Adk DeCap

I just finished a great article in American Educator entitiled “Taking the Lead.” Honestly, I normally toss out this magazine without a second glance. I try to avoid union propaganda.  But this one caught my eye.  According to the article by Jennifer Goldstein, if we are to be treated as a true Profession along the lines of doctors and lawyers, we need to institute a system of peer assistance and review.

To put it simply, Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) takes mentoring, the peer assistance piece, and adds professional review.  The cooperating teacher/mentor is responsible for not only helping new teachers survive their first year or more, but also for setting standards-based goals, charting progress and making the case to a panel whether this teacher should stay or go.  In rare cases, PAR may be used for problematic veteran teachers as well.

In other words, teachers mentor new professionals, set goals for improvement, create a relationship and go to bat for the teacher (or the profession) when it’s time to rehire (or not rehire) the participating teacher.

Ms. Goldstein cites six features which distinguish (and improve upon) typical teacher evaluation done by a principal.

First, time is created to mentor the participating teacher.  A principal can’t be everywhere or an expert on every subject.  Weekly meetings between participating and cooperating (master) teacher dramatically increase the level of oversight of a new or problematic teacher.  The participating teacher gets an expert and a buddy to lean on.

Second, PAR links professional development with evaluation.  This is maybe my favorite piece. To quote Ms. Goldstein, “Teacher evaluation has generally been defined as a mechanism fo appraisal in order to determine fitness for employment rather than a means for improving performance.” [Italics are mine]. This is very true.  The “fit for employment” standard is much lower than the “fit to be a professional” standard.  Some teachers believe in being a professional, in improving themselves and their classrooms. Some don’t.  Unless you work in a cubicle, what job can you do in which you are not expected to get better?  PAR would help filter out the new teachers who will be professionals from those who don’t.  While teacher retention is an issue across the country, this will help us retain the best teachers.

And we all know that one teacher who uses the same lecture notes from 15 years ago or who has been tucked into an assignment in which the least damage can be done or isn’t seen before the first bell or after the last bell. PAR addresses these teachers by 1) making sure they live up to professional standards in the first years and/or 2) getting back up to that level if they have fallen.

The participating teachers have the trusting hand, the helping hand.  They have clearly enumerated standards to live up to.  They are evaluated using an objective rubric.

Third, PAR helps bring an individual’s teaching practices to light.  With regular visits by a cooperating teacher, regular review (and help in creation) of lesson plans, PAR makes one’s abilities more transparent. We normally work “behind closed doors.”  We get a few drop-ins by our administrators.  But for the most part we are on our own.  PAR makes a participating teacher layout what is really happening in the classroom.  It would help a teacher to justify a practice or change an unjustified one.

Fourth, done properly, PAR will unite administration with the teachers’ union. Cooperating teachers report back multiple times a year to a higher panel; the cooperating teacher and the panel decide whether a teacher stays or goes.  The panel listens to the cooperating teacher’s evaluation and standards-based review to back up a decision.  This review panel is made up of both the teachers’ union and the administration.  They get the opportunity to work together in a situation that doesn’t have to be “us vs. them.”

Next, there is greater confidence in the actual evaluation process. Ms. Goldstein is brief here.  From what I understand, with the standards, the continued evaluation process, the rubric, there is more confidence in this than in the traditional process.

Finally, maybe most importantly,  there is more accountability for teacher quality. New teachers get better.  Poor teachers get better or leave the profession.

We. Get. Better. We, as a profession, make sure we are supporting our own, holding them to high standards and weeding out those who don’t belong.

So What’s The Problem?

Well, you can start with the turf war.  Many principals feel evaluation is their territory.  PAR could alleviate work for administrators by freeing them from doing observations.  The trade off is sitting on the panel.

After that, we would have to figure out release time for cooperating teachers to handle their caseloads.  Larger districts could soak the loss of a teacher from the class part- or full-time easier than a smaller district could.

Then you would have to confront the collective bargaining agreement.  But if there is a real belief in The Profession, of wanting to quality control within the union, this could help us along.

Ms. Goldstein’s article was excellent. She makes a strong case for Peer Assistance and Review.  It’s an idea definitely worth researching.

Links

American Educator Magazine

The Original Article

The original: The Toledo Plan