It's not that the standard lacks value as a broad guideline, but they are often worded so that the interpretation of the standard can be so broad to lack any form of reliability -- or that the standard/indicator points at some internal value such as 'caring' for the students or 'believing' in the students.
An example from Danielson's latest version of Framework for Teaching: "Teacher's plans and practice reflect accurate understanding of prerequisite relationships among topics and concepts." What would one observe, in print or in a live situation, that would serve as evidence that the teacher understood a prerequisite relationship? And what knowledge and skills would the observer need to adequately judge this indicator for a variety of content areas? Nonetheless, I am sure that there are many evaluation sheets being checked on the basis of 'a feeling' or a vague interpretation of this language. No wonder 40% of teachers view observations as a formality.
The solution is not to rely (solely) on eCOVE to identify ways to gather data that might be conceived as supporting this indicator, but to REVISE the standards language. In fact, I'm setting a high priority for myself and eCOVE to create a set of standards that have observable behavior indicators attached. If you'd like to help, let me know. Stop by the website - www.ecove.net - and email or call me. If you have a set of standards that have been revised and have observable indicators, PLEASE contact me -- you'll be doing the profession a big service.
If we can't identify the evidence that would support the achievement of a standard, then the standard is useless at best, and frequently dangerous and misleading. When the standard lacks the possibility of a clear line of evidence, it can be interpreted and applied by each observer - and thus is no standard at all.
1 comment:
Bravo!
Save a tree. Learn online.
Post a Comment