Comparing 2 Different School District's Evaluation Systems - Report Example

Comparison of Two Different Teacher Performance Evaluation Systems: the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Jackson Public School District in Mississippi Name Professor Institution Course Date Comparison of Two Different Teacher Performance Evaluation Systems: the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Jackson Public School District in Mississippi Introduction For decades, teacher evaluation systems in the United States were mere bureaucratic exercises that did little to improve the performance of teachers(Boysen, Kelly, Raesly, & Casner, 2014). This is fast changing. Starting 2009, more than two-thirds of the states have reformed the way they evaluate their teachers. This paper compares and contrasts two separate teacher evaluation systems: the Los Angeles Unified School District, popularly referred to as LAUSD, and the Jackson Public School District (herein abbreviated as JPSD)in Jackson, Mississippi. Both are major school districts in their respective states. The author first gives an overview of each system before comparing and contrasting the two systems. Next, the author analyzes how the two systems apply empirical strategies of teacher evaluation. Finally, the main points in the paper are summarized. Overview of the Two Evaluation Systems The Jackson Public School District The JPSD teacher evaluation system is based on the belief that the purpose of teacher evaluation is fivefold: to weigh competence, assess strengths, extend support and mentorship, ensure sustained growth based on experience and inform the school’s human resource needs(Jackson Public Schools (JPS)). JPSD teachers are assessed on five performance areas that together comprise eighteen criteria. These areas are productive teaching methods, student achievement, sound management of the class, good interpersonal relations and employee responsibilities. Under student achievement, the teacher is required to demonstrate that during the evaluation period, the performance of their students has improved. The JPSD evaluation cycle runs from September to March and is divided into two phases: the formative and the summative phases. In the first phase, the evaluator, usually the principal but sometimes assisted by their assistant, evaluates the teacher according to the schedule they have developed jointly. In the summative phase the principal prepares the evaluation report. Should the evaluator deem the performance of a teacher unsatisfactory, they resort to JPSDs Formal Plan of Assistance. The district has put in place channels for redress for teachers who feel aggrieved by the evaluator’s report(Jackson Public Schools (JPS)). Another important feature of the JPSD evaluation handbook is the induction procedure for new teachers in the district. Newly employed teachers are trained and mentored for one year, although the program could be extended for a further two years(Jackson Public Schools (JPS)). The induction program has two phases: orientation seminar and mentoring program. The district also has the "Commendable Track" for evaluating seasoned teachers who have excelled in the standard evaluation track. LAUSD Like the JPSD, LAUSD’s teacher evaluation system is based on five assessment areas they call standards. These are planning and preparation, classroom environment, delivery of instruction, extra professional responsibilities and professional growth(Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), 2013). Together, these five standards comprise nineteen criteria. The criteria for the planning and preparation standard include preparing student assessment and having personal relationships with the students. Under the classroom environment standard, the teacher is expected to manage the behavior of their students and promote a learning culture among other requirements. In the area of delivery of instruction, the system requires the teacher to adopt interactive teaching and learning practices such as encouraging learners to ask questions. Extra-professional duties include demonstrating professionalism, communicating with the families of students and keeping records accurately. Professional growth demands that the teacher takes an active part in a professional community. The Two Systems Compared and Contrasted The two systems are largely similar, especially as far as the measures of evaluation are concerned. An exception is on student achievement as a measure of the performance of teachers. Across states, as demonstrated in the next section, the trend is for states and local school districts to incorporate student achievement among the measures of evaluation(Boysen , Kelly, Raesly, & Casner , 2014). While JPSDs system has incorporated the measure, LAUSDs has not. Another difference between the LAUSD and JPSD two is that while JPSD has elaborated how the evaluation is to be undertaken, LAUSD has not. Besides knowing what areas they are going to be assessed on, it is also important that teachers know when, how and who is going to assess them. That way, they can better plan their time and focus on their core business of teaching instead of worrying about when the evaluator is going to ambush the. Granted, it is likely that LAUSD teacher are informed through other channels about the modalities of their evaluation. However, those modalities are better incorporated into the handbook. Two other features of the JPSD handbook make it stand out from its LAUSD counterpart. First, JPSD has included in the document provisions for orientation and mentoring. The purpose of the orientation program is to get the new teacher to familiarize with their new environment and colleagues and help them to settle down in the shortest time possible. The mentorship program is designed to introduce them to the standards expected of them and against which they will be evaluated(Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013). These are important provisions that are missing in the LAUSD system. The other feature of the JPSD feature is a separate evaluation track for seasoned teachers. The staffs, by virtue of their many years of experience, are a resource and often mentor the younger teachers. JPSD provided the different system of evaluation as a way of recognizing them and their contribution to the district. Another difference between the systems is in the area of the participation of stakeholders- people who are affected by the system. The main stakeholders in a teacher evaluation plan are the teachers. They need to be engaged