When the Ohio General Assembly finally adopted changes to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) through House Bill 362 last week, there was one positive remnant left from the original Senate Bill 229 introduced in late 2013 that does offer school districts some relief from the time-intensive process.  With the majority of teachers in in the state being expected to receive a rating of skilled or accomplished, and with those ratings being aligned with teachers who are effectively doing their jobs by demonstrating desired classroom practices and expected student growth (according to the legislators and Ohio Department of Education), schools will not be required by law to fully evaluate these teachers each and every year.

The new law reads as follows [emphasis added]:

Ohio Revised Code Section 3319.111

(2)(a) The board may evaluate each teacher who received a rating of accomplished on the teacher’s most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every three school years, so long as the teacher’s student academic growth measure, for the most recent school year for which data is available, is average or higher, as determined by the department of education.
(b) The board may evaluate each teacher who received a rating of skilled on the teacher’s most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every two years, so long as the teacher’s student academic growth measure, for the most recent school year for which data is available, is average or higher, as determined by the department of education.

(3) In any year that a teacher is not formally evaluated pursuant to division (C) of this section as a result of receiving a rating of accomplished or skilled on the teacher’s most recent evaluation, an individual qualified to evaluate a teacher under division (D) of this section shall conduct at least one observation of the teacher and hold at least one conference with the teacher.

If the school chooses to opt for this provision, instead of conducting multiple observations, walkthroughs, and conferences, the evaluator must still conduct at least one observation and hold at least one conference with the teacher.  The premise here is that those teachers should still be held accountable for maintaining their good teaching practices and monitoring them with an evaluator is the only way to do so.

I’ll put a positive spin on this and say that this type of interaction between a principal (evaluator) and teacher is the type of sound professional practice that good principals already engage in when they are given the freedom to act as the school’s instructional leader.  When you have a high-quality principal in a school who works collaboratively with teachers by engaging in professional dialogue about the best practices that are contained within the OTES rubric, teachers can receive constructive feedback and principals can identify areas in which they need to provide improved support for the teachers under their care.

Additionally, by removing the mandate to evaluate these high-quality educators each and every year, principals now have some added freedom to work more intensively with teachers who may be struggling in one or more areas.  The key to this entire process is how the individuals involved react to this opportunity.  Principals must utilize the information gathered from the observations and conferences to help connect teachers with resources, especially the human capital within their buildings, in order to promote and encourage professional growth and improvement.  Again, this is what high-quality principals have been doing for years and OTES can be a model to guide schools and principals to function in this improvement model.

From a pessimistic, and in many cases a realistic, viewpoint, the OTES system is being used as a way to label teachers with the goal of ousting those who may struggle in their current assignment.  Not only is this goal lazy on its face, but very concept of firing these teachers outright contradicts the entire foundations of our educational system.

Think about it — how do we react when students are struggling with mastering skills or concepts?  We often go above and beyond to provide additional support for those children, frequently capitalizing on the strengths of other students to provide peer support, but most often identifying additional services and interventions to guide the students toward mastery.  Nothing is more evident of this than Ohio’s Third Grade Reading Guarantee law.  While we have lambasted the law’s mandatory retention component as exacerbating the long-term success of these students, the other pieces of the law distinctly try to focus on catching struggling students early on in and providing increased interventions and support.  We don’t simply identify a student who is “below grade level” in reading in first grade, label them as unsuccessful, then kick them out, do we?  Of course not, we seek to help them improve!

In this same manner, principals and teachers need to be allowed to use the OTES, still in its infancy, to help one another improve their professional practices.  Let’s be clear — OTES is not simply a means of directly improving teachers’ practices, it is also a tool that principals need to embrace as a way to improve their role as instructional leaders.  Too many people simply assume that gaining the title of principal automatically makes that individual master of all in their domain.  However, those in the field of education know that nothing could be further from the truth.

The vast majority of criticisms of schools these days are targeted at teachers and teaching practices, and the legislative talking points about OTES are centered on identifying “bad” teachers and getting them out of our schools.  But a “funny” thing has happened along the way – OTES has exposed the fact that principals aren’t infallible either, and many don’t know how to identify good teaching practices or how to provide solid instructional support that promotes professional growth by their teachers.

So again, capitalizing on this rare moment of optimism that I’m having, and looking for a way for educators to regain control of our profession, I must encourage principals and teachers to “modernize” their professional practices and forget the traditional view of schools where the principal is “the boss” and teachers are silent followers of the boss’s rules.  Instead, for the sake of our collective profession, principals and teachers must be willing to let down their guard and take a deeper look at the research-based OTES rubric that is at the heart of the observation/conference process.  Principals need to be willing to admit that they don’t know everything, let go of personal opinions about what always worked for them “when I was a teacher”, and truly follow the evidence-based rubric to drive their evaluation process.  In the same way, teachers need to understand that principals aren’t omnipotent.  Teachers must also be willing to advocate for themselves and their classroom practices, speak to principals about what support is needed, and be willing to accept help from not only the principal, but their peer teachers.

In the end, education is a profession that has strong communication and strong relationships at its foundation.  From a union standpoint, we’ve often been focused on an “us vs. them” mentality when describing the relationship between teachers and administrators.  Now, with the implementation of OTES, both principals and teachers have been unwillingly thrown into this process together and both sides need to understand and accept that we are not perfect.  Maybe, just maybe, by working together, principals and teachers can work to change the stereotypical adversarial relationship between them and focus on using this law that has been imposed upon us for our collective benefit.

Legislators wanted to use this law to fire educators.  What if we hijacked it and actually used it to our benefit?  We can only do so if principals and teachers are willing to engage in professional dialogue and begin to see themselves as co-educators and not as bosses and employees.

Can we do it?  Can we — districts, schools, principals, and teachers — take over OTES and take back control of our profession?

Evangelize!
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
 
  • Kathy Fleischmann Stemmer

    Sounds good but my district OTES team decided not to pursue the alternative framework blah blah blah

  • BK

    Greg,
    I’m solidly with you on 90% of what you write, but I’ve been nit-picky with your last two. I think you’re far to accepting of the OTES rubric. I realize that part of it is probably because of your strong opposition to the student growth portion of the evaluations (which I somewhat to mostly agree with you about), forcing you to support what you see as the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, using that rubric as the basis for evaluations is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, the same rubric is used to evaluate a kindergarten teacher, a middle school music teacher, and a high school Advanced Placement history teacher. That doesn’t pass the sniff test. Second, the rubric overemphasizes differentiation and learning styles. While some research supports these ideas, much recent scholarship does not. Having so much of the rubric based on practices that aren’t fully supported by research is troublesome to say the least.

  • gregmild

    You make some fair points and that’s better than the way I normally piss people off. :)

    There are some fair criticisms of trying to apply the same rubric to all grades and all subjects, but I think that emboldens the importance of clear and frequent communication between the evaluator and the teacher. The principal/evaluator should be asking sincere questions of the teacher about their class, content, etc., and the teacher should be encouraged and allowed to provide thoughtful responses. Too often principals make grand assumptions and teachers are immediately put on the defensive. It’s this type of traditional principal-teacher relationship that needs to change, regardless of what type of evaluation system is put in place if it is truly intended to promote an improvement in professional practice. Principals and teachers both have to be willing to communicate openly and honestly without threats or fear of reprisal one way or the other.

    From a teacher’s perspective, this is certainly easier to do with a principal or supervisor who establishes an open, supportive working climate. Seems like those principals are always the ones teachers gravitate to already…..

  • gregmild

    Additionally, please ALWAYS feel free to offer your thoughtful comments and criticisms here. I feel like we need a “safe” place to hash out our collective ideas and learn from each other and this is a place where that can occur. I’m constantly learning from teachers’ personal experiences throughout Ohio and elsewhere and definitely need to be challenged. My last two posts have definitely been more “philosophical” in nature and I guess I’m trying to think more about ways we can take the existing systems and turn them around for our benefit.

    I did have two other thoughts that I left out of the full post. First, it directly benefits principals to help their teaching staff improve as their evaluations under OPES are impacted by the performance of their teachers.

    Secondly, I had a much more subversive thought I that would essentially undermine the OTES process. If principals rated every teacher as skilled or accomplished (remembering that the final rating is based on their overall impression of the full year of observations, conferences, etc.), then no teacher would ever be rated below “developing”, and an even greater percentage would end up with one of the two higher ratings. This would be disingenuous, of course, but would certainly disrupt the legislature’s plans…. Just sayin’…

  • Think.

    Greg’s second idea would be no more disingenuous than the laws being passed by the Ohio Legislature under the guise of “school reform.” It’s about time that educators undermine the OTES farce.

  • wetsu

    Greg-
    You are using your typical sound reasoning in approaching this situation, but, there is a facet of the evaluation process that, if accurate, throws a monkey wrench into your proposal. A friend of mine is an elementary principal that explained the OTES process to me and one thing that stuck out was a statement by ODE that if a building had more than 10% of the staff identified as accomplished the evaluator (principal) could be relieved of their evaluator duties. Perhaps I am mistaken on the target percentage, but, it appears as though ODE has taken the possibility of large-scale high ratings for teachers into account. How they came about arriving at the percentage beyond some capricious means is anyone’s guess, but, I made a mental note at the time of that caveat. How reliable my mental notes are can certainly be called into question, however.

  • Stef

    I believe the 10% comes from the corporate world. A similar evaluation system was used at Microsoft. Less than 10% of those evaluated can fall into the highest and lowest categories. This evaluation system is no longer used at Microsoft as it did not promote a positive work environment or better quality work.

  • gregmild

    The 10% figure is not published anywhere.

  • wetsu

    I will try to talk with my buddy and see if I can firm up that 10% claim. You are always well prepared and I have no desire to spread misinformation.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!