New evaluations set for BASD staff

By Jennifer Eisenbart

Editor

With the state now requiring teachers, principals and assistant principals to be evaluated on a common scale, Assistant Superintendent Connie Zinnen spent more than an hour outlining the process Oct. 27 at the Burlington Area School District School Board meeting.

Staff members will be evaluated this year as the first year in the process, and then on a three-year average. Each district will use the same evaluation system, with the same time frames and same standards.
“We’re all looking for the same qualities,” Zinnen explained.

Wisconsin Act 166 put the process in motion to allow for the assessment process in 2011. The design team started the process about four years ago, and BASD staff has been involved in the next steps in the process. Those staff members were able to give feedback, Zinnen said, and the state was responsive.

The 2014-15 school year will be the first year of the evaluation process.

First steps

The district spent a good part of the summer training the evaluators on a program called Teachscape. The software is a platform that gives an online framework for teachers to upload documents they are using in the classroom – documents that show proper methods of teaching and can impact how they are evaluated.

Zinnen said those who were trained on the program completed 40-plus hours of work.

“All of us spent the summer becoming certified,” Zinnen said. A video library of professional resources is available, to show teachers how to improve. Training will also be ongoing at the local level and in BASD.

Some professionals won’t have to be evaluated yet using Teachscape. That includes school social workers, school psychologists, school nurses and occupational and physical therapists. Zinnen said the district is using a paper system in line with Teachscape.

Teachers are evaluated by building principals, as are assistant principals. Principals will be evaluated by Zinnen and Superintendent Peter Smet.

How it works

An overall effectiveness score will be given to every staff member evaluated. Half is educator practice, using Charlotte Danielson’s “Framework for Teaching.”

The Danielson model includes 22 components within four categories – planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities. Teachscape helps teachers upload the documents they use to demonstrate those components.

Each staff member will have one announced observation, and three mini-observations. The first is announced and includes pre- and post-observation paperwork, while the three mini-sessions are unannounced. The observations are based on the Danielson framework, and teachers will also fill out a self-rating.

The 22 components are all scored, then an average score is set in each of the four areas. Those four scores are averaged as well.

Teachers will have a chance to review the observation sessions as well, and give feedback on what an evaluator may have missed.

The other half of the “pie,” Zinnen said, is measured by student learning objectives and then established goals for state assessment data and graduation rates. The learning objectives make up 95 percent of the score, with the state score being 5 percent.

The student outcomes score will be “holistic,” said Zinnen. The observer will base a final score based on both the classroom observations and also taking into account the teacher’s self-rating on the set objectives. The 5 percent state component is an average of three scores given by the state.

The numbers are on a scale of 1 to 4. The data is collected at the state level and put into a graph for each teacher. The scores are intended to be private, and Zinnen said they should not be subjected to open records requests.

School Board Member Phil Ketterhagen asked if there were any indications yet as to breakouts, and allowing the district to differentiate between teachers.

“Obviously, the closer you are to four, the better,” Zinnen said.

Ketterhagen also said he had been to the Teachscape website, and that it seemed to be geared toward teaching to a specific kind of teaching model. His main concern was that the teacher’s score would not accurately show best practices if student achievement met or exceeded the goals – or vice versa.

“To an outsider, it would seem to be a cookie-cutter teacher,” he said. “I just want to be dog-gone sure in my mind that we’re not sloughing off some darned good teachers because they don’t fit the ‘cookie-cutter.’”

Zinnen didn’t want to say one way or the other on the idea of “cookie-cutter,” but emphasized that the Danielson model being used for the teacher evaluation had been well-studied and planned. She also pointed out the two scores are “separate and defined.”

“If these are research-based, which I believe they are … I would want our teachers to be similar,” said Zinnen, who added the Danielson model was credible.

Ketterhagen fired back that the student learning objectives would drive one half of the score, and those come back to the Danielson model. Zinnen said the objectives should be stringent, but also realistic.

“There is a balance,” Zinnen explained. She added the teacher and observer would be working together to set those goals, and the goals are “both a process and a product,” in that the goals themselves matter, as well as the result. Those goals would include students at various levels, with Zinnen saying goals would be “tiered” to allow for different groups of students with sets of advantages or disadvantages.

Board Member Rosanne Hahn said the worry was misplaced, as each teacher would bring his or her own attributes to the job.

“You can’t change everyone’s personality to make them all the same,” Hahn said.

Board Member Todd Terry asked whether the workload of the evaluations – both from the evaluator and teacher’s perspectives – equals what was done, or is a larger burden. Zinnen said there would be a minimum of five meetings, with each meeting about 45 minutes.
Terry clarified that he wanted to know who was doing the evaluation. Zinnen said it would be the building principal. Superintendent Peter Smet said the average evaluation is 12-15 hours per individual.

“They’re rich conversations,” Zinnen explained. “It is a lot of work.”

School Board Member Jim Bousman said he is concerned because with the administrators and teachers working together, the process could become skewed. Zinnen responded by conceding it was a “human business,” but that the training everyone had gone through should address both good – and bad – practices, so evaluators should have common standards.

“You have a rubric in front of you,” Zinnen said. She added that evaluators would continue to receive training, and that the system is being applied statewide. She said that while the process wasn’t perfect, it would address all teachers in an evidence-based model.

“Part of our training is looking at what’s evidence,” she explained.