fea survey about fcps’ teacher performance evaluation ... · fcps purchased the tpep system from...

FEA Survey about FCPS’ Teacher Performance Evaluation Program (TPEP)

June 2016

2

Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction and background ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Respondent demographics ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Respondents’ experience with summative TPEP evaluations ................................................................................................ 5

SMARTR goals ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Student surveys ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Observations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7

TPEP time requirements ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Self-Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

SMARTR goals ................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Document log .................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Structured interview ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Other TPEP activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Respondents’ attitude toward TPEP ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Comments ............................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

FCPS and FEA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Virginia Department of Education and VEA ...................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix: Respondents’ comments: selected responses .................................................................................................... 20

3

Executive summary Since the 2012 adoption of the Teacher Performance Evaluation Program (TPEP) used to evaluate teacher scale

employees, the Fairfax Education Association has heard from many members about problems with it. We conducted a

survey of members in May, 2016 in an effort to learn about our members’ experience with TPEP, how successful it has

been, and whether any revisions to the system are indicated.

We found that the system is complex and time-consuming, both for educators being evaluated and for the

administrators who have to do the evaluations.

The mean amount of time that it took a respondent to complete the activities for a summative evaluation was

24.1 hours; the median was 15.8 hours.

Compared to the previous evaluation system (which took 2-3 hours), it adds approximately two days of work to

an educator’s workload.

The additional time demands on administrators are likely responsible for failures in making enough observations,

observing complete lessons, and giving educators useful feedback:

The TPEP manual requires two observation data points; 14% of summative evaluations did not meet the

requirement.

52% report that they did not have a formal observation that lasted an entire lesson.

44.4% of teachers reported having formal observation of non-instructional activities.

Only 45% report receiving observation feedback that includes specific and useful suggestions or guidance for

improvement.

The system is not regarded as useful, worth the time spent, or reliable.

Only 28.8% agree that TPEP provides useful feedback.

Only 16% agree that time spent on TPEP is time well spent.

Only 19.9% agree that TPEP has inter-rater reliability, and that outcomes are independent of who their evaluator

is.

FEA recommends that FCPS reconvene the Evaluation Taskforce to revise the TPEP system to reduce the complexity and

time required. We recommend that the VA Department of Education revise the Guidelines for Uniform Performance

Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals and Superintendents to allow further simplification of

evaluations and to eliminate or greatly reduce the reliance on Value Added Measures of student progress such as FCPS’

SMARTR goals.

Introduction and background The Code of Virginia (§ 22.1-253.13:5 B.) mandates evaluations for educators “consistent with the Guidelines for

Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals and Superintendents” (hereafter the

Guidelines) which is promulgated by the Virginia Board of Education. The Code also requires that “evaluations shall

include student academic progress as a significant component”, known as a Value Added Measure (VAM), which was

added to the law to comply with eligibility requirements for a federal Race to the Top (RTTP) grant (which Virginia did

not ultimately receive).

The Code (§ 22.1 295. C.) requires that teachers with continuing contract status have formal (known as “summative” in

FCPS) evaluation every three years (or more frequently if deemed necessary by the principal), and informal evaluations

(known as “formative” in FCPS) in the other years. Provisional educators are evaluated formally every year until they

achieve continuing contract status.

4

The latest revisions to the Guidelines became effective July 1, 2012. The seven Performance Standards found in the

current TPEP system are mandated by the current Guidelines.

In 2011-12, FCPS convened a Teacher Evaluation Task Force to draft recommendations for a new evaluation tool that

complied with the revised Guidelines. FEA members on the Task Force argued that Standard 7: Academic Performance

should be weighted equally with the other six Standards, or at most at 20% of the total evaluation points. The VA

Department of Education required a 40% weight.

FCPS purchased the TPEP system from James H. Stronge, the author of the Guidelines. It has not been significantly

revised since it was adopted in 2012.

The Fairfax Education Association (FEA) has lobbied FCPS over the years since the introduction of TPEP, asking that FCPS

study the validity and reliability of the new evaluation system. We have been especially concerned with inter-rater

reliability, which is the degree to who which an evaluation rating is independent of the person doing the evaluation. No

such study has been undertaken.

