Teacher evaluations have been a hot topic of discussion on the state and national stage for several years.
While Washington legislators and educators are discussing how to implement a data-and-observation-based evaluation models, other districts in the country have already started new systems.
Washington, D.C. has been at the front of evaluation movement the last couple years, with people both criticizing and applauding the changes.
The Washington Post ran a story today that examines the D.C. evaluation system. Washington Post reporter Stephanie McCrummen had the chance to sit-in on a teacher evaluation and provides an interesting view of the strengths and weaknesses of new ways to grade teachers.
To read the story, click here. What are your thoughts?
The work being done in Washington state right now is an outcome of SB 6696, passed in the 2010 legislative session. Seventeen education association/school district joint efforts are underway state-wide to design the evaluation documents and process. The state will eventually either select several from which districts may choose or select one and make it the mandatory program.
Several education associations/school districts did not wait for the state legislature to mandate this undertaking. They’ve been involved in just such an endeavor for some time now. The Lake Washington Education Association / Lake Washington School District has completed its process and has had a functioning system in use since 2007. They began work in 2000. The Clover Park Education Association / Clover Park School District is about 3 years into their endeavor. They “paused” to see what would develop from the legislature, but are now in full implementation mode. Within the next two years, they’ll have their system on line, perhaps sooner.
I’m sure there are other education association / school district efforts that have been underway for some time. These are only the two that I’ve researched.
When this new protocol comes on line state wide, we will very likely have the tools to help teachers improve, where there is need. Something the currently does not do well. We will also have a viable protocol for removing teacher, if necessary. It should be noted here that removing teachers goes on right now. The Northshore Education Association recently published a letter to their membership and school board, outlining their on-going efforts in conjunction with the Human Resources Dept of Northshore School District. In that document, NSEA reports having counseled 6 members out of the profession during this school year. It is reasonable to infer that this goes on in other associations/school districts, as well.
There are at least two other factors to be considered, when discussing the process and need to remover “ineffective” teachers. One, school districts now have three years (one more than before SB 6696) to look at newly hired teachers to determine if they are “effective” before giving them a continuing contract (Washington state does not have “tenure”, as such.) That means many “ineffective” teachers can be identified early on and simply not invited back. Two, many new teachers are hired on “non-continuing” contracts, meaning there is no obligation to provide further employment after the end of the school year. These contracts are often used to replace teachers on leave or to provide special services for which there is no prospect of continued funding. This becomes another tool districts have to look at prospective employees before offering them continuing contracts. The end result is that fewer teachers are being allowed to enter the pool of continuing contract teachers and districts are having longer and longer looks at prospective continuing contract candidates.