Competency 4: Curriculum, Instruction and Supervision

Related Task:
4.3 Knowledge of variety of instructional methods and skills
Specific Task:
4.3.6 Conduct a clinical evaluation cycle including observation in a typical classroom.
Narrative Description:
Teacher evaluation throughout the state of Michigan has been subject to continual change
over the past three years, and Clio has been no exception to having to adapt to the newer models.
The major focus of this competency will be to utilize the evaluative tool Clio has adopted and
implement it through mock, formal evaluations with consenting teachers. I will conduct an
observation and mediate the post-observation conference with a teachers permission and write
an evaluation of the observation using the buildings selected evaluation tool. Following the
observation and post-observation conference, my evaluation will be compared to the written
evaluation prepared by the cooperating administrator and a discussion of similarities and
differences will follow the post-observation conference; this meeting will also include an
interview of the administrative staff member conducting the observation concerning
administrative/supervisory practices that facilitate meaningful evaluations and how evaluative
feedback is recognized to foster professional growth of the evaluated staff member.
Description and Analysis of Administrative Task
Clio Area Schools utilizes the 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric from the Center for
Educational Leadership at the University of Washington. This tool was implemented during the
2012-2013 school year as a result of Clios Director of Curriculum and Instruction believing that
the 5D+ model would be the evaluation tool that Michigan would adopt as the standard tool for
effective teacher evaluation. According to several administrators at the high school, the 5D+

model is heavily favored across the district as a thorough tool that allows for an in-depth
evaluation as well as meaningful feedback for the evaluated teachers. The 5D+ Teacher
Evaluation Rubric is derived from an extensive study of research on the core elements that
constitute quality instruction (University of Washington, 2012, p. 1). The core elements within
the 5D+ model are categorized as Purpose, Student Engagement, Curriculum & Pedagogy,
Assessment for Student Learning, and Classroom Environment and Culture. These categories are
divided further into 13 subdomains with a total of 37 indicators of effective teacher performance.
Throughout the course of each evaluation conducted, recognition of both teachers IDPs
was a necessary component to the discussion that occurred as part of the pre-observation
conference. Clio Area High School requires that all probationary staff members have an IDP on
file to address the building goals for the upcoming year. These goals are usually spelled out quite
specifically to minimize the amount of work teachers have to spend constructing statements as to
how they will incorporate building-wide initiatives into their own instructional practice
throughout the course of the year. In my district, it is not protocol to meet with tenured teachers
prior to the required evaluation nor have an updated IDP on file; however, my observations
evaluated a non-tenured teacher as well as a more experienced tenured teacher.
Although it differs from building protocol, I met with each teacher prior to his or her
evaluation because I believe it is a critical part of the evaluation process. The non-tenured
teacher had an IDP on file that was easy to retrieve for the purpose of the evaluation, but the
tenured teacher had not had an updated IDP for several years. Regardless, I had the more
experienced teacher without a current IDP pull his last IDP, which was several years old, and we
identified how goals from previous years maintain relevance in his current instruction. I also had
the more experienced instructor list instructional goals for the lesson that reflect his priorities as

a teacher. Thorough pre-conferences were conducted with each teacher and connections were
made between the IDPs, areas from the 5D+ model that would be targeted, and any area of
interest that each teacher wanted specific administrative feedback. My cooperating administrator
was not present during the pre-conference IDP meetings because it is not traditionally conducted
by administration; however, I feel that it is a necessary step and followed the protocol I felt
necessary to a thorough and effective evaluation cycle.
Primary Issues
The most significant impediment is the lack of organization within the high school.
Although, in theory, IDPs are to be developed by probationary teachers at the beginning of the
school year, current administration procrastinates this critical step in the process. This step has
even been delayed during some years until right before the evaluation is to take place. Charlotte
Danielson recognized the importance of consistency in procedure when she stated, The key to
promoting professional learning lies in the procedures adopted and the culture within which the
framework is used. In a punitive environment, no framework for teaching, regardless of its
merits, will ensure professional growth (NAESP, 2012). The development of an IDP is a
necessary component of the evaluation process because teachers select areas that they feel are
essential to their own definition of quality teacher and look for feedback specific to area of focus.
As Danielson stated, When people select their own problem to be solved, their own project to
pursue, they devote great energy to it than if someone else has chosen the issue (Danielson,
2000, p.25). Not only does this provide the evaluating administrator with an idea of priority areas
to the instructor, it allows the administrator to provide meaningful feedback to an area of focus.

As I spoke with my building administrators, the most significant issue to quality feedback is the
time. After conducting two observations with pre and post-conferences, I recognize how
demanding it can be to schedule observations as an administrator where there are unexpected
occurrences throughout the course of a school day. The concept of trust between teachers and
administrators in my building is somewhat tumultuous in that many teachers feel that building
administrators are not fulfilling their roles as instructional leaders because there is such a low
priority on evaluation and feedback. Most teachers expressed frustration regarding this years
evaluations in particular. Administrators postponed evaluations until the week before spring
break this year and proceeded to conduct lengthy evaluations of several teachers prior to district
deadlines. Not only does the procrastination of evaluations until the week before spring break
lead to poor representations of quality teaching, it emphasizes poor administrative investment in
their teachers. Morale regarding evaluations among teachers is low because of this lack of
emphasis.
Reflections
One of the most enlightening parts of this evaluation process was the process itself.
Meeting with two very different teachers at two very different stages of their career while
utilizing pre and post-conferences, addressing priorities as listed on IDPs, and using a tool that
provides such specific feedback in many different ways can be fundamentally overwhelming.
But the part of the evaluation process that was most enlightening was during the evaluation while
in each teachers classroom. Oftentimes it is nearly impossible for teachers to observe other
instructors, and this experience was an excellent opportunity to visit two very different teachers.
Each had an individual style and one was clearly stronger than the other. The most interesting
part of the evaluation process was comparing each teachers classroom process to my own. I

noticed several similarities with the more competent teacher and several instructional
deficiencies with the less experienced teacher. I consider myself to be an experienced teacher
with a good idea of what constitutes best practice in the classroom, so it was enlightening to
recognize the areas that needed improvement in the less experienced teachers classroom.
Everyday procedures that I consider to be autonomous in my classroom were less evident and
even nonexistent at certain points during both lessons. Out of all of the administrative
competencies, this was the most interesting because of the insight gained through being in two
other teachers classrooms, an experience that many classroom teachers are unable to undertake.

References
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). (2012). Assessing Teachers: A
Conversation with Charlotte Danielson. Principal. Retrieved from
http://www.naesp.org/resources-principal-marchapril-2012/assessing-teachersconversation-charlotte-danielson-2
University of Washington. (2012). 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric. Center for Educational
Leadership