PEER REVIEW for TEACHER EVALUATIONS

• The tumultuous implementation of reforms driven by local, state, and federal governments over the past few years which disrupted traditional structures of education due to the Race to the Top federal funding.

• Influential organizations such as the NTNP and their publication The Widget Effect (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern & Keeling, 2009) have had serious impact on education which has led to serious changes in teacher preparation, retention, and evaluation.

• Teachers should work with administration and district leadership in ways that make accountability for all parties, including administration, when it comes to teacher evaluations.

• The reform-minded Karp (2012) among others has noted that demonizing teachers, which he connects with the corporate reform agenda for education, has not been helpful to teacher evaluation and quality.

• “By demonizing teachers and unions, and sharply polarizing the education debate, the corporate reform movement has actually undermined serious efforts to improve teacher quality and evaluation” (Karp, p.46).

• It is important to understand successful approaches to teacher evaluation that teachers, school boards, unions, and parents among other stakeholders to come to a consensus about teacher evaluation despite alternative viewpoints posited by individuals and groups with different agendas in education.

• To assist in improvement of TEACHER QUALITY and retention rather than in TEACHER PUNISHMENT that is punitive and impatient.

• To expand COOPERATION, ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY for teachers and administrators in teacher evaluations.

• To posit PROCESSES and OPTIONS that urban districts can use to include PEER REVIEW in teacher evaluations that are helpful to ALL stakeholders.

• Teachers and teachers unions must agree with school boards that teacher evaluations should be connected in some way to outcomes, but teachers must make sure that checks and balances are in place to counteract the potential abuse and misguided efforts which are punitive and connected to keeping human resource budgets lower instead of keeping potentially successful teachers from improving by firing early and not helping them to succeed.

• There are several different approaches to teacher evaluations that provide teacher voice.

FONTS

PEER REVIEW for TEACHER EVALUATIONS In URBAN SCHOOLS

OPTIONS for PEER REVIEW

ASSUMPTIONS for PEER REVIEW

Research Questions Guiding the Work

• What is good teaching?

• How can teachers be honestly evaluated in a fair and balanced way that promotes teacher professionalism and responsibility for student learning but also take into account the complexity of the learning process?

• What approaches to peer review can urban school districts like Chicago Public Schools use to improve teacher quality and student outcomes?

End goal of the research:

• Create a policy paper recommending approaches to peer review for teachers as part of the teacher evaluations for the Chicago Teacher's Union and the Chicago Board of Education to study as they begin negotiations in the near future for the next teacher's contract in summer 2015.

• Peer observers contribute to the performance evaluation for all teachers. Peer observers are trained on the evaluation process, observation protocols, and how to provide feedback to colleagues. Evidence from peer observations is used as part of the summative performance evaluation for educators, but an administrator determines the final evaluation ratings.

• Consulting teachers are part of an aligned peer assistance and review (PAR) program for novice and/or struggling teachers. Peer observers are trained to serve as consulting or mentor teachers. After conducting classroom observations and mentoring the teacher, the consulting teacher presents midyear and end-of-year recommendations for dismissal, retention, or continuation in the PAR program for an additional year.

• Peer review is successful when all parties (school board, district, administration, teachers) collectively work with stakeholders (students, parents, communities) to improve educational quality.

• Teaching is both an art and a science that takes time and experience to improve.

• Evaluations should be focused on improvement over time to maximize success and effectiveness since experienced teachers are more effective than new teachers in regards to overall (academic, social, emotional) student success.

WORKING CONCEPTS for PEER REVIEW

Places where Peer Review is Successful

• In order for educators to teach effectively and students to learn successfully it is essential to use peer review to improve novice and underperforming veteran teachers through the well-documented PAR process adopted by places such as:

• Hillsborough County Public Schools,

• Escambia Public Schools,

• Montgomery County Public Schools (Jacques, 2013) and

• Elgin, Illinois U-46 district as well.