throughout the design and execution of the system. Otherwise, they will neither support it nor cooperate with their evaluators (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013). A look at the JPSD reveals that teachers and other employees of the district were involved in preparing the evaluation handbook; not so with the LAUSD document. Still, it is possible that LAUSD teachers were involved in the process even though the information does not appear in the report. Relevance of Research-based Strategies to the Two Systems Recent research has demonstrated a number of trends in teacher evaluation. The main and perhaps most contentious trend is to use student achievement as one of the standards against which to measure performance(Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013). The critics of this trend argue that there are several factors that influence the performance of a student. As a result, it is unfair to “judge” the teacher based on the performance of the student. The criticism notwithstanding, increasingly more states and school are adopting student achievement as the yardstick against which to measure teacher performance. However, modalities of applying the standard vary from one state to the next. Most states use standardized test score to measure student achievement. Many states combine standardized test scores with the attainment of student learning objectives and scores from internal assessments. To protect the interests of teachers, states are using a variety of statistical methods to estimate the extent to which student achievement is attributable to teacher performance (Bullough, 2012). The methods used attempt to measure student gains to prevent the system from judging teachers unfairly even, where the student is a slow-learner. Where they are applied, data on student achievement only contributes a part of the overall evaluation score; there is no single state where the data account for more than half the score. In many states, the contribution is considerably less. While the JPSD has adopted student achievement as one of the teacher evaluation areas, LAUSD has not. A major limitation of the JPSD system is that it has not put in place measures to protect teachers against unfair judgment on grounds of low student achievement even in circumstances that are beyond the control of the teachers such as slow-learning (Bullough, 2012). Thus, the system as currently drafted, makes the district’s teachers vulnerable to unfairness in the evaluation process. Another finding and emerging trend in teacher evaluation is that involving stakeholders throughout the process of designing a teacher evaluation system increases support for it(Bullough, 2012). A look at the JPSD teacher evaluation reveals that there was some level of participation in the preparation of the document, even though the process was outsourced to a consultant at Iowa State University. The participants included the three principals of the three schools making up the district – elementary, middle, and high, the district administrators and representatives of teachers and support staff. By contrast, nothing in the LAUSD document indicates that the district’s stakeholders were consulted. In the event that there was no participation, it would be difficult to win the support of the employees of the district. Most states and school districts evaluate teachers on a several measures as opposed to just one(Jackson Public Schools (JPS)). That they, they obtain a better picture of the effectiveness of the teacher than if performance was pegged on one measure. In addition, different teachers are gifted in different areas. For instance, a teacher may be poor in communicating with the parents of their students but very good at mobilizing members of their professional community for a given cause. Thus, evaluating the teacher on a number of measures ensures fairness in the evaluation process. Both LAUSD and JPSD have embraced this trend where they evaluate their teachers on several measures. It is important to balance between allowing local school districts the flexibility they need to develop evaluation systems that address their specific needs and according them the state support they need in the process of preparing and executing the system(Jackson Public Schools (JPS)). At the implementation phase, state involvement may be necessary to induce some checks and balances into the system. For instance, a teacher who is dissatisfied with the evaluation report of the principal could appeal to the state for redress. It is unclear to what extend the LAUSD and the JPSD relied on their respective states in the preparation of their systems. However, given that both are leading districts, they may have managed the process by themselves. Conclusion Starting 2009, teacher evaluation systems have undergone far-reaching transformations to become effective tools for measuring teacher performance (Boysen, Kelly, Raesly, & Casner, 2014). Other school districts use them to determine their personnel needs. This paper has compared and contrasted two teacher evaluation systems: one of LAUSD and the other of JPSD in Mississippi. As far as the standards of evaluation are concerned, the systems are largely similar except that unlike LAUSD, one of the measures in the JPSD system is student achievement. The paper has also examined the two systems against current trends in teacher evaluation and exemplified by research. The trends include the adoption of student achievement as one of the points against which teacher performance is measured and the use of several measures as opposed to just one or two. Overall, the systems are in line with these trends. References Boysen, G., Kelly, T., Raesly, H., & Casner, R. (2014). The (mis)interpretation of teaching evaluations by college faculty and administrators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39.6 641-656. Bullough, R. (2012). Mentoring and New Teacher Induction in the United States: A Review and Analysis of Current Practices. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20.1 57-74. Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The Politics of Accountability: Assessing Teacher Education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77.1 6-27. Jackson Public Schools (JPS). (n.d.). JPS Teacher Performance Evaluation: Building Tomorrow Today. Jackson: Jackson Public Schools (JPS). Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). (2013). LAUSD Teaching and Learning Framework: Focus Elements Only. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Read More