RTT encouraged states and districts not only to revamp their teacher and principal evaluation policies but also to use evaluation results to make personnel decisions. In addition, the administration greatly expanded the TIF program, which awards grants to high-need districts to fund performance-based compensation systems, and established a new rule for winning applications: proposals would need to differentiate teacher and principal effectiveness, based in significant part on student growth, and create compensation systems that reflected those results. The reaction was swift, as state legislators and policymakers across the country made sweeping changes in areas that had long been dormant.
According to the National Council on Teacher Quality NCTQ , the number of states requiring objective measures of student achievement to be included in teacher evaluations nearly tripled from to , from 15 to 43 states nationwide see Figure 1. Even more striking, the number of states requiring districts to consider teacher evaluations in tenure decisions grew from 0 to 23 over that same period.
As a result of these initiatives and investments, teacher evaluation systems today are much stronger than they were before Obama took office. Teachers are evaluated more frequently, evaluators use higher-quality observation rubrics to assess their performance, and teachers receive more detailed feedback on their performance.
More states and districts now factor teacher effectiveness into decisions regarding promotion and compensation. There is evidence that these changes have had a positive effect on student learning—even if, in some cases, the changes were not implemented well. They shared smaller incentives among large numbers of teachers and principals rather than giving larger awards to the highest-achieving staff.
And they failed to communicate the program well to teachers and principals, leading to mass confusion about who was eligible for awards and how large the awards would be. It suggests that performance-based evaluation and compensation systems can drive improvements in student outcomes.
There were successes, but we can also learn from the weak spots.
- German kinship terms, 750-1500 : documentation and analysis.
- Decision Trees for Decision Making.
- Using Language: The Structures of Speech Acts;
- The SteelMaster of Indwallin (The Gods Within, Book 2).
- Students as Decision-Makers.
A Universal Approach. Here we find Lesson No. TIF districts voluntarily applied for additional support to pursue reform. They chose to participate, put together winning plans, and won five-year grants worth millions of dollars to implement them. And while the TIF competition had multiple components, it was entirely focused on evaluation and compensation systems. By contrast, under RTT, states were competing for a share of billions of dollars, and districts could opt to sign on, or not, to plans they did not themselves create.
The NCLB waiver initiative was even less targeted. That effort was similar to RTT in that it involved states making reforms across a number of areas, with evaluation systems being only one component. But it offered no new money to implement the changes. Perhaps most importantly, the waiver initiative put sometimes-reluctant state departments of education in the role of enforcing evaluation systems in local school districts that never agreed to them.
The prospect of flexibility from NCLB requirements may have succeeded in making states adopt evaluation reforms, but this approach left the federal government with few levers to make states implement them well. Rather than keeping its focus on competitive grant programs like RTT or TIF, the Obama administration sought to apply its ideas everywhere.
In the NCLB waiver program, all states, regardless of interest or capacity, were asked to tackle teacher evaluation systems—and to do so in all of their districts. A Narrow Definition of Reform. But by requiring that all teachers be evaluated in this way, we forced states and districts to come up with a suite of new pre- and post-test measures to track changes in student achievement over time.
We also left ourselves open to grossly misleading claims about our policies, such as the myth that we advocated evaluating teacher performance based on test scores alone. It would have been better to allow or even encourage states and districts to use any set of measures that came to broadly similar results.
This approach also would have addressed concerns that the state-created teacher evaluation systems locked in existing one-teacher-one-classroom staffing arrangements rather than allowing more flexible staffing models. Focusing on end results would also have allowed districts to spend their time developing and implementing high-quality observation and rating tools instead of developing new assessments to measure student growth. A back-end check that the evaluation results corresponded with evidence of impact on student achievement, where available, could have accomplished our purposes more effectively.
And it could have helped avoid widespread conflict about the precise weighting of student growth in teacher evaluation systems and the adoption of additional tests to measure student performance.
Focusing on the systems as a whole also would have encouraged districts to be more honest in their observation ratings rather than creating the incentive for subjective observation ratings to compensate for value-added results that, by definition, grade teachers on a curve. Thanks in part to those incentives, Brown University researcher Matthew Kraft found that the share of teachers receiving a less-than-satisfactory rating hardly budged in most states as the new systems were implemented See Figure 2. The notion of value added was itself both a strength and a liability.
But value-added scores can be complicated to interpret and, on their own, do not provide teachers with guidance on how to improve. Process over Purpose. This relates to Lesson No. The perceived complexities of evaluating teaching and, in particular, the mysterious-sounding nature of value-added models, captured much of the public conversation—and the time and efforts of state and district officials.
The push to revamp evaluation systems ended up focusing too much on the evaluation systems themselves, and never actually got around to using those systems to make decisions. When Obama took office, unhelpful evaluation systems were just one of several barriers preventing districts from effectively managing their teaching staffs, such as tenure rules and lockstep compensation systems based solely on seniority and graduate degrees.
Identify the problem
The administration made a conscious choice to focus on evaluations first, believing that employees need to be evaluated honestly before their performance can be used for consequential decisions. That premise may have been flawed from the outset. It is also possible that no amount of investment in new evaluation systems would ever make teachers comfortable with consequential decisions flowing from those systems. In , most states lacked basic data systems linking teachers to their students over time, and few had growth models in place that could be used to measure teacher performance.
Most districts were using simple checklists to assess teacher performance rather than the more sophisticated rubrics that can successfully differentiate instructional skills. Moreover, these systems had to be implemented by people , and there were very few people who had been trained in evaluating teachers and providing them actionable feedback on how to improve. As an administration, we asked the country to quickly move from evaluating almost no teachers seriously to suddenly evaluating all teachers in a brand-new, much more comprehensive way.
It was a case of too fast, too soon. An elementary school teacher burns his evaluation during a protest in front of the Albuquerque Public Schools headquarters in October Common Core Collision. As these new systems were coming online in and , many states and districts were also starting to implement the Common Core State Standards and related assessments.
Lesson No. Evaluation and Decision-Making - BrainMass. Evaluation and Decision Making - Jstor. Decision-making is an integral part of modern management. Decision Making process can be regarded as check and balance system that keeps the organisation growing both in vertical and linear directions This is the case with every decision taken to solve management and administrative problems in a business setting. Though the whole process. Administrative Decision Making. Organization manifests its influence through five mechanisms as identified by Simon. These are: Authority - It is defined as the decision making power which in turn guides the actions of other people.
This kind of relational transaction happens in case of a superior and a subordinate in the organization. Evaluation Models, Approaches, and Designs. The case method is a teaching approach that uses decision-forcing cases to put students in the role of people who were faced with difficult decisions at some point in the past.
It developed during the course of the twentieth-century from its origins in the casebook method of teaching law pioneered by Harvard legal scholar Christopher C.
In sharp contrast to many other teaching methods. Sion-making process in many developing countries. As the case studies in this booklet illustrate, they have not always exercised their respective influential posi - tion in the best possible way. This booklet should definitely interest planners, decision-makers but also those donors who want to see educational change taking.
Case Studies on Educational Administration. Third Edition.http://www.cantinesanpancrazio.it/components/maqenuwy/1281-recuperare-sms.php
Chapter 13 - Improving the organization and management of extension
In total, teachers and administrators from primary schools in Sakarya Province, Turkey,were surveyed. Evaluation in Decision Making : the case of school. A general theory of administration must include principles of organization that will insure correct decision making, just as it must include principles that will insure effective action. Herbert A.
Case Study Evaluation: This guide from the US General Accounting Office outlines good practice in case study evaluation and establishes a set of principles for applying case studies to evaluations. Balbach for California Department of Health Services offers guidance. Behind this the work of a celebrity of public administration was active and he was H. Contains numerous case studies that apply the book s concepts to relevant ethical issues faced by school administrators Reveals possibilities for thinking outside the box in terms of morally informed and effective leadership strategies aimed at securing.
There is increasing evidence that the school principal more than any other administrator makes a crucial difference in both the climate of the school and the effectiveness of instruction.
- Displaying Alternatives.
- Soccer (DK Eyewitness Books).
- The Kind of Motion We Call Heat: A History of the Kinetic Theory of Gases in the Nineteenth Century, Book 1: Physics and the Atomists.
- Evaluation in Decision Making: The Case of School Administration?
- Subconscious Mind Power Secrets: Become Better Developing Your Subconscious Mind Power: Subconscious Thought, Mind Power, Mind Control;
- Instability in Hamiltonian systems.
- Presidents in the Movies: American History and Politics on Screen (The Evolving American Presidency);
One of the key administrative skills is decision making. There seems to be a general need for the profession to have available more systematic.
Related Evaluation in Decision Making: The case of school administration
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved