Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, we all agree that the basic concept of assessment of teachers is valid and useful, even if specific implementations like IMPACT are bad.

So, if IMPACT is bad, what kind of assessment does it get replaced with?

Well, the time-honored way is to ask your boss if he thinks you're doing a good job. If your boss is being held accountable to produce results, he has a strong incentive to have a staff that produces. Evaluations are a tool for him keeping his staff productive. That's basically how functional organizations operate.

IMPACT is as much about not trusting principals as it is about not trusting teachers.

Disagree. The "time-honored" way is a relic, no longer useful or relevant.

In the real world, f you're doing a poor job, you'll know - you won't need a review. If you're doing a job anywhere on the scale from competent to outstanding, your boss may go to bat for you. Guess what - all the other managers are doing the same thing. The informed/professional HR trend is to hold "calibration sessions" so that all managers can match their assessed employees against a mutually-agreed-upon standard. The one thing IMPACT seems to have going for it was the broad standard, however among its many flaws was a failure to calibrate the effort teachers may have in different environments.