Respondent demographics A total of 426 people responded to the survey. Six respondents identified themselves as administrators. They were not

asked about their experience with being evaluated with TPEP, but were asked about their thoughts about TPEP and

invited to make comments.

We asked respondents about the type of work they do in order to parse the data appropriately (see below). “Other

employee evaluated with TPEP” includes counselors, librarians, psychologists, etc.

ES, 54.8%

HS, 28.0%

MS, 13.9%

Other, 3.3%

Respondents by level

5

Respondents’ experience with summative TPEP evaluations The survey asked several questions about how various parts of the TPEP process played out in the respondents’ most

recent summative evaluations.

SMARTR goals According to the TPEP manual,

Goal setting begins with identifying where students are in relation to what is expected of them. Then, in

collaboration with their evaluator, teachers set specific, measurable goals based on both the demands of

curriculum and the needs of the students. (emphasis added)

Over the past few years, FEA has heard complaints from members that administrators had dictated goals, and that the

development of goals had not been collaborative. While this would seem to violate the procedure set forth in the

Manual, when FEA contacted HR about this problem, we were told that principals were free to require goals, even if

they were not reasonable or attainable.

We wanted to quantify this problem, so we asked how goals are set:

Administrator, 1.4%

Other employee evaluated with

TPEP, 11.8%

SBTS, 2.1%

Teacher, 84.7%

Respondents by job type

6

18.1% of respondents reported that goals are primarily the work of administrators, and fully 7.7% (1 out of 13) indicated

that administrators are fully setting the goals.

We also found that 29.6% of teachers get little or no input from administrators. Adding those whose goals were set by

administrators alone and those set by teachers alone, it seems that 36.3% of goals are being set without significant

collaboration between teacher and administrator.

Student surveys Student surveys can be used as a data source by middle and high school teachers; they can be used voluntarily or

required by the evaluator. We asked MS and HS teachers about their use of student surveys, and found that 71% do not

use surveys. Of those using surveys, the majority do so voluntarily.

Decided by me or my team with little/no

input from administrators, 29.6%

Decided by me or my team with some input from administrators, 53.3%

Decided by administrators

with some input from me or my

team, 9.4%

Decided by administrators with little/no

input from me or my team,

7.7%

Determination of SMARTR goals

Voluntarily used a student survey

18%

Required to use a student survey

11%

Did not use student surveys

71%

MS and HS teachers' use of student surveys

7

Observations We asked several questions about observations. To measure the number of observations, we asked separately about the

number of formal and informal observations, broken down further between observations of instruction and

observations of other activities. We added the numbers together to get information on the total number of

observations.

We were surprised to learn that 5.1% of respondents received summative evaluations without ever being observed

during the process. An additional 8.9% had only one observation.

The TPEP manual requires a minimum of two observation Data Sources; yet 14% of summative evaluations do not meet

this requirement. The mean number of total observations was 5.4 and the median was 4.

Looking just at formal observations, 10.9% had no formal observations at all. The mean was 3.3 and the median was 2.

5.1%

8.9%

15.2% 15.5%

13.0%

8.7%8.2%

4.8%3.9%3.9%

2.7%1.7%1.9%1.4%

0.7%1.0%

3.4%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > 15

% o

f al

l res

po

nd

ents

Total number of observations (formal & informal)

Total observations - all respondents

10.9%

21.0%

23.2%

15.2%

9.7%

7.5%

5.3%

1.4% 1.4%0.5% 0.5%

3.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 10

% o

f al

l res

po

nd

ents

Number of formal observations

Total formal observations - all respondents

8

Looking at the number of informal observations that resulted in written feedback, 32.2% had no informal observations.

The mean was 2.1 and the median was 2.

Some FEA members have reported being observed by multiple observers, so we asked about that.

32.2%

17.2%

21.5%

10.9%

6.8%

1.7%3.6%

1.5% 1.7% 1.0% 0.7% 1.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 10

% o

f al

l res

po

nd

ents

Number of informal observations

Total informal observations - all responses

none4%

1 evaluator66%

2 evaluators23%

3 evaluators5%

4 evaluators1%

5 evaluators1%

Number of evaluators making observations

9

One of the goals of the TPEP process is to provide educators with feedback to guide improvement. We asked about

whether observation feedback included useful guidance and/or suggestions for improvement. Only 45% reported

receiving guidance and suggestions that was specific enough to be useful.

