Kim Marshall’s (2009) Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation
Begin with the idea of conceptualizing a new model for teacher supervision and evaluation that re-prioritizes the standard teacher evaluation write-up required in districts. Consider these quotes provided by Marshall to illustrate the point:
Evaluation has become a polite, if near-meaningless matter between a beleaguered principal and a nervous teacher. Research has finally told us what many of us suspected all along: that conventional evaluation, the kind the overwhelming majority of American teachers undergo, does not have any measurable impact on the quality of student learning. In most cases, it is a waste of time.
Mike Schmoker, 1992
Except for a few instances, the traditional evaluation process is exhausting and fruitless.
Kathleen Elvin, Brooklyn principal, 2008
Principal evaluation of teachers is a low-leverage strategy for improving schools, particularly in terms of the time it requires of principals.
Richard DuFour & Robert Marzano, 2009
Consider using the traditional evaluation only for teachers earning an Unsatisfactory and instead use Marshall’s four-part model that centers on Mini-Observations.
A comprehensive version of Marshall’s argument: TheMainIdea.net Summary
Two short versions of Marshall’s argument: Boston Globe 2011 Article or EdWeek Article
A slightly longer version of Marshall’s argument with Rubrics: Teacher Evaluation Rubrics
A longer version of Marshall’s argument via a recent presentation for the Aspiring Superintendents Work Conference at Teachers College, Columbia: Keynote Slides
