UESF News |
||||||
New Standards-Based Evaluation Forms Introduced
Reprinted from the October 2010 SF EducatorThis school year the SFUSD is implementing new evaluation forms that were jointly developed between administrators and the UESF Evaluations Committee. Though there are several bugs to be worked out in using the new forms, in general the changes are very positive, and the end result should be improvements to the system. Though the form has changed substantially, all sections of the UESF contract covering evaluations remain unchanged. The most positive development that we see in the new form is that evaluations will now be entirely standards based. This should mean that evaluations are less subjective, and that the feedback given is not only more accurate, but valuable to help improve practice in the classroom. Previously, using the old forms, there was nothing that required a site administrator to link their written observations to any standards. There was also nothing to stop an administrator from negatively critiquing an element that was not pre-agreed upon during the pre-observation meeting. The result was that for some administrators, evaluations became very arbitrary. The new form should significantly reduce that problem. To start off, the form has been completely redesigned. The Written Classroom Performance Report (WCPR) long form now contains fields to observe every one of the elements of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, in up to four observations per year. Now take a deep breath. The redesign does not change the contractual schedule for number of evaluations during the school year (Article 16.5 and Article 16.7.2).
Tenured teachers, with previous satisfactory or above evaluations, should still be evaluated in writing only every two years, and formally observed no more than once or twice during that evaluation cycle. Probationary teachers should be formally observed no more than two to four times a year. Furthermore, although all thirty-one of the elements are listed on the form, this does not mean that administrators will be observing every element during every observation. The SFUSD has committed that during the course of the entire year, no more than ten to fifteen elements will be observed in standards one to five, with no more than five to eight elements for each individual observation. Because Standard 6 – Developing as a Professional Educator – covers elements mostly outside of the classroom, only positive classroom observations, made during the formal observation and rated ‘meets standards’ or above, can be entered on the form. All written comments on the long form also must be given by standard. The same holds true for the Summary evaluation, which previously had been in narrative form. According to UESF Secretary Susan Solomon, who chairs the UESF Evaluations Committee, so far the SFUSD has been responsive to UESF concerns about the new form, making several important changes to clarify the process. In addition, the SFUSD has worked closely with the UESF Evaluations Committee to develop an FAQ about the new evaluation system. That FAQ can be found on the UESF website, along with a link to the UESF contract. UESF also participated in a joint training with the SFUSD on Tuesday, October 12th, where the new evaluation system was reviewed for all new principals and for those who did not attend the joint training in 2008. As the new form rolls out, and invariably mistakes are made by site administrators, UESF members should make sure to review the contract and the FAQ on the website, and then to contact a UESF staff representative if they have any questions. UESF Building Reps should also sit down with administrators to go over the new forms and expectations using it and share that information with school staff. “The fundamental tenet of the evaluation system is that it should be done in order to improve the quality of education in the classroom, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect and shared knowledge,” says Susan Solomon, referring to Article 16.2 of the UESF contract. “As such, the UESF Evaluations Committee will monitor the implementation of the new form, and any problems that arise.” Informal Written Feedback A host of SFUSD site administrators are asserting their right in the contract to perform informal walk-throughs of the classroom to provide written feedback to teachers (Article 16.25). Some administrators are even using pre-designed forms when offering their written comments.
Though administrators have every right to provide informal written feedback, there are limitations to the use of such feedback. First of all, informal written feedback cannot be used as a formal observation tool and cannot be attached to the WCPR. Instead, they are to be attached to the Summary evaluation. The feedback also cannot be used as the primary tool when evaluating teachers, but rather must be used as a supplement. Following the spirit of Article 16.2 of the contract, teachers are entitled to any written feedback from the administrator, whether formal or informal. Site administrators should not wait months or even weeks to give the written feedback to teachers. Certainly, the first time a teacher sees the informal written feedback should not be in the Summary Evaluation.
Just as teachers also have the right to respond to any formal evaluation, they also have the right to respond to any informal written feedback. Teachers should also be provided with assistance if any shortcomings are seen (see Article 16.18).
Required Reading: Article 16 of the UESF ContractAll UESF certificated members should read and understand Article 16 of the UESF contract, the section covering evaluations. For example, did you know that certificated members have the right in the contract to a pre-observation meeting (Article 16.12.1), at which they can advocate that certain elements be observed and discuss any circumstances that might effect classroom performance? New contracts were delivered to Building Reps in early October, while an easily searchable online version can be found here. Return to UESF home page
|
||||||
