaluations helpful in getting “a more objective view.” She believes STARSS evaluations “protect teachers against a vindictive administrator as they are based on explicit standards and leave no room for personal comments.”
Regardless, says Arian, “the usefulness of any type of evaluation depends upon the leadership ability of the evaluator.”
Colleagues contribute most to growth
Whether they are evaluated under the STARSS or ‘traditional’ SFUSD methods, many teachers find that professional support and growth comes not from administrators, but peers. Karen Clayman has taught at A.P. Giannini for 23 years. She attributes most of her professional growth and improvement to working with colleagues, experienced paraprofessionals, parents, and students in the classroom and not to the evaluation process or teacher-administrator relationship.“When I was a teacher of the severely impaired I felt the evaluation process was one way to inform the administration of what our program was all about,” states Clayman. “Most of my administrators didn’t claim to know about special education and were open to simply observing our daily routines. Now, as a 6th and 7th grade math and science teacher, I am lucky to work with teachers who are willing to share lessons, listen, give and take, and help in emergencies.
Carol Kimball, at New Traditions, wonders if objectivity is possible in evaluations. "After all," she says, "evaluators are human and have differing opinions about pedagogical styles.“I don’t know if objectivity is possible in evaluations, though STARSS comes close,” says Carol Kimball, teacher at New Traditions. “Evaluators are human with different opinions about pedagogical styles. How can subjectivity not enter into it?” she asks.
Kimball has taught for 35 years in SFUSD, is familiar with STARSS, and has been a mentor teacher. She just received her first “improvement needed” on her Written Classroom Performance Report, after always having received “Outstanding or “Highly Satisfactory” ratings. She attributes that to having a new administrator and wishes she’d had a the option to use the STARSS process.
Art. 16 protects from unfair evaluations
Article 16 of the Teachers Contract spells out procedures, that if followed, will minimize a negative evaluation experience and decrease stress to as great an extent as possible.“Take the pre-observation conference seriously,” advises Field Representative Mary Anne Ahtye. “Here is where your administrator should spell out the focus upon which the evaluation is to be based …where you get to discuss learning and behavior issues of students.”
Field Representative Jocelyn Won adds, “Exercise your rights to have a union representative present at your pre- and post-observation conferences. This way someone will be there to protect you… to make sure the administrator is following the proper procedure and evaluating you fairly. Ensuring that the process is followed correctly, is your best protection against a bad evaluation.”
The article above focuses classroom teachers. The Educator realizes that non-classroom certificated personnel have specific concerns.
