Ypsilanti schools OK new formats for teacher and superintendent evaluations
The Ypsilanti Board of Education unanimously approved on Monday a new comprehensive, rubric-based evaluation program for teachers. Meanwhile, the board also decided to adopt Ann Arbor Public Schools’ discussion-based model for evaluating Ypsilanti Superintendent Dedrick Martin.
Ypsilanti School Board President David Bates, left, and Superintendent Dedrick Martin direct the discussion at a previous school board meeting.
AnnArbor.com file photo
Typically, a superintendent’s evaluation is completed after the close of the school year or at the start of the new fiscal year, which for districts is July 1.
Board of Education President David Bates recommended the trustees stray from their typical evaluation process that, in the most recent past, has included each board member filling out a separate scoring assessment and comments sheet to be turned in to the district.
“It was my impression that the rubric caused more problems and friction than the value it contained,” Bates said. “It seemed to me, the candid discussion we had with (Martin) in the closed session was the most beneficial. So I would suggest that we follow the lead of the Ann Arbor school board... It appeared to work well for them and they appeared satisfied.”
The Ann Arbor Public Schools board has foregone written superintendent evaluations since about 2003. One of the reasons Bates gave for his recommendation to adopt this practice this year was the number of extra meetings the Ypsilanti school board members have been required to attend due to the district’s budget and financial issues, as well as its ongoing discussions with the community and neighboring district Willow Run for hashing out a possible consolidation of the districts.
From January through Monday, the Board of Education has gathered 29 times in official capacity, according to the district’s website. This is compared to 15 times between January and August of 2011.
Several school board members, a minimum of two per session, also have attended monthly meetings of the Joint Communication and Collaboration Task Force with Willow Run since August of 2011. And finally, once summer hit, the board trustees rotated duties and showed up when possible to the 10 community forums that were hosted to solicit community input on the potential merger of Ypsilanti and Willow Run.
Bates said he would schedule Martin’s evaluation for the Aug. 27 board meeting. If Martin requests a closed-session conversation, as the law permits him to do, the public will not be privy to the full details of the conversation.
Bates said he will take notes from the discussion and compile them to create a summary statement at the end of the superintendent evaluation that the board will be asked to adopt as Martin’s performance review, which is then placed in his personnel file.
Educator evaluations are a hot topic in Michigan right now. A new law mandates the creation of a statewide rating and evaluation system, and establishes a new set of requirements that must be implemented by the 2013-14 academic year.
Ypsilanti school board members also unanimously approved a new teacher evaluation tool and game plan for staff on Monday. The program outlines a number of steps and components leading to the ultimate overall evaluation. Each step has specific expectations.
The steps include: setting professional growth goals, a pre-observation conference with an administrator to review curriculum, observations, walk-throughs, the development of a student growth profile for each teacher, a mid-year student growth review, a mid-year evaluation review and the summative rating and resultant recommendations for further action.
School board members praised district leaders for putting together such a thorough evaluation system.
“I am very impressed with this program,” Bates said. “This is very comprehensive and yet clear and easy to understand. I am looking forward to seeing what you do with this system.”
Danielle Arndt covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleArndt or email her at daniellearndt@annarbor.com.
Comments
MGoYpsi
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 5:50 p.m.
So, expect each teacher to do more for evaluations with larger class size and less pay.Yet streamline the overpaid superintendent's evaluation so as not to create friction and because it is too much work for the school board. This is crazy. The school board is elected to represent the people. I think we should have the parents do the superintendent evaluation.
jns131
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 2:13 a.m.
Going to be a long year. Teachers are reviewed and this will be considered whether or not they return next year as a rehire or not. So sad. Good luck with the merger. Glad I am not a teacher there.
microtini
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.
Nope. Dog Guy is right. If there is not too much noise coming from the classroom and the kids are in their seats and looking busy, administrators are happy. If the teacher holds students responsible for their learning and requires them to take some initiative, the classroom will look and sound different. And since most of teacher-evaluations--and education itself, for that matter--is based on superficial appearances, creative teachers who challenge their students will learn very fast to cut that nonsense out. Break out the rote worksheets!
Basic Bob
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.
All evaluations are subjective. Deal with it and learn how to people-please.
tom swift jr.
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 12:18 p.m.
Going back to the article linked above (about the system used to evaluate the AA Schools Superintendent) you find the statement "Currently, Ann Arbor school trustees do not fill out or retain any documents to evaluate the superintendent." Reviewing the teacher performance evaluation plan linked above, you find a 21 page document that, I would suspect, if followed to the letter, would result in hundreds of pages of documents for each teacher evaluation (documents created by the teacher, the administrator, the district). So, on one hand you have a superintendent evaluation that is probably taking place behind closed doors with no formal documentation and no clear rubric for measuring success, and on the other hand a system to evaluate teachers that is so complex that it is unlikely that a building administrator (in an era of reduced administrative staff) will be able to even begin to complete it in a meaningful manner. I keep thinking that the old saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" might apply here.
localvoice
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
Teachers test scores are now more that 40% of their evaluation Dog Guy. It is based on a computerized assessment. Last I checked, hallway observation was not on the test!
Dog Guy
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
A 21- page teacher evaluation is eyewash, done only for appearances. Teachers are evaluated solely on how their classrooms look/sound from the hallway at 4 m.p.h., which is reciprocal eyewash.
localvoice
Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.
You hit the nail on the head tom swift jr. Principals are expected to complete these documents/meetings for every teacher, every year AND every teacher's aide. The time and paperwork is endless. Teachers are told to document everything for this, but now their leader is evaluated based on a conversation. I guess that's how you get PhD's, cell phones, and cars paid for.