“Performance review by colleagues is a hallmark of a profession, both for entrance into an occupation and for the ongoing assessment of a professional’s performance. In higher education it is the norm. Union-sanctioned peer review for elementary and secondary school teachers has a record long enough for reasonable claims to be made for its success…evidence suggests that peer review provides a more thorough system of inducting and evaluating novices than is currently used in most school districts. Peer review also seems to be more effective than administrative evaluation in the remediation or removal of veteran teachers with serious performance problems” (2001, p. 48).

Kinds of Peer Reviewers

• Contribute to both support and evaluation or only evaluation.

• Conduct either informal or formal observations.

• Gather evidence on either some or all aspects of instructional practices.

• Conduct some or all observations.

• Work exclusively in one school or across a district.

• Work with specific types of teachers (e.g., specific grades or subjects, experienced, novice, or struggling) or all teachers generally.

• Serve as either part-time or full-time peer observers.

RECOMMENDATIONS for PEER REVIEW in CPS

EXPECTATIONS for PEER REVIEW

• Peer observers contribute to the performance evaluation for all teachers. Peer observers are trained on the evaluation process, observation protocols, and how to provide feedback to colleagues. Evidence from peer observations is used as part of the summative performance evaluation for educators, but an administrator determines the final evaluation ratings.

• One size does not always fit all. It must be flexible enough to be implemented in elementary, middle, high school, and alternative school settings in a large urban district like Chicago Public Schools.

• Research on what has been done successfully in other school districts informs decisions about teacher evaluations and peer review.

• Focus on a learning cycle (research, pilot, evaluate, roll out and scale up, re-evaluate, systematic review) to improve upon.

• Share with others results to benefit other large urban school districts.

Bibliography

Advance Illinois, (2011). Transforming teacher work for a better educated tomorrow. Retrieved from Advance Illinois website: http://www.advanceillinois.org/filebin/TransformingTeacherWork.pdf

Illinois State Board of Education (2013). Guidance on peer evaluation in teacher evaluation systems in Illinois. Retrieved from ISBE Performance Evaluation Advisory Council website: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/peac/pdf/guidance/13-17-pe-teacher-eval.pdf

Jacques, C. American Institutes for Research, Center on Great Teachers & Leaders. (2013). Leveraging teacher talent: peer observation in educator evalution. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website: http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/GTL_AskTeam_LeveragingTeacherTalents.pdf

Johnson, S. M. (2012). Is PAR a Good Investment? Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Teacher Peer Assistance and Review Programs. Educational Policy, 26, 696-729.

Johnston, M. (2011). From Regulation to Results: Shifting American Education from Inputs to Outcomes. Yale Law and Policy Review, 30(2), 1-10. Retrieved from http://lhpusdbest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Ed-Policy-Inputs-to-Outcomes.pdf

Karp, S. (2012). Taking teacher quality seriously a collaborative approach to teacher evaluation. Rethinking Schools, 26(4), 46-50. Retrieved from http://www.mceanea.org/pdf/TQ.pdf

Kerchner, C. T. (2001). Deindustrialization: Why teachers must come to regard and organize themselves as mind workers. Education Next,1(3), 46-50. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20013_38kerchner.pdf

McGovern, S. K. (2011). A new model for states as laboratories for reform: how federalism informs educational policy. New York University Law Review, 86(5), 1519-1555.

Moore Johnson, S., Papay, J. P., Fiarman, S. E., Munger, M. S., & Qazilbash, E. K. (2010). Teacher to Teacher: Realizing the Potential of Peer Assistance and Review. Retrieved from Center for American Progress website: http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/05/pdf/par.pdf

Scwartz, M. Ryerson University, Office of Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Peer and self evaluation of teaching. Retrieved from website: http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/lt/resources/handouts/PeerEvaluation.pdf

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. The New Teacher Project, (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from The New Teacher Project website: http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf