- Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs.
- Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning.
- Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning.
We have chosen to align our work with the CEL model developed at the University of Washington. You can see an updated version and more detail on these criteria here.
- Criterion 3: Planning with Data: Lead the development, implementation and evaluation of the data- driven plan for improvement of student achievement.
- Criterion 5: Improving Instruction: Monitor, assist and evaluate staff implementation of the school improvement plan, effective instruction and assessment practices.
- Criterion 8: Closing the Gap: Demonstrate a commitment to closing the achievement gap.
Though we now know the criterion, much work is in front of us in collaboration with bargaining units for teachers and principals. What data? How will it be collected and interpreted? How much data will we need to collect? How much of the judgment will be based on the collected data? I believe that these are some of the questions that we will face as we meet the intent of the legislation and the requirements for the waiver to NCLB. This is a mandate driven by the discussion at the national level and our state's need to align behavior with federal expectations in order to maintain and possibly enhance federal revenue and qualify for flexibility. Will it result in improved practice and increased student achievement? Could we have achieved the same increases without this mandate? I would say that yes we will see increased achievement while also believing that our system would see the same growth through a focus on our Classroom 10 instructional model without the evaluation mandate. But, that is no longer possible so we will expend considerable energy at the system level to meet these mandates from outside our system.
1 comment:
Mike-
I found the CEL model developed by UW to be very clear, and found the 'possible observations' sections quite helpful in understanding the evaluation expectations. My opinion is criterion 3, 6, and 8 seem very attainable and will provide a strong focus for our professional development efforts. I can foresee our Classroom 10 model progressing much as before for teachers, as the focus is on using data to guide instruction, connecting meaningful learning for students outside the classroom, and engaging in a professional learning community.
The challenges for these new requirements seem to fall largely on our administrators in the additional responsibilities required collecting and reporting these data points. This makes their proposal for weekly professional learning time on Fridays even more prescient, as this scheduled time will provide an opportunity for our administrative teams to observe many of the newly required elements with their whole staff; recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs (criterion 3), using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning (criterion 6), and exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student learning. A well-organized data collection format will assist our administrators as they facilitate these meetings, allowing them to collect most of the required data during these times. Classroom observations can continue as before with opportunities to collect data for the remaining sections unaddressed during the Friday professional development times.
Hopefully, because of the willingness of our whole community to support the Friday professional development times, we will be able to continue our work towards attaining Classroom 10. Additionally, the new evaluation requirements could be an opportunity to help focus this time on Fridays to make our efforts supremely streamlined and will show our community that their trust in us is well placed (how’s THAT for positive presuppositions?).
Jonathan
Post a Comment