Step 1: Determine what's important to us:
4 Domains -
Classroom Organization
Instructional Planning
Instructional Delivery
Professionalism
Then, list category headings under each with further breakdowns and descriptors.
Classroom Organization
Instructional Planning
Instructional Delivery
Professionalism
Then, list category headings under each with further breakdowns and descriptors.
Step 2: Determine what sources to draw from to inform:
Alaska Teacher Standards (currently the basis of our evaluation instrument and required alignment under new regs).
Alaska Cultural Standards (required alignment under the new regs)
Danielson Framework (one of the State approved models)
Marzano Teacher Evaluation Framework (one of the State approved models)
CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric - Washington (one of the State approved models)
California Professional Teaching Standards (used with new teachers across the state by Alaska Mentor Project)
Alaska Cultural Standards (required alignment under the new regs)
Danielson Framework (one of the State approved models)
Marzano Teacher Evaluation Framework (one of the State approved models)
CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric - Washington (one of the State approved models)
California Professional Teaching Standards (used with new teachers across the state by Alaska Mentor Project)
Step 3: Align sources from step 2 with our determined domains and supporting categories
1. Classroom Organization alignments
2. Instructional Planning alignments
3. Instructional Delivery alignments
4. Professionalism alignments
2. Instructional Planning alignments
3. Instructional Delivery alignments
4. Professionalism alignments
Step 4: Begin the Editing Process
Over the winter of 2014/2015, these alignments were edited and revised multiple times to eliminate duplication, combine like areas, clean up language, fill in gaps, and re-structure supporting categories where necessary.
The documents went back and forth between committee members multiple times, with the goal of keeping the instrument relevant and streamlined.
At one point, due to committee feedback, the decision was made to combine the domains of Instructional Planning and Instructional Delivery, due to the very real difficulty of distinguishing definitively between the two during the observation process. For teachers, planning and instruction are so closely intertwined, that they are all part of the same process, and it seems makes more sense to evaluate them together.
The documents went back and forth between committee members multiple times, with the goal of keeping the instrument relevant and streamlined.
At one point, due to committee feedback, the decision was made to combine the domains of Instructional Planning and Instructional Delivery, due to the very real difficulty of distinguishing definitively between the two during the observation process. For teachers, planning and instruction are so closely intertwined, that they are all part of the same process, and it seems makes more sense to evaluate them together.
Step 5: Whole staff feedback to edit elements within the three domains
In April of 2015, AGSD held a combined site inservice at Tok School for the sole purpose of staff input and editing to the evaluation tool. All teachers and administrators were given access to the working draft of the tool and spent the day in discussion groups and at the computer inputting questions, concerns, and providing editing and feedback to each element within the tool.
Step 6: Committee applies staff recommendations
In June of 2015, members of the evaluation committee met and reviewed the feedback, questions and editing input by the whole staff during the April inservice. The committee spent 10 days applying the feedback and editing to a new working draft of the evaluation tool. This was the tool that was planned for the pilot implementation in fall of 2015.
Step 7: Classbright begins to digitize the pilot version
After the members of the evaluation committee had revised the tool based on the staff input, the draft was submitted to Classbright so that they could begin to devise a digitized version. The school year began with administrators working temporarily with paper versions until the electronic version was ready to roll out. At a fall inservice in October of 2015, the beginnings of the electronic version were presented to AGSD teachers and administrators. All staff received logins, administrators were shown how to enter observations, snippets, and evaluation data, and teachers were shown how to view their observations and evaluations.