Evaluation and Support of Principals and Teachers
What does the Seattle School District do in terms of evaluating and supporting principals? What do principals do to evaluate and support teachers? These are two crucial questions, and I don't know, nor was I able to find, the answers. I did find several staff people listed under the "Evaluation" heading in the Human Resources office, so I assume something is going on, but I'd love to know more.
In my Report Card for Seattle Public Schools post, I wrote: "Quality of instruction: highly variable; I question how much the district really knows about the quality of instruction in individual schools and what, if any, strategies the district has in place to improve the quality of instruction overall and especially in schools with the highest concentration of low-income students."
From a book by Susan J. Rozenholtz, Teachers' Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools (New York: Longman, 1989), comes a wonderful quote:
The new superintendent needs to identify and modify or eliminate the structures in the Seattle Schools that are getting in the way. But in addition, the new superintendent needs to identify what can and should be done at the district level and at the school level in terms of evaluation and support of principals and teachers.
The chapter in Rozenholtz's book I am reading talks about goal-setting, performance monitoring, recruitment and hiring, and professional development, both at the district level (focusing on superintendents and central office staff) and at the school level (prinicpals and teachers). The author contrasts high-performing and low-performing schools in these areas. The following excerpts discuss the evaluation and support of principals and teachers:
High-performing (district-level activity): "We monitor the principals' evaluations closely. We want to know what principals are doing to help mediocre or poor teachers improve. Where is the help coming from? How closely is that teacher monitored in terms of change?"
High-performing (school-level activity): "As a principal does an evaluation on teachers, they agree on the needs for improvement and develop a plan for implementing the improvement. We tailor inservice options to meet those needs."
Low-performing (district-level activity): "There comes a time when you have to transfer a poor teacher and no principal wants the teacher. In those cases, I give the most undesirable teachers to the stronger principals."
Low-performing (school-level activity): "We don't have good guidelines for principals to follow evaluting teachers. The form is only a page long. Principals are expected evaluate untenured teachers every year, and tenured teachers and supposed to be evaluated every 4 years. But really, we know that doesn't happen in many schools."
I'm guessing Seattle's practice is somewhere in between these two extremes. Or maybe it varies by school. On the Report Card post, Brita commented:
Has anyone who has attended recent Board meetings learned anything about Carla's efforts in these areas that you can share? Are any teachers or principals who read this blog willing to talk about your experiences with being evaluated and receiving support in improving your work?
In my Report Card for Seattle Public Schools post, I wrote: "Quality of instruction: highly variable; I question how much the district really knows about the quality of instruction in individual schools and what, if any, strategies the district has in place to improve the quality of instruction overall and especially in schools with the highest concentration of low-income students."
From a book by Susan J. Rozenholtz, Teachers' Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools (New York: Longman, 1989), comes a wonderful quote:
"Because teaching is nonroutine, because there are more art, craft, and finely honed skills involved, traditional bureaucratic structures are operationally dysfunctional to the work of successful schools."
The new superintendent needs to identify and modify or eliminate the structures in the Seattle Schools that are getting in the way. But in addition, the new superintendent needs to identify what can and should be done at the district level and at the school level in terms of evaluation and support of principals and teachers.
The chapter in Rozenholtz's book I am reading talks about goal-setting, performance monitoring, recruitment and hiring, and professional development, both at the district level (focusing on superintendents and central office staff) and at the school level (prinicpals and teachers). The author contrasts high-performing and low-performing schools in these areas. The following excerpts discuss the evaluation and support of principals and teachers:
High-performing (district-level activity): "We monitor the principals' evaluations closely. We want to know what principals are doing to help mediocre or poor teachers improve. Where is the help coming from? How closely is that teacher monitored in terms of change?"
High-performing (school-level activity): "As a principal does an evaluation on teachers, they agree on the needs for improvement and develop a plan for implementing the improvement. We tailor inservice options to meet those needs."
Low-performing (district-level activity): "There comes a time when you have to transfer a poor teacher and no principal wants the teacher. In those cases, I give the most undesirable teachers to the stronger principals."
Low-performing (school-level activity): "We don't have good guidelines for principals to follow evaluting teachers. The form is only a page long. Principals are expected evaluate untenured teachers every year, and tenured teachers and supposed to be evaluated every 4 years. But really, we know that doesn't happen in many schools."
I'm guessing Seattle's practice is somewhere in between these two extremes. Or maybe it varies by school. On the Report Card post, Brita commented:
Carla has revamped the evaluation and professional development for teaching staff as well as admins—this is not going to happen overnight. She has initiated strategies focused on improving instruction in all classrooms but also has put emphasis on the historically underserved. Carla has been on the job less than one year. In her reports at board meetings, she describes these projects—that is the place to go to keep current.
Has anyone who has attended recent Board meetings learned anything about Carla's efforts in these areas that you can share? Are any teachers or principals who read this blog willing to talk about your experiences with being evaluated and receiving support in improving your work?
Comments
Principal evaluation is an area where change can be swift and decisive. Here's how:
Ms Santorno establishes criteria, metrics, assessments and benchmarks for evaluating principals, she establishes consequences for outcomes that are good, bad and in between, and she implements them without further delay. What is so freaking hard about that?
Doesn't she already have criteria for determining principal performance? How about using the characteristics of high performing schools?
Doesn't she already have metrics? Doesn't she already have assessments? Doesn't she already have benchmarks? Doesn't she already know what the consequences should be?
Putting these together in a document and creating a process and a schedule for conducting evaluations shouldn't take more than a month. I know she has other responsibilities, but I believe this should be a high priority.
Does it require Union approval? Then get Union approval. That shouldn't take more than two weeks. Does the Union have a higher priority to address than this?
I think we too meekly accept delay. I say again, if it takes a long time for the Queen Mary to turn, then that is all the more reason to grab the wheel early and spin it hard. They work a lot harder to justify why things aren't getting done than that they are working to get them done.
I will tell you plainly that when the rules change where I work they change instantly, I'm expected to adapt instantly and I DO adapt instantly. Why is this workplace so much different from everyone else's reality?
When they tell you that change takes time, you need to press them for greater detail. What have they done so far? What is the next step? Who is working on it? When will they complete the task? What are the obstacles? What are the sources of delay? Do not meekly accept the non-answer "these things take time."
And when they say that it will take a month, then check back in a month and ask them if they are done. If they are done, then press them for details about the next step. If they are not done, then press for details about the new timeline and ask who is being held accountable for the delay and how.
This is the same for all of your efforts: demand details, demand REAL answers, demand access to source documents.
Another thing that is the same, for all of their plans or efforts: there should be criteria, metrics, assessments, benchmarks, and consequences. Demand them. This is how data-driven decisions are made. This is how a Standards-based Learning System should operate. This is openness, honesty, transparency and accountability.
When I hear "these things take time" used as an excuse for inaction I get so worked up I'm afraid I'm going to swallow my tongue. AAAARGHHHH!