IMPACT and compensation - does it really look like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teacher here.

My five IMPACT observation reports for this year are peppered with spelling, grammatical, and other errors, including a reference to "personal effect" instead of "affect". It's really laughable that administrators and so-called master educators who are so incompetent have the power to determine whether or not I keep my job.

Isn't the idea of master educators (called mentors in MoCo) to help teachers and make sure someone independent of your principal can give a second opinion? It seems implausible that their observations would determine your employment. It looks like it's in master educators' interest for you to do well for their own Impact eval. I'd be more worried about scores than typos.

[Anonymous]

DCPS teachers see master educators only during the twice yearly surprise visits. The observations are 30 minutes long and do not involve any discussion, prior or during. The master educator then brings the final evaluation to a 30 minute followup meeting where the teacher is handed a 5 page document to quickly read, digest and ask questions. You have to be quick to understand how and why you were scored in 9 different areas, ask questions, explain, negotiate, etc.

If you are lucky they give you helpful feedback. In the comments section they are supposed to say specifically why you got something wrong or right with recommendations on how to do it better. My comments sections were filled with copy and pasted edu-jargon from the IMPACT booklet, in all 9 areas. Every time. I could have looked in the book myself. This from a woman being paid a six figure salary.

Then they are done with you and move on quickly to the next teacher to evaluate. You don't see or hear from them again until the next surprise visit.

In MCPS teachers are assigned master educators who spend weeks in the classroom observing teachers, giving feedback, modeling, assisting with planning, etc. The teacher is coached and observed WITHOUT any penalties and is given time to get things right. If after the year is up and the teacher has still not improved they are encouraged to leave.

This is what's missing from IMPACT. I have no problem with evaluations. I welcome them if they are helpful and fair. And at the end of the year if I suck and they think I'm a lost cause I will leave.

This has been my experience. Perhaps I have been unlucky and there are a lot of teachers out there who have benefited from their M.E'.s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teachers see master educators only during the twice yearly surprise visits. The observations are 30 minutes long and do not involve any discussion, prior or during. The master educator then brings the final evaluation to a 30 minute followup meeting where the teacher is handed a 5 page document to quickly read, digest and ask questions. You have to be quick to understand how and why you were scored in 9 different areas, ask questions, explain, negotiate, etc.

If you are lucky they give you helpful feedback. In the comments section they are supposed to say specifically why you got something wrong or right with recommendations on how to do it better. My comments sections were filled with copy and pasted edu-jargon from the IMPACT booklet, in all 9 areas. Every time. I could have looked in the book myself. This from a woman being paid a six figure salary.

Then they are done with you and move on quickly to the next teacher to evaluate. You don't see or hear from them again until the next surprise visit.

In MCPS teachers are assigned master educators who spend weeks in the classroom observing teachers, giving feedback, modeling, assisting with planning, etc. The teacher is coached and observed WITHOUT any penalties and is given time to get things right. If after the year is up and the teacher has still not improved they are encouraged to leave.


Excellent explanation! I have scored high marks on IMPACT observations, but ME's really do not serve to help teachers to improve their practice much (not necessarily blaming the ME's, the system is more at fault). The ME's in MCPS job description sounds like DCPS instructional coaches. Unfortunately, many of the DCPS instructional coaches severely lack the training and knowledge to help support teachers, especially under-performing teachers.
This is what's missing from IMPACT. I have no problem with evaluations. I welcome them if they are helpful and fair. And at the end of the year if I suck and they think I'm a lost cause I will leave.

This has been my experience. Perhaps I have been unlucky and there are a lot of teachers out there who have benefited from their M.E'.s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teacher here.

My five IMPACT observation reports for this year are peppered with spelling, grammatical, and other errors, including a reference to "personal effect" instead of "affect". It's really laughable that administrators and so-called master educators who are so incompetent have the power to determine whether or not I keep my job.

Isn't the idea of master educators (called mentors in MoCo) to help teachers and make sure someone independent of your principal can give a second opinion? It seems implausible that their observations would determine your employment. It looks like it's in master educators' interest for you to do well for their own Impact eval. I'd be more worried about scores than typos.

IMPACTs purpose is to weed out crappy teachers, something that supposedly wasn't happening efficiently before IMPACT.

I haven't heard anything about how Master Educators are evaluated, but doubt it is related to their teachers' scores.

[Anonymous]

While it would be great if MEs were able to visit each teacher's classroom for much longer -- say a one-hour block six times a year -- that doesn't seem particularly cost-effective. It would mean the school system needs to hire six times as many MEs, which would mean less money for teacher salaries.

I know it's frustrating to be evaluated, and more frustrated to have your salary depend on the evaluation, but that's really an inevitable fact. The private sector does this all the time, and it's clear such management techniques are going to be applied to the public sector. So what's the best way to do it? It seems to me that a combination of ME evaluations plus statistics from standardized testing is a pretty reasonable way to go about it. But maybe someone else knows a better way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While it would be great if MEs were able to visit each teacher's classroom for much longer -- say a one-hour block six times a year -- that doesn't seem particularly cost-effective. It would mean the school system needs to hire six times as many MEs, which would mean less money for teacher salaries.

I know it's frustrating to be evaluated, and more frustrated to have your salary depend on the evaluation, but that's really an inevitable fact. The private sector does this all the time, and it's clear such management techniques are going to be applied to the public sector. So what's the best way to do it? It seems to me that a combination of ME evaluations plus statistics from standardized testing is a pretty reasonable way to go about it. But maybe someone else knows a better way.

Frankly, this post appears to be talking down to teachers, based on assumptions that may not reflect reality.

Rather than have MEs visit classrooms more frequently and for longer periods, it might be more cost effective to revamp the system.

This post assumes that teachers want to end the evaluations because of frustration with being evaluated, when teachers have said very clearly that it's the method and intent of evaluation that is frustrating -- and also not conducive to good teaching or learning.

This post presents salary-based evaluations as inevitable and presents the current system as reasonable, although there is no evidence that this enhances teaching.

[Anonymous]

"I haven't heard anything about how Master Educators are evaluated, but doubt it is related to their teachers' scores."


If the M.E.'s personal evaluations were related to improving the scores of the teachers they observe then you would see a significant effort on the part of the M.E. to give quality feedback and support to help teachers improve their craft. Their jobs would depend on it.

I don't know how the M.E.'s are evaluated but their supervisors do not ask for feedback from the teachers they service. They only see half the picture.

[Anonymous]

"Isn't the idea of master educators (called mentors in MoCo) to help teachers and make sure someone independent of your principal can give a second opinion? It seems implausible that their observations would determine your employment. It looks like it's in master educators' interest for you to do well for their own Impact eval."


It is a good idea to have someone independent of the principal and trained in the specific subject area making independent teacher observations. I don't know any teacher who doesn't welcome this. The problem occurs if the master educator is unprofessional, close-minded, subjective and has a chip-on-shoulder. It is not in their interest for teachers to perform well, for the scores of their teachers to improve over time. These scores as well as personal teacher feedback are not considered when it comes to their evaluations.

And yes, master educator scores can determine your employment if they lower your average from "effective" to "minimally effective."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it would be great if MEs were able to visit each teacher's classroom for much longer -- say a one-hour block six times a year -- that doesn't seem particularly cost-effective. It would mean the school system needs to hire six times as many MEs, which would mean less money for teacher salaries.

I know it's frustrating to be evaluated, and more frustrated to have your salary depend on the evaluation, but that's really an inevitable fact. The private sector does this all the time, and it's clear such management techniques are going to be applied to the public sector. So what's the best way to do it? It seems to me that a combination of ME evaluations plus statistics from standardized testing is a pretty reasonable way to go about it. But maybe someone else knows a better way.

Frankly, this post appears to be talking down to teachers, based on assumptions that may not reflect reality.

Rather than have MEs visit classrooms more frequently and for longer periods, it might be more cost effective to revamp the system.

This post assumes that teachers want to end the evaluations because of frustration with being evaluated, when teachers have said very clearly that it's the method and intent of evaluation that is frustrating -- and also not conducive to good teaching or learning.

This post presents salary-based evaluations as inevitable and presents the current system as reasonable, although there is no evidence that this enhances teaching.

It didn't sound like the PP was talking down to teachers. PP is pointing out that previous management techniques for teachers weren't based in reality. For years, if not decades, poorly performing teachers were protected by administrators, schools and unions. Rarely were teachers fired for being crappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Frankly, this post appears to be talking down to teachers, based on assumptions that may not reflect reality.

Rather than have MEs visit classrooms more frequently and for longer periods, it might be more cost effective to revamp the system.

This post assumes that teachers want to end the evaluations because of frustration with being evaluated, when teachers have said very clearly that it's the method and intent of evaluation that is frustrating -- and also not conducive to good teaching or learning.

This post presents salary-based evaluations as inevitable and presents the current system as reasonable, although there is no evidence that this enhances teaching.

It didn't sound like the PP was talking down to teachers. PP is pointing out that previous management techniques for teachers weren't based in reality. For years, if not decades, poorly performing teachers were protected by administrators, schools and unions. Rarely were teachers fired for being crappy.

It sounded that way to me. I certainly don't see where PP pointed out a previous lack of reality. I do see where PP made fait accompli statements as if those statements reflected reality and were not simply PPs opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS teacher here.

My five IMPACT observation reports for this year are peppered with spelling, grammatical, and other errors, including a reference to "personal effect" instead of "affect". It's really laughable that administrators and so-called master educators who are so incompetent have the power to determine whether or not I keep my job.

Isn't the idea of master educators (called mentors in MoCo) to help teachers and make sure someone independent of your principal can give a second opinion? It seems implausible that their observations would determine your employment. It looks like it's in master educators' interest for you to do well for their own Impact eval. I'd be more worried about scores than typos.

Wrong. MEs are not mentors. They are evaluators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it would be great if MEs were able to visit each teacher's classroom for much longer -- say a one-hour block six times a year -- that doesn't seem particularly cost-effective. It would mean the school system needs to hire six times as many MEs, which would mean less money for teacher salaries.

I know it's frustrating to be evaluated, and more frustrated to have your salary depend on the evaluation, but that's really an inevitable fact. The private sector does this all the time, and it's clear such management techniques are going to be applied to the public sector. So what's the best way to do it? It seems to me that a combination of ME evaluations plus statistics from standardized testing is a pretty reasonable way to go about it. But maybe someone else knows a better way.

Frankly, this post appears to be talking down to teachers, based on assumptions that may not reflect reality.

Rather than have MEs visit classrooms more frequently and for longer periods, it might be more cost effective to revamp the system.

This post assumes that teachers want to end the evaluations because of frustration with being evaluated, when teachers have said very clearly that it's the method and intent of evaluation that is frustrating -- and also not conducive to good teaching or learning.

This post presents salary-based evaluations as inevitable and presents the current system as reasonable, although there is no evidence that this enhances teaching.

It didn't sound like the PP was talking down to teachers. PP is pointing out that previous management techniques for teachers weren't based in reality. For years, if not decades, poorly performing teachers were protected by administrators, schools and unions. Rarely were teachers fired for being crappy.

you are verbally bankrupt, Miss Potty Mouth.

[Anonymous]

There should be a mentor assigned to a school or group of schools, who works with teachers all year in a supportive way. This should be fluid and flexible. The mentor visits should go towards feedback and recommendations for targeted training (instead of the District's One Size Fits All), not a 'grade' on which one's jobs depend. Principals should be able to direct this mentor to those who most need it, or even request it. Once or twice a year the principal should do an evaluation that determines employment eligibility (as in the past). If a person comes up low initially, they should work with the mentor for a few months. They should be able to request a third or fourth evaluation from the principal or independent evaluator. If they can get 'there', why not help them? Isn't the goal to develop and retain teachers? Why all the gotcha? Every teacher I know loves teaching because we still have more to learn. To turn that into a sin is inexcusable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should be a mentor assigned to a school or group of schools, who works with teachers all year in a supportive way. This should be fluid and flexible. The mentor visits should go towards feedback and recommendations for targeted training (instead of the District's One Size Fits All), not a 'grade' on which one's jobs depend. Principals should be able to direct this mentor to those who most need it, or even request it. Once or twice a year the principal should do an evaluation that determines employment eligibility (as in the past). If a person comes up low initially, they should work with the mentor for a few months. They should be able to request a third or fourth evaluation from the principal or independent evaluator. If they can get 'there', why not help them? Isn't the goal to develop and retain teachers? Why all the gotcha? Every teacher I know loves teaching because we still have more to learn. To turn that into a sin is inexcusable.

Almost every school does have a person who works in this way that you describe-they are called "Instructional Coaches"-and their impact scores are influenced by their teachers' impact/evaluation scores....it seems reasonable and necessary to have a principal in addition to an outside person evaluating the teacher based on classroom observations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it would be great if MEs were able to visit each teacher's classroom for much longer -- say a one-hour block six times a year -- that doesn't seem particularly cost-effective. It would mean the school system needs to hire six times as many MEs, which would mean less money for teacher salaries.

I know it's frustrating to be evaluated, and more frustrated to have your salary depend on the evaluation, but that's really an inevitable fact. The private sector does this all the time, and it's clear such management techniques are going to be applied to the public sector. So what's the best way to do it? It seems to me that a combination of ME evaluations plus statistics from standardized testing is a pretty reasonable way to go about it. But maybe someone else knows a better way.

Frankly, this post appears to be talking down to teachers, based on assumptions that may not reflect reality.

Rather than have MEs visit classrooms more frequently and for longer periods, it might be more cost effective to revamp the system.

This post assumes that teachers want to end the evaluations because of frustration with being evaluated, when teachers have said very clearly that it's the method and intent of evaluation that is frustrating -- and also not conducive to good teaching or learning.

This post presents salary-based evaluations as inevitable and presents the current system as reasonable, although there is no evidence that this enhances teaching.

It didn't sound like the PP was talking down to teachers. PP is pointing out that previous management techniques for teachers weren't based in reality. For years, if not decades, poorly performing teachers were protected by administrators, schools and unions. Rarely were teachers fired for being crappy.

I agree with this. For decades the WTU has been complicit in styming any kind of accountability. I think a certain amount of skepticism is in order when the first real reform in that time is met with opposition by folks who claim to JUST LOVE any kind of accountability---just not any accountability that is ever proposed. Once the perfect system is proposed, I'm sure *then* we'll all be in favor.

Oh, wait! Not *that* one either!