LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for MIFGASHIM Archives


MIFGASHIM Archives

MIFGASHIM Archives


MIFGASHIM@LISTSERV.BIU.AC.IL


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MIFGASHIM Home

MIFGASHIM Home

MIFGASHIM  October 2010

MIFGASHIM October 2010

Subject:

Mifgashim Volume 8 Issue 145

From:

Lee Buckman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:22:00 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

Mifgashim Volume 8 Issue 145


Contents:

1.  	Kristallnacht Resources

2.  	New Teacher Induction Resource

3.	Global Day of Learning Opportunities

4.	Marshall Memo:   Suggestions for an Effective Teacher Evaluation Process


~~~~~~~~~


1.  	Kristallnacht Resources

The anniversary of Kristallnacht is coming up in a few weeks.  Educational resources can be found at  http://www.lookstein.org/resources/kristallnacht.htm. 


~~~~~~~~~


2.  	New Teacher Induction Resource 

For those engaged in new teacher induction programs, you may be interested in a newly published book called Toolbox for Teachers and Mentors:  Lesson Plans for Pre-Service and In-Service Judaic Educators by Richard D. Solomon, Ph.D.


~~~~~~~~~


3.	Global Day of Learning Opportunities

The Lookstein Center, a suppporting partner of the Global Day of Jewish Learning initiative (learn more at http://www.theglobalday.com/), is excited to announce learning sessions for Jewish educators and interested laypeople on Sunday, November 7, 2010. 

The Global Day of Jewish Learning is the first transdenominational and nondenominational event devoted to Jewish learning. Participation is free.
 

Shalom Berger, Global Learning at the GA (English)
8:00 pm CT, General Assembly, New Orleans. 
Write to [log in to unmask] for more information.
 
Zvi Grumet, Is There Anything to Learn About Leadership from Moses? (English)
12-1 pm ET, Online session.
Write to [log in to unmask] to register.  Space is limited.
 
Aharon Levin, The Idea of Love in Judaism (Russian)
Time: TBA online session
Write to [log in to unmask] to register.
 
Daniel Feder, Yitzhak-Yaakov: Two Models of Leadership (Spanish)
7:00 pm GMT-3, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Write to [log in to unmask] for more information.


~~~~~~~~~


4.	Marshall Memo:   Suggestions for an Effective Teacher Evaluation Process

In its widely discussed 2009 report, The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness, The New Teacher Project said that in most districts, teacher evaluations are:

-	Infrequent – Many teachers, especially those with experience, aren’t evaluated annually.

-	Unfocused – Evaluation doesn’t take into account whether students are learning.

-	Undifferentiated – Binary ratings (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) don’t distinguish mediocre from highly effective teaching, and 99 percent of teachers get high ratings.

-	Unhelpful – Few teachers say that evaluations give them useful feedback.

-	Inconsequential – Evaluation results are rarely used to make important decisions about development, compensation, tenure, or promotion.

The result is that teachers are treated as interchangeable parts – widgets – rather than as individual professionals.
	
In a thoughtful new report, The New Teacher Project proposes six guiding principles for a better teacher evaluation system:

-	All children can master academically rigorous material, regardless of their socioeconomic status. 

-	A teacher’s primary professional responsibility is to ensure that students learn.

-	Teachers contribute to student learning in ways that are mostly observable and measurable.

-	Evaluation results should be used to remove persistently underperforming teachers and build a thriving teacher workforce.

-	Evaluations should play a major role in important employment decisions.

-	No evaluation system is perfect, but we can develop systems that are much better than what exists now in most districts, and should continuously improve what we put in place.

The report then presents six design standards for an ideal teacher evaluation process:

• Annual evaluations – Every teacher should be evaluated at least once a year, says the report. This will ensure that all teachers get something all professionals deserve – ongoing feedback on their performance. Annual evaluations also provide a way for the district to hold school leaders accountable for helping all teachers grow and develop.

• Clear, rigorous expectations – Evaluation rubrics should include explicit standards of instructional excellence with student learning as the priority. A negative and positive example:
-	Poorly constructed: “Teacher makes a thoughtful and accurate assessment of the level of student understanding throughout the lesson.”

-	Clear and rigorous: “Student work during the lesson (e.g., Do-Nows, checks for understanding, guided and independent practice, exit slips) shows that nearly all students at all skill levels mastered the lesson objectives.”

Each district’s evaluation instrument should be continuously refined and revised, discarding elements that aren’t directly related to student achievement.

• Multiple measures – Evaluations should consider several measures of performance that are clearly spelled out in advance, with heavy emphasis on the teacher’s impact on students’ academic growth. Value added should be judged using reliable measures – i.e., a district-wide writing prompt scored with a consistent rubric would be better than a teacher-designed take-home essay.

• A differentiated rating scale – Evaluations should use four or five rating levels to describe differences in teacher effectiveness. With a four-point rating scale (ineffective, needs improvement, effective, highly effective), the report suggests different actions for teachers at different levels of experience (e.g. renew if improving rapidly, extend probationary period, renew, grant tenure, dismiss, retain and reward).  

• Regular feedback – Teachers should be observed frequently and get constructive feedback in regular conversations in which performance and student progress are discussed. “Teachers and instructional managers should come away from these conversations with a shared understanding of what the teacher needs to focus on in the short term and how the instructional manager can help,” says the report. “If teachers are surprised by their summative evaluation rating, something is wrong with the evaluation process.” The report goes on to say, “Feedback is useless if instructional managers and teachers view development conversations as chores instead of opportunities to talk openly and constructively about instruction. Districts should hold instructional managers accountable for the quality of the feedback and support teachers receive, not just the quantity…”

• Significance – “An evaluation process must have meaningful implications, both positive and negative, in order to earn sustained support from teachers and school leaders and to contribute to the systematic improvement of the teacher workforce,” says the report. This includes decisions on tenure, compensation, development, hiring, promotion, and dismissal. On the other hand, districts should not blindly follow every bit of evaluation data – for example, the highest-performing math teacher should not automatically be selected as a math coach, and a teacher should not be summarily dismissed based on one negative classroom observation. Professional judgment is always necessarily.

“The success of any evaluation system – no matter how solid its design – ultimately depends on how well it is implemented,” concludes the report, and the authors suggest the following questions to use in ongoing self-assessment:
-	Are school leaders evaluating teachers accurately?
-	Are teachers receiving useful feedback on clear expectations?
-	Do teachers believe they are being evaluated fairly?
-	Are school leaders getting the support they need to conduct accurate evaluations?
-	Are teachers generally improving their performance over time?
-	Are schools retaining consistently top-performing teachers at higher rates than consistently low-performing teachers?

“Teacher Evaluation 2.0” by The New Teacher Project, 2010. This 11-page report is available at http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf; spotted in PEN Weekly NewsBlast, Oct. 8, 2010


The Marshall Memo is a weekly digest of important research in K-12 education. Individual
subscriptions are $50 for the school year at http://www.marshallmemo.com.

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

The Mifgashim List is a project of
The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora,
The School of Education, Bar Ilan University

The Center encourages you to become a paid member and
benefit for the wide variety of programming offered by the Center.
For information see http://www.lookstein.org/joinus/.

To reply, comment or post a message, please write us at: [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, please send an email to [log in to unmask] with "unsubscribe MIFGASHIM" in the
body of the text.

You can search the archives at http://listserv.biu.ac.il/archives/mifgashim.html.

Check out online educational materials and information on other
Lookstein Center programs on our website at http://www.lookstein.org/.

The e-community is supported by generous grants from Evelyn and Shmuel Katz, Bal Harbour, Fl.

Further information may be obtained by writing to: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BIU.AC.IL

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager