Division of labor

When we divided up the evaluation of teachers, I decided to give 20 teachers to each AP and take 40 on my own. My reasoning was that I didn’t want the evaluation process to compromise the safety and security of the building. My 40 teachers are grouped in the math, social studies, fine arts and world language departments. One of the problems with this process is that I now never end up in any other department since I am focused on completing my observations in the departments for which I am responsible. So while I’m having some nice conversations with the teachers I’m evaluating I’m not really talking to the other 70 teachers in the building about what I am observing in the classroom. To be fair, it’s not a fair assumption to say I’d have been having those conversations with all of those teachers before this system but there is a disconnect with those departments that I’m not evaluating.

Writing up the observation

I’ve chosen to provide a narrative for each observation I do, listing the competencies that each paragraph addresses on the RIDE template. Then I paste each paragraph into the document for each competency. It’s somewhat of a messy process but I’m trying to steer the conversations away from the form and towards what is happening in the class meaning the narrative. Still, the conversation always comes back to the boxes because the more evidence that comes from the observation means less evidence that teachers have to produce on their own. While this process is about what’s happening in the classroom its also about making sure the boxes get filled in. When I complete my observations I email it as a draft to the teachers and then when we meet we talk about the class and I ask them to review the RIDE form to see if they think there might have been a box where I could have provided some evidence. How much of something do I need to see in order to note it in the box is one of the struggles I’m having.