From today's NYTimes, an interesting editorial on how the New Haven, CT school district is revamping their teacher evaluations and development processes--an important and central aspect of the SIG process.
While urban districts ostensibly have more resources, both human and financial, to allocate toward such initiatives I think it is important to note that the concepts themselves--for instance, rating teachers on a variety of clearly-defined items, including things such as "how well they collaborate with colleagues,"--are transferable, the scale of things simply being much smaller here on the island.
The New Haven Model
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I think it is important to note that our current evaluation system closely parallels the "New Haven Model." In DIS Schools, principals meet with teachers to create two-year "professional growth plans" to help teachers achieve professional and school wide goals (since tying student achievement to teacher evaluations was only recently made legal by statute, we don't do that). I meet with each teacher several times a year in activities such as reviewing goals and progress, suggesting improvement strategies, and doing observations. Each teacher receives a summative evaluation with a 1-4 ranking (technically, they get ratings ranging from "unsatisfactory" to "distinguished"). The evaluations are based on rubrics with clearly defined performance criteria based on Danielson's "Framework for Teaching," which is one of the models that the DOE seems to be on the verge of approving.
Todd, thanks for providing the detail. Can you also please let us know how long these have been in use, and perhaps describe some of the impact you are seeing this system have on improving teacher performance? I know you can't be specific, but generally speaking it would be great to know if the system has been in place one year or more, and some of the difference you are seeing it make.
Post a Comment