Written by Seth Fitzsimmons
We need a good evaluation system in our WELS schools. Multiple education researchers, however, agree that teacher evaluation systems are troubled. Most do not do a good job differentiating between effective and ineffective teachers, and they do not aid much in professional growth. The annual conversation that WELS principals and their teachers have using the synod’s Teacher Performance Assessment tool can be uncomfortable and accomplish little. A more productive model for encouraging conversation and fostering teacher growth exists via the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (FFT). The FFT is an excellent model for principals and staffs at WELS schools to consider because it focuses on teacher development rather than teacher evaluation.
I was led to investigate the FFT after reaching out to one of our community’s public school principals. He said the whole district uses the FFT, and he personally loves it. One of my school board members teaches in our public school district, and he also likes using the FFT. Thus, having both an administrator and a teacher advocating for the FFT, I definitely wanted to learn more, and I believe you should as well, whether you are a principal, a teacher, or a person interested enough in Lutheran education that you subscribe to this blog.
THE PROBLEM
The two most prominent tools for WELS teacher evaluation provided by our Commission on Lutheran Schools (CLS) are the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) and the WELS Continuum of Teacher Development (COTD) based on the WELS Teaching Standards. The TPA does give WELS teachers and principals the opportunity to reflect on ministry and give an evaluation score. However, it does not provide much opportunity for instructional improvement because in most schools it serves as a once-a-year evaluation with little to no feedback on the specifics of how to climb the effectiveness ladder. The COTD, though, is indeed meant for instructional improvement and is currently being piloted in some of our synod’s schools. It looks to offer an improvement for our school leaders to provide instructional coaching while at the same time informing the evaluation process.
However, my primary reason for not using the WELS COTD as the sole evaluation and coaching tool for my school is that it takes so long for our synod to develop items that will be used synod-wide. Because of this and the fact that the FFT is more detailed, I feel that the FFT is the best solution to choose as the primary coaching and evaluation tool at my school. However, I also needed to keep in mind the mission of our school (connecting students to Christ) as it relates to our teacher evaluation and coaching. Therefore, I would recommend using a hybrid of the Danielson FFT and the WELS COTD.
THE BEST SOLUTION
Marzano (2012) explained that evaluating teachers and developing teachers are two completely different things. His research also supports that evaluation systems are useless unless a fundamental goal of the evaluation tool is to focus on teacher development and growth. He stated that the tool must be comprehensive, specific, include a developmental scale, and acknowledge growth. The FFT is and does all of these.
INCORPORATING THE WELS COTD
As noted above, we will also need to include certain parts of the COTD because of their importance to the mission of our school – connecting our students to Christ. The five elements of the “FOUNDATION” will all need to be added to the FFT as well as the following:
- Standard 1.6 – “Understands how the subject matter fits within God’s world in a biblically correct way and leads students to that same appreciation and understanding.”
- Standard 5.1 – “Models and encourages Christian living in words and actions.”
- Standard 5.5 – “Establishes Christ-centered values and expectations that foster a positive classroom of openness, mutual respect, support, and inquiry.”
- Standard 9.1 – “Studies the Scriptures diligently in personal, small-group, and corporate settings.”
FINAL THOUGHTS
Danielson (2011) and Gabriel & Allington (2012) support the need for a consistent definition of good teaching. Without this consistent definition, inconsistencies from one classroom to another relating to evaluation will occur. The FFT provides these research-based indicators of good teaching. These formally written indicators also then provide the benefit of a consistent rubric to provide a road map for novice teachers, guidance for experienced professionals, and a structure for focusing improvement efforts. These are all great blessings.
No evaluation system is perfect. However, I believe that the Danielson Framework for Teaching really has potential, and this hybrid approach could thus be useful in our WELS schools. Will you take a look?
Those wishing to read more of Seth’s thoughts on this topic can read this article:
Seth Fitzsimmons is currently serving as a principal at St. Paul-Muskego WI. He is also enrolled in MLC’s Master of Science in Education program with an emphasis in leadership.
References
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Danielson, C. (Jan. 2011). Evaluation That Helps Teachers Learn. The Effective Educator, 68(4). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec10/vol68/num04/Evaluations-That-Help-Teachers-Learn.aspx
Gabriel, R., & Allington, R. (Nov. 2012). The MET Project: The Wrong 45 Million Dollar Question. Educational Leadership 70(3). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov12/vol70/num03/The-MET-Project@-The-Wrong-45-Million-Dollar-Question.aspx
James, W., Derksen, D., & Alcorn, K. (Oct. 2014). Partners “in” Achievement: Synergy Fuels Growth in Literacy and Student Engagement. Journal of Staff Development, 35(5). P.36-39, 49. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?ff1=subRole+Models&q=building+-gap&id=EJ1043698
Kimball, S.M., White, B., Milanowski, A.T., & Borman, G. (Oct. 2004). Examining the Relationship between Teacher Evaluation and Student Assessment Results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ683109
Marzano, R. (Nov. 2012). The Two Purposes of Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov12/vol70/num03/The-Two-Purposes-of-Teacher-Evaluation.aspx
McEwan, E.K. 10 Traits of Highly Effective Principals (2003). Thousand Oaks, California. Corwin Press, Inc.
Mielke, P. & Frontier, T. (Nov. 2012). Keeping Improvement in Mind. Educational Leadership, 70(3). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov12/vol70/num03/Keeping-Improvement-in-Mind.aspx
Steinberg, M. & Sartain, L. (2015). Does Better Observation Make Better Teachers? Education Next, 15(1). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/better-observation-make-better-teachers/
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (July 2011). Stimulating Professional Learning through Teacher Evaluation: An Impossible Task for the School Leader? Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(5). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924136
Viviano, T. (2012). Charlotte Danielson or National Board Certification: A Comparison and Contrasting of Two Major National Frameworks for Teaching. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 27(2). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ojs/ejournals/JCTE/v27n2/viviano1.html
American Educational Research Association. (2003). What We Know About Successful School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: Kenneth A. Leithwood & Carolyn Riehl.
Excellent thoughts on a synod wide “sticky subject”. It seems as the synod is always trying to invent a new piece, that, as you say, takes a while to develop. I like your hybrid approach. It helps us make everything captive to the Word of God (I Cor. 10:5) and uses a professional proven approach. Good work Mr. Fitzsimmons!