Site search
sponsored by
News
EAGLE COUNTY, Colorado — What makes a quality teacher, and how do you measure that on a piece of paper?
Those are some of the big, theoretical questions a committee of educators and community members will be trying to answer this year. They’ll be analyzing the evaluation system used to grade, critique and ultimately pay teachers in Eagle County.
Teachers in the school district are paid based on how well students score on standardized tests and how well they perform on formal evaluations conducted by their colleagues.
Those are some of the big, theoretical questions a committee of educators and community members will be trying to answer this year. They’ll be analyzing the evaluation system used to grade, critique and ultimately pay teachers in Eagle County.
Teachers in the school district are paid based on how well students score on standardized tests and how well they perform on formal evaluations conducted by their colleagues.
A few times a year, principals and masters teachers will observe a teacher’s classroom, take notes, make suggestions and grade them according to standards that supposedly outline what exactly teachers should be doing to have an effective lesson.
And that’s where problems can pop up — do these evaluations, which have been used for seven years, still represent what good teaching means?
How can they be tweaked? Do the evaluations consider different styles of teaching or the maturity of the class? Are high school teachers graded the same way elementary teachers are — and should they? Do the evaluations make sense for both Advanced Placement calculus teachers and freshman English teachers? How often should teachers be evaluated?
Because teacher pay is based on these evaluations, and because the schools want teachers to have the best feedback on how to teach their students, it’s important to answer these questions, Glass said.
“After we have that theoretical discussion on what good teaching means and what that looks like, we’ll be coming up with ways to measure that,” Glass said.
Mitch Forsberg, principal at Gypsum Elementary, said the standards used to grade teachers, for the most part, do a good job of measuring quality teaching, but they could be improved and updated.
“We’re trying to clarify things a little further, making it simpler for both the evaluator and teacher alike to have understanding of what it means and what’s expected,” Forsberg said.
Inherently, there will always be difficulties with evaluations. When one human is evaluating another, there’s a certain amount of subjectivity, Forsberg said.
“Like any judged event, whether it’s Teva Mountain Games or the Olympics, there’s that factor of what did that judge see or what did they not see,” Forsberg said.
That’s why it’s important for teachers and school leaders to constantly review and talk about what good teaching means, what’s expected of them, and how that plays out in the evaluation, Forsberg said.
The ultimate goal is to have high-performing teachers in classrooms, and evaluations are a good way to get them performing at a high caliber, Glass said.
This committee studying the evaluation system will work in the same way as the committee that studied that performance-based pay system this past school year, which eventually recommended a sweeping overhaul that was approved by the Board of Education.
And that’s where problems can pop up — do these evaluations, which have been used for seven years, still represent what good teaching means?
How can they be tweaked? Do the evaluations consider different styles of teaching or the maturity of the class? Are high school teachers graded the same way elementary teachers are — and should they? Do the evaluations make sense for both Advanced Placement calculus teachers and freshman English teachers? How often should teachers be evaluated?
Because teacher pay is based on these evaluations, and because the schools want teachers to have the best feedback on how to teach their students, it’s important to answer these questions, Glass said.
“After we have that theoretical discussion on what good teaching means and what that looks like, we’ll be coming up with ways to measure that,” Glass said.
Mitch Forsberg, principal at Gypsum Elementary, said the standards used to grade teachers, for the most part, do a good job of measuring quality teaching, but they could be improved and updated.
“We’re trying to clarify things a little further, making it simpler for both the evaluator and teacher alike to have understanding of what it means and what’s expected,” Forsberg said.
Inherently, there will always be difficulties with evaluations. When one human is evaluating another, there’s a certain amount of subjectivity, Forsberg said.
“Like any judged event, whether it’s Teva Mountain Games or the Olympics, there’s that factor of what did that judge see or what did they not see,” Forsberg said.
That’s why it’s important for teachers and school leaders to constantly review and talk about what good teaching means, what’s expected of them, and how that plays out in the evaluation, Forsberg said.
The ultimate goal is to have high-performing teachers in classrooms, and evaluations are a good way to get them performing at a high caliber, Glass said.
This committee studying the evaluation system will work in the same way as the committee that studied that performance-based pay system this past school year, which eventually recommended a sweeping overhaul that was approved by the Board of Education.
Ongoing overhaul
The district already made some major changes to the evaluation system earlier this year.
Teachers used to be graded on a five-point scale with 13 different cutoff points for different pay levels — which means a teacher who scored a 3.91 could end up making more than a teacher who scored a 3.90. Under the new program, the grading system would become qualitative, and teachers would be paid based on five performance categories — excellent, high performing, professional, improvement needed and unacceptable. Why make that change? Think of this — is someone who scored a 3.91 really any better than someone who scored a 3.90? The evaluations weren’t meant to be that precise, but the district is in fact using them that way, which seems unfair, says Jason Glass, human resources director. Also, it’s better for morale when teachers are told they’re working at a “professional” level instead of a 2.5, teachers have said. |
Want to help?
The school district is looking for two community members, one who’s a parent and one who isn’t, to participate in its “Evaluation Committee,” which will study the way teachers are evaluated and make recommendations to the Board of Education.If you’re interested, contact Jason Glass, human resources director, at jason.glass@eagleschools.net.
Staff Writer Matt Terrell can be reached at 970-748-2955 or mterrell@vaildaily.com.
