The Principals’ Corner: 

As indicated earlier in this series, it was necessary for us to work with the teachers’ federation to determine if they were accepting of our use of secondary department heads, who were members of the federation, in the process of assessing teachers.  We were fortunate enough to negotiate with them informally a protocol that was acceptable to the teachers, the department heads, the administration and the federation. This was the protocol.

All teachers would be visited by their department heads at least once a year for a formal observation followed by a debriefing and written report to the teacher.  The observation and debriefing were to be based upon the teaching model that the committee had designed and the Heads’ Council had approved.  Once the debriefing was completed, all documentation that was used in the process was to be held by the head and the teacher at their discretion but no copies were to be given to, or asked for by, the principal or vice principal.  All that was mandated in this regard was that the department head be asked if all teachers in the department had been visited annually, a debriefing had taken place and the participants had a written record which was not to be made available to the principal.  This was called the “supervision phase.”  It was meant to be a “dry run” for the formal observations that were to be undertaken by the principal and vice-principal as part of the district-mandated three-year appraisal cycle.  That cycle was called “the evaluation phrase.”

Underlying the use of the department head was the belief that a department head is obviously much closer to the reality of a teacher in his/her subject area or division than a principal or vice-principal who might have taught a totally different subject (i.e. the teacher teaches Physics; the principal had been an English teacher).  It also gave the department head who might be interested in becoming a principal or vice-principal valuable experience in one of the main duties associated with the latter two positions.

To assist the department heads in this duty, we sponsored a school-based training program for the whole staff on the teaching model.   We also sponsored a special program for department heads on the model and on best practices in supervising staff – including sessions on classroom observation, scripting, writing a supervision report and carrying out a debriefing.

As per the district mandate, a formal evaluation report on each teacher was required by the district every three years.  This was the convention we followed to meet that requirement:

• In the scheduled year of evaluation, each teacher was visited three times – either two by the principal and one by the vice-principal or the reverse (along with the annual visit of the department head.)
• Each lesson would be scripted and followed by a debriefing by the observer.
• At the end of the debriefing, the script of the lesson was given to the teacher with a copy for the teacher’s file.

This meant that, in a three-year cycle, each teacher was visited by the department head three times and by the principal and vice-principal three times for a total of six observations over three years.  That enabled the principal and vice-principal to collect very comprehensive data on in-class performance which we have labeled “instruction” in our model.

There were other dimensions to this process:

1. By having the heads involved annually, it put teachers more at ease with having another adult in their classrooms for assessment purposes.
2. By insisting that the observations be done in the evaluation phase by both the principal and vice-principal, there was both the appearance of, and actuality of, objectivity. The lessons were assessed by more than one observer purely to avoid bias.
3. The existence of the model and the training of staff resulted in the development of “a language of instruction” that was common to all. Without planning in this regard, it resulted in a more knowledgeable staff who were prepared to, and did, discuss effective instruction using a common vocabulary. This was an unseen benefit that proved very useful.
4. And one more addition! Respecting differences in staff perceptions and preferences, the decision was made to give staff an option pertaining to the visits.  Staff could choose to be told which lessons were to be evaluated by the principal or vice-principal or they could choose to be visited without prior notice.  The choice was theirs.  What we did point out was that it seemed prior notice would be more advantageous for the teacher since it would be preceded by a one-page information sheet asking the teacher in advance about the objectives to be addressed, the nature of the class, what had gone on in the class in the days before the visit and what was planned for the days after the visit.  In other words, a teacher selecting this option played a more active role in “situating the lesson in a context” for the observer – but again, the choice was up to the teacher.

So, we were almost there.  But we still had to look at how to gather that information on the two other parts of teaching – planning and student evaluation.  We’ll look at these in two entries in 2022! (Next Friday being December 24, and the one after being New Year’s Eve, we think you might have other things on your mind than reading a professional blog!)

In the meantime, enjoy a well-earned break.  May next year give you all your wishes, most of all, good health.  Best of the holiday season to all our readers.

Dr. Dan

Check out our Education Services under Individual Coaching and Contracted Services.  There’s a wide range of Teacher Appraisal topics including: Writing Effective Performance Appraisals; Conducting Effective Evaluation Conferences with Teachers; Having Hard Conversations; and more.