While the final verdict is still out, it appears Connecticut educators are getting some value from the state’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED). That’s what UConn Neag School of Education researchers found in the second phase of their study of the state’s new educator evaluation system, which they shared with the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) yesterday.
The researchers surveyed and interviewed teachers from January to mid-April in 27 schools that participated in the SEED pilot.
- 63% indicated that the time spent being observed under SEED was valuable,
- 61% said that the goal-setting discussion with their evaluator was valuable,
- 58% found that talking about practice with their evaluator before observations was valuable, and
- 70% thought that talking about practice with their evaluator after observations was valuable.
Fifty-six percent of the educators agreed or strongly agreed that they understood and felt comfortable with SEED procedures — a big improvement over researchers’ findings in the first round of their study last fall.
“When SEED was implemented well — by that we mean it was implemented with fidelity to the model — there were some positive results,” said UConn Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership Morgaen Donaldson. “But at the same time, we found that the predominate theme was a focus on compliance rather than really getting the most out of SEED to improve practice.”
Educators’ comments about mid-year check-ins indicated they often had a technical and procedural focus rather than being used as an opportunity to sit down and re-evaluate goals and make changes as necessary, according to Donaldson. She said that most often check-ins didn’t result in revised Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and that some teachers reported not knowing that they could adjust their SLOs if that was warranted.
Donaldson said that most observation debriefs occurred relatively late after the observation and were somewhat perfunctory. “Some conversations were not really conversations,” she said. “They were more an email exchange or just a My Learning Plan [the evaluation data management system used during the pilot] exchange. Almost no teachers said they received specific recommendations or professional growth opportunities during debriefs.”
The administrators surveyed indicated they thought SEED has potential, but that scheduling and completing observations is challenging, and reporting requirements are cumbersome.
The researchers’ recommendations to PEAC after the second phase of the study are as follows:
- Offer professional development to administrators and teachers specific to each phase of implementation
- Bolster professional development focused on coaching aspects of SEED (i.e. mid-year check-ins, debriefs, feedback)
- Publicize and promote the complementary observer role
- Streamline paperwork/reporting requirements
- Better align administrator and teacher evaluation
“I think this reemphasizes what we’ve heard before about the necessity of flexibility as we move forward,” CEA Executive Director Mark Waxenberg told the UConn researchers. “I think your final recommendations will reinforce the essential need for change, whether it be within the guidelines or within SEED. When we have the opportunity to make those changes next year, I think it will lessen anxiety and move us from the concentration on implementation that you mentioned to more focus on learning in the classroom.”
The UConn researchers released findings from the first phase of their study in February. They have just finished the third round of data collection and plan to schedule another meeting to share this data with PEAC before the release of the final report. The final report must be submitted to the State Board of Education by January 1, 2014.