Anthony Cody notes a rift among allies. Mark NAISON wrote critically about PAR–Peer Assistance and Review.
Writing from his experience, Cody explains how PAR works.
The bottom line is this: If choosing how to be evaluated as a teacher, would you rather be evaluated by the rise or fall of test scores (VAM); by the principal, acting alone; or by a committee of peers and administrators whose first obligation is to help you?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There may be a number of ways that schools think best – and they might change over time and experience – for helping improve teaching and learning–and evaluating for high stakes purposes when needed. They may not be the same–high stakes vs “helping”. How to be a useful but critical ally is not easy and no one has “solved” it and no single method applied to all schools could do so.
p.s. Maybe It’s better than a worse method is an unfair judgement–what we end up having to choose among bad alternatives (or bad as we see them) is different than what we think might really achieve its purpose.
Deb
My experience is that PAR is not a bad alternative. It works here as Anthony described it working in Oakland. Our county may even be the one that came up with the idea of PAR in the first place. Have you seen any other methods that work well Deb?
Years ago at our school system, even before “A Nation at Risk”, our teachers set their own goals, set their own criteria for success, and evaluated themselves as to whether they had achieved their goal[s]. It did NOT affect their paycheck, only their own sense of pride in accomplishment. One teacher who did this when evaluated by North Central at the high school was told that his students showed skills and proficiencies far superior to anything seen in the state.
What a difference now when politicians who seek to make a name for themselves and/or are abysmally ignorant set goals which are ridiculous, teachers are evaluated on those goals and their tenure is affected by such nonsense.
The, to me, fascist, dictatorial et al ways of doing this are antithetical to that which we have been taught to believe in, the efficacy of democratic principles, working together to build good school systems etc.
How far we have fallen.
Any form of teacher evaluation can be perverted to suit the “reformers'” ends. Early on when I started reading this blog, I read a number of favorable opinions of Danielson’s system, yet look what a disaster that has turned out to be. I can easily see “Peer Review” being turned into some Orwellian/Soviet system of facing down a panel full of hostile “peer” teachers who have bought into the rephorminess.
I don’t think any one system of teacher evaluations should be promoted. Each school, or at least each district, should be free to develop its own system given the needs of the community and the kids they serve. And the fundamental principle of any such system should be that teachers are professionals who, having gained experience in the classroom and having earned credentials and maybe even “tenure” (due process), should be trusted to use the professionalism with the best interest of students and the community in mind.
I totally agree with the idea that any system, even a good one can be perverted and misused. The important question to answer in a case like the one Mr. Naison referred to is why, when PAR is working so well in many other places is it such a farce in LA?
The Peer Review and Assistance Plan for teacher evaluation is too sensible to meet federal requirements for teacher evaluations (NCLB, Teacher Incentive Fund, Race to the Top).
Below you can see the “agreement” trapping almost every teacher in Maryland into a different evaluation process marketed by the Boston-based Community Training and Assistance Center (CTAC)and a USDE funded “Reform Support Network.” . The system,now present in at least 26 states, requires meeting “Student Learning Objectives dubbed SLOs.
SLOs are a pseudo-scientific version of Peter Drucker’s management by objectives (MBO), vintage 1954. Most companies dropped MBO within two decades because it failed to honor front-line workers.
I have reviewed four USDE reports on this process, plus USDE’s marketing campaign forit, and the claims made in CTAC’s reports on projects in Denver, Charlotte-Mecklenberg and other districts.T here is no research that supports the use of this for teacher evaluation or as a scheme for improving student learning. There is no evidence of the reliability or validity of the process,
SLOs are designed to micromanage the work of teachers. The process traps them into a writing assignment with up to 26 criteria, a one-size-fits-all process that really is a matter of describing a one group pre-and post-test eexperiment. Here is the trap for Maryland teachers. Note who is setting it, who has agreed to, and the repeated use of rigor. USDE defines “rigor” as statistically rigorous.
On June 27, 2014 six major education agencies in the state of Maryland, including the Baltimore Teachers Union, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) endorsing the use of SLOs statewide (Maryland Public Schools, 2014).
“This Memorandum of Understanding codifies the commitments and partnership between the Maryland State Board of Education, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA), the Public School Superintendents Association of Maryland (PSSAM), the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE), the Maryland Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP), the Maryland Association of Elementary School Principals (MAESP) and the Baltimore Teachers Union.”
The aims include “the advancement of professional development, common language, streamlined communication and implementation strategies for Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) statewide and in each of the Local School Systems (LSSs).
The parties agree to the following statements:
1. The primary goal of evaluating teaching should be to improve effectiveness in the classroom, which will lead to student growth. “The SLO process is an important component of effective instruction,” When collaboratively developed and implemented appropriately, the use of rigorous objectives coupled with multiple strategies, measured by multiple assessments, leads to academic success and growth on the part of students.
2. The parties shall coordinate resources and strategies to assist educators in the development of rigorous and measurable, but obtainable SLOs.
3. The parties shall effectively assist teachers and principals in fully understanding, utilizing, and embracing SLOs, by focusing on professional development that, minimally: a) Identifies the key elements of a rigorous SLO, utilizing common definitions and content to develop consistency across LSSs; b) Assists in setting measurable and obtainable benchmarks; c) Recognizes progress/growth and effective strategies for achieving SLOs.”
Because my subject is going to SLOs this year, we are now required to have six periods of testing. My department also has to proctor the ACT Explore Test, which is an additional three days. We have a block schedule, so I see the kids for 90 periods in the year, meaning that standardized testing this year will account for TEN PERCENT of the time I spend with my students this year. How is that good for anyone?
Threatened,
How many days are taken up with tests that count for the class grade? I have been following the general advice about more frequent lower stakes exams in my classes, so I have many more days devoted to exams than the midterm final format of traditional classes.
From what I have been learning as I study the public education systems considered as some of the best in the world, PAR–Peer Assistance and Review, is what is in use in most if not all of those countries.
Per evaluation is certainly the norm in post secondary education, though I think there are some institutions that do not do evaluations that way. Of course post secondary education goes further in that the faculty has a voice in promotion and salary as well.
Peer review can be done badly or well, as comments above point out.
To all educators:
I hope that we agree on five solid levels in all fields regarding learning and teaching with a condition of conscience. There are:
1) Exceptional: innate talent + higher education + experience + unique style in learning or in teaching
2) Exemplary: higher education + experience + within guideline from authority.
3) Excellent: higher education with or without experience, or lots of experience without upgrading higher education + unique style in learning or in teaching.
4) Good: satisfy above all requirements from authority.
5) Average: satisfy all sufficient requirements from authority.
As a result, level 5 should not be in the committee of PAR to level 1. In other word, only the same level can validate each other as peer review with the true appreciation of others’ work without insult.
Public can recognize these levels distinctively through the success, background and manner of politicians, business tycoons, community leaders, public servants, and all students’ behaviors where and whom they are educated from.
We should review, re-examine, and critically analyze the cause which we, as educators, must suffer in the hand of communists, fascists, dictatorial et al ways of doing.
Bind faith and naive compassion without intelligence are the root of all EVILs.
In conclusion, if we, as educator, do not prepare well to train and cultivate young generation how to treasure and to fight for freedom of expression in writing and in speaking responsibly and conscientiously for humanity, then we fail our God-given mission. Back2basic.
I am not sure what role innate talent plays in teaching. I was viewed as artistic in my childhood years, but did not pursue the interest in a way that developed that talent. It takes the honing of skills through practice to develop “talent.” I feel the same way about having a unique “style” in learning or teaching. “Style” is developed over time. something in your experience has led you to this model, but my own experience makes it hard for me to see how this model would help me improve my teaching.
Hi 2old2teach:
I absolutely agree with you that experienced talent is acquired with the honing of skills through practice. However, innate talent is acquired with karma. Yes, in reality, we call this innate talent a different name like genius, prodigy…
The innate talent of a teacher will inspire audience (students and other educators) with admiration in order to follow the teaching path with a conviction in humanity.
In other word, there are many Zen Masters who follow Buddha’s footstep. However, the enlightenment is not for everyone to achieve in one current life!
My idea of these 5 levels is to bring attention to Peer Assessing Review plan in this thread. Honestly, I admire all excellent educators in this forum. However, I cannot find any practical solution to one solid problem: “educators are bullied by 1% Benchmark” after reading about Pearson, Bill gate, NCLB, Rttt…
It is confused, contradicted, and frustrated to acknowledge or to see that disciples control master, or business people control educators. How can we explain it? In short, we are 2naive2b-in-charge. Back2basic
I challenge you to find one genius, guru, prodigy who has not spent countless hours, days, weeks,… developing that talent further. I have no basis for this belief other than my own ruminations, but I would wager that there are many more exceedingly competent non-prodigies doing a better job at whatever they have devoted themselves to than the individual identified as a genius who took that designation as proof of their superiority and did not continue to develop their gifts the normal way, through hard work.