We also analyzed the observation data in greater detail for teachers only, in order to get a feel for the number of

observations made of instruction and non- instructional activities.

We found that 12.3% of teachers reported having no formal observation of instruction as part of their formative TPEP

evaluation.

I did not receive any suggestions

or guidance at all12%

I did receive specific and

useful suggestions/

guidance45%

I did receive suggestions/

guidance, but it wasn’t specific enough to be

useful19%

I didn’t receive any feedback on

areas for improvement

24%

Useful feedback from observations

10

The TPEP manual states that

Although there is no specified duration of formal observations, it is highly recommended that the evaluator

remain for the amount of time necessary to observe a complete lesson with a lesson transition.

A number of FEA members have reported formal observations of parts of lessons and receiving feedback questioning

missing elements that were, in fact, present and would have been observed if the observer had only witnessed the

entire lesson. We wanted to learn the extent of this problem, so we asked a follow-up question about whether formal

observations of instruction lasted the entire lesson.

We found that 52% of teachers did not have any formal observations that lasted an entire lesson.

Since teachers’ main job is instruction, we have been surprised at the number of FEA member teachers who have

reported having formal observations of non- instructional activities, such as their participation in CLT meetings. We

asked about that, and we were surprised that 44.4% of teachers reported having formal observations of non-

instructional activities.

12.3%

31.9%29.7%

16.2%

3.1% 2.5% 3.1%

0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 10

% o

f te

ach

ers

Number of observations

Formal observations of instruction - teachers only

All of them did, 20.9%

Some of them did, 27.0%

None of them did, 52.0%

Did formal observation(s) of instruction last the entire lesson(s)?

11

We also asked about the number of informal observations (with written feedback – otherwise they don’t count as a data

source). We were surprised that fully 33.6% of teachers reported no informal or mini observations of instruction during

their latest summative year.

55.6%

16.1%13.1%

5.6%3.1% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.6%

3.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 10

% o

f te

ach

ers

Number observations

Formal observations of non-instructional activities - teachers only

33.6%

22.3% 21.2%

12.4%

4.2%2.3% 2.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6%0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10

% o

f te

ach

ers


Informal observations of instruction - teachers only

12

The majority of teachers (70.3%) reported no informal observations of non-instructional activities.

TPEP time requirements The new TPEP evaluation system takes considerably more time on the part of teachers than the previous system did and

is the time requirement is the main complaint of FEA members. We asked about the time required for various

components (see below) and added each respondent’s times to generate their overall time spent.

The mean amount of time spent completing the activities for a summative evaluation was 24.1 hours, and the median

was 15.8 hours. FEA members report that the previous system took about 2 hours. The current TPEP system has added

approximately two days of work to the teachers’ workload.

70.3%

14.7%8.2%

4.5%1.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10

% o

f te

ach

ers


Informal observations of non-instructional activities - teachers only

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 >40

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Number of hours spent on completing TPEP requirements

Total time spent on TPEP activities

13

Self-Assessment The mean amount of time spent on self-assessment was 2.8 hours and the median was 2.

SMARTR goals The mean amount of time spent on developing SMARTR goals and analyzing data was 5.0 hours; the median was 3.

0.5%

36.0%

31.6%

13.5%

6.8%4.8%

2.9%0.2% 0.7% 0.2%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0 1 orless

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ormore

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Number of hours spent completing the Self-Assessment form

Amount of time spent on Self-Assessment form

0.2%

14.6%

22.4%

16.8%

14.1%

10.0%

5.6%

1.2%3.4%

0.0%

11.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0 1 orless

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ormore

% o

f re

po

nd

ents

Number of hours spent writing SMARTR goals and analyzing data

Amount of time spent on SMARTR goals

14

Document log The mean amount of time spent on preparing the document log was 7.9 hours and the median was 4.

Structured interview The mean amount of time spent answering questions for the structured interview was 3.0 hours and the median was 2.

0.7%

9.4%

15.0% 15.2%12.8%

11.1%

6.3%

0.5%

4.6%

24.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

0 1 orless

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 ormore

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Number of hours spent preparing the document log

Amount of time spent on the document log

15.1%

30.2% 29.2%

10.5%

4.6% 4.1%2.4%

0.0% 0.7% 0.0%3.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

0 1 orless

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ormore

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Number of hours spent answering structured interview questions

Amount of time spent on structured interview

15

Other TPEP activities The mean amount of time spent on other TPEP activities was 6.0 hours and the median was 3.

Respondents’ attitude toward TPEP We asked all respondents to give feedback on TPEP using Likert scale responses to positive statements about the

system. Administrators’ responses are included here.

The first statement was “TPEP provides useful feedback which encourages professional growth and leads to improved

student success.” Only 28.8% agree. 71.2% disagree. Among administrators, 50% agree and 50% disagree.

8.7%

15.1%

22.3%

11.4%

6.4%

12.4%

2.7%

0.0%

3.5%

0.2%

17.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

0 1 orless

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ormore

% o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Number of hours spent on other TPEP activities

Amount of time spent on other TPEP activities

Strongly agree, 1.4%

Agree, 27.4%

Disagree, 42.9%

Strongly disagree, 28.3%

TPEP provides useful feedback . . .

16

The second statement was “Time spent completing TPEP activities is time well spent.” Only 16% agree. Fully 84%

disagree. Among administrators, 33% agree, while 67% disagree.

FEA members have reported has very different experiences depending on who their evaluator was. We asked whether

respondents agree that “I am confident in the inter-rater reliability of TPEP; evaluators use similar standards, and

evaluation outcomes do not depend on who the evaluator is.” Only 19.9% agree. 80.1% disagree. Among administrators,

50% agree and 50% disagree.


Agree, 15.8%

Disagree, 41.8%


Time spent on TPEP activities is time well spent


Agree, 18.2%

Disagree, 37.9%


Confidence in TPEP inter-rater reliability

17

Comments We asked respondents two open ended questions: “How could the current TPEP system be improved?” and “What other

comments do you have about TPEP?” These questions generated hundreds of responses, most of which complained

about the complexity of TPEP and the time required. A sample of responses is included in the Appendix.

Summary The current TPEP evaluation system is complex and time-consuming, both for educators being evaluated and for the

administrators who have to do the evaluations.

The mean amount of time that it took a respondent to complete the activities for a summative evaluation was

24.1 hours; the median was 15.8 hours.

Compared to the previous evaluation system (which took 2-3 hours), it adds approximately two days of work to

an educator’s workload.

The additional time demands on administrators are likely responsible for failures in making enough observations,

observing complete lessons, and giving educators useful feedback:

The TPEP manual requires two observation data points; 14% of summative evaluations did not meet the

requirement.

52% report that they did not have a formal observation that lasted an entire lesson.

44.4% of teachers reported having formal observation of non-instructional activities.

Only 45% report receiving observation feedback that includes specific and useful suggestions or guidance for

improvement.

The system is not regarded as useful, worth the time spent, or being reliable.

Only 28.8% agree that TPEP provides useful feedback.

Only 16% agree that time spent on TPEP is time well spent.

Only 19.9% agree that TPEP has inter-rater reliability, and that outcomes are independent of who their evaluator

is.

The VA Department of Education’s Guidelines cite a number of reasons for implementing changes to the systems

prevalent prior to 2012:

. . . flaws in the current teacher evaluation process include:

• problems with the evaluation instruments themselves (e.g., subjectivity, low validity);

• issues related to time and resources;

• a tendency to focus on paperwork routines rather than improving instruction;

• an absence of standard protocols and practices in teacher practices;

• an absence of meaningful and timely feedback to teachers;

• inadequate administrator training;

• a lack of time to perform adequate evaluations;

• a lack of impact; and

18

• a lack of constructive criticism on the evaluation that can be used to improve professional

practice and often are based on sparse evidence.

It is not clear that any of these problems have been ameliorated by the current TPEP system. If anything, the problems

of time and paperwork routines have been greatly exacerbated.

Recommendations

FCPS and FEA FCPS’ ability to modify its teacher evaluation system is constrained by the VA Department of Education’s Guidelines

document. However, FCPS can improve the system by reconvening the Evaluation Task Force and charging it with

streamlining the system and improving the validity and reliability. The Task Force should consider:

Studying the reliability and validity of TPEP, especially inter-rater reliability

Revising the Standards and the supporting Data Sources to eliminate substantial overlap. For example, a teacher

who needs to augment formative assessments of students can currently be down-rated in Standards 1, 2, 3, and

4 because all four Standards include “Analysis of data”, “Needs assessments and results”, etc. This overlap can

lead to a teacher’s receipt of an overall rating of “Ineffective” when modest effort will make the teacher

“Effective”. FEA staff have seen examples of this overlap problem in some members’ evaluations.

Providing better guidance on appropriate SMARTR goals, especially for educators whose primary duties involve

little, if any, instruction of students (such as counselors, librarians, and secondary SBTS). This should include

direction that successful completion of the goals must be a direct result of the employee’s own efforts, not

depending on the performance of other educators.

Ensuring that evaluators are familiar with the subject area being observed and evaluated

Requiring that at least one formal observation conducted in a summative year last an entire lesson

For teachers’ evaluations, providing evaluators with guidance that formal observations should be of instructional

activities

Requiring a minimum of two observations

Reducing the number/length of required paperwork, possibly including

o Reducing the total number of structured interview questions

o Streamlining the document log by reducing the number of artifacts and/or encouraging the use of

existing documents

Allowing educators to provide additional supporting evidence in response to evaluator concerns

Requiring evaluators to provide specific suggestions for improvement to accompany any “Ineffective” or

“Developing/ Needs Improvement” ratings

Providing an appeal process in cases of

o Inappropriate SMARTR goals being required by administrators

o Evaluations not conforming to standards set forth in the TPEP manual

Virginia Department of Education and VEA The onerous burden of the TPEP evaluation system is the direct result of requirements set forth in the VA Department of

Education’s Guidelines document. The Guidelines should be revised to:

Streamline the evaluation process, reducing the amount of paperwork and the time required to complete it

Reduce the overlap between Standards

Eliminate entirely, or greatly reduce the weight of the Value Added Measure (Standard 7). Peer reviewed

academic research has discredited the use of VAMs in teacher evaluation.

19

VEA should lead this effort by:

Collecting data on the effects of the current Guidelines on evaluation systems statewide, as this survey has done

for Fairfax County Public Schools;

Lobbying for revisions to the Guidelines as outlined above.

Lobbying for a change in § 22.1-253.13:5 B. of the Code of Virginia to eliminate the requirement that all licensed

educators be evaluated by student progress – it just doesn’t make sense for some educators (e.g., counselors),

and academic research has shown it to be unreliable generally.

20

Appendix: Respondents’ comments: selected responses

Suggestion for improvement/comment about TPEP Commenter Years evaluated

The current system is time consuming for teaches and overwhelming for administators who in some cases are dealing with 20+ staff on cycle and those are just summative numbers. The back and forth required with the online tool is not efficient. There is talk of all employees moving to the online system. We can barely keep up with teachers - I can't imagine going this method with support staff who do not utilize email or computers on a regular basis. The mid-year standard 7 rating is highly subjective since often the window for data collection and timeline for mid-years are not aligned.

HS Administrator

TPEP is one of the reasons I am seeking employment outside of FCPS. It is overly burdensome to both teachers and administrators. It is too time-consuming and complicated to be a constructive or meaningful form of feedback for teachers. The student performance metric is weighted too heavily in the overall calculation.

HS Teacher 2014 – 2015

Multiple administrators should provide feedback for each teacher.

ES Teacher 2012 – 2013 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015

Admin accountability. If a source of information is used, it should be complete (e.g. memo in local employee file should be accompanied automatically by rebuttal where applicable). The teacher should be allowed to provide a statement even after he/she signed the evaluation if the admin made changes after the teacher signed.


Teachers who aren't meeting standards according to the evaluator should also be observed by a neutral party from outside the school. This neutral party should have knowledge in that subject area.

ES Teacher 2013 – 2014

The doc log should be shortened to 1 piece of evidence per category, or the system revised to remove it entirely. It took FOREVER. It was stressful and time consuming.


Allowing teachers to create their own SMARTR goals. More planned observations with a discussion ahead of time of what areas to focus on.

Other Other school 2014 – 2015

Stringent standards for determining the line between 2 and 3, and the line between 3 and 4, in evaluator ratings

ES Teacher 2012 – 2013 2015 – 2016

SMARTR goals should be teacher-created not mandated because they are school improvement goals. Teachers should not be rated ineffective based on unreasonable goals that were mandated.


All teachers should receive feedback on positives as well as areas for improvement, with specific suggestions for improvement and a team approach to making this improvement happen.

MS Teacher 2015 – 2016

New teachers need to be required to sit down with an administrator in the first three weeks of school to discuss SMARTR goals and give them direction. It is too


21

overwhelming for first year teachers to figure this out on their own and mentors differ widely in their skill level. New teachers should have frequent meetings with their evaluator in the first months of school and time spent with mentors should be documented so it happens. We are losing young teachers who are overwhelmed.

By administrators giving written feedback on a more regular basis.


This system is humiliating, non-collaborative, way too time-consuming for all involved, useless as far as student achievement is concerned, and resources could be far better allocated for max benefit. Eval'ing almost half the staff every single year is a colossal waste of time...where is the ROI in all this? How many central staff are invovled, and at what cost?? And going back to the beginning of this program 4-5 years ago, why was this humiliating, time-consuming, top-down program put in place in the first place?? What was wrong with the previous system, and/or what changed so that it was necessary or advisable to put this terrible system in place? Admins should be able to walk in with a clipboard, observe a few things, check the boxes, do it a handful of times, and move on to more important things like working on curriculum improvements...we need relief from this oppressive program, and fixing this is the single most impactful thing to do to improve working conditions.

ES Teacher 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015

More clarity from admin on deadlines, and I don't think that our goals should be based solely on SOL performance (which they are for all teachers at my school this year)

ES Teacher 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016

This is just one more evaluation system. It's the 5th or 6th one since I started teaching. I've gone up to 6 years without being observed. I have a written evaluation every 3 years, but it's rare for anyone to come into my classroom and actually watch instruction.


consistency between the administrators evaluating you; restricting the evaluation to ONLY administrators and not coaches; rotating the evaluator each evaluation cycle


The document log is a waste of time. I did not gain anything or learn anything about myself or my profession from completing it.

MS Teacher 2012 – 2013 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015

Making all adminstration follow the same standards


I was observed less than 2 weeks before the end of the year,and it was not very good.No write up but I was put on an improvement plan.I have talked to other teachers that were pets of the principal who received mostly exceeds and were never observed.The whole system is awful

ES Other 2014 – 2015

Waste of time; my evaluator has taught only one year about 20 years ago....and doesn't give me appropriate or useful feedback.


Observers often come in for a part of the lesson and don't see the "good" part of the lesson. I had an adminstrator come in and observie me while I was doing a read aloud of a test. How is that useful?


involve content area experts in the process


22

The evaluator has never been a classroom teacher, so her opinions and evaluations did not hold validity for me. They were textbook comments without real world application.


SMARTR goal should not be tied to your TPEP points. Administrator should have training to know what to do to help teachers improve in their areas which need growth. It is too much too cover in one cycle. Maybe every year should be summative for a different evaluation focus area. That way, you are always working on it.


Where is the accountability for evaluators? I know of a principal that has abused the process to get rid of employees he doesn't like and he still has his job! I am talking at least a dozen people! His school went for a semester with two classroom positions unfilled because so many teachers have left and nothing is being done!@

ES Teacher 2012 – 2013 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015

Cross raters- have staff from different schools or central offices observe

Other Administrator

I believe strongly that evaluations should include observation by others who teach the same subject, across the District, who have a better understanding of best practices, and what the actual challenges are in the classroom.


I have yet to be observed this year even though I am on the summative evaluation piece of the TPEP cycle. Based on my colleagues' experiences who have different administrators, there is a GREAT difference between evaluators at the high school level.


I believe there needs to be more than one person evaluating with specific feedback and suggