Many but not all public schools in the state of Alaska use iobservation as their teacher
evaluation system.
Here is the link to the teacher evaluation system my district uses:
https://www.iobservation.com
The state of Alaska administrator evaluation system is outlined on the State of Alaska
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development's website:
https://education.alaska.gov/akaccountability/educator/resources_sd
I have experience using the iobservation tool as an educator but I was not aware the the
administrators were not evaluated using the same system. This is the first time I
investigated this. There were certainly more differences than similarities; I am bit
surprised.
Similarities: Outside of the obvious, both observation systems evaluate school
employees and schools. Both evaluation systems use self assessments as a tool
however only the teachers are able to set growth plans. Both evaluation systems use
the data to improve teacher performance and student achievement and they both collect
qualitative and quantitative data. Neither assessments are made public, however I did
notice that the superintendents evaluation and rating was made public by the school
board.
Differences: The teacher evaluation system connects teacher learning to student
learning, where the administrator evaluation measures proficiency and growth within the
school and staff. The iobservation tool uses real time data to evaluate teachers during
walkthroughs but the administer evaluation takes the entire year as a whole into
consideration and there is a survey feature for parents and students for the
administrators. I also noticed that the superintendents evaluation had surveys
connected to it. Teachers are evaluated on a scale of highly effective, effective,
developing and unsatisfactory but the administrator scale is high proficiency, average
proficiency, low proficiency and high growth, average growth and low growth, all based
on the state average. I also noticed that the teachers had a "special growth plan" for
those who did not score within the highly effective or effective rank. I could not find if the
administrators also had that. The iobservation tool allows teachers to create their own
professional growth plan but I do not see anywhere where the administrators are able to
self reflect and choose what they would like to improve on. Teachers are evaluated on
slightly over 40 key elements but the administrators had nearly 60.
Overall the teacher evaluation system seeks to:
improve both teacher performance and scholar achievement
use quantitative student performance data; and
designate teachers as “highly effective,” “effective,” “developing,” or “ineffective.”
And the administrator evaluation system adds one additional category and uses
different terms:
improve both teacher performance and scholar achievement
use quantitative student performance data; and
designate administrators as" high proficiency/high growth", "average
proficiency/average growth", and "low proficiency/low growth"
evaluate administrator performance, including the data used in the evaluation
and the formula used for the final classifications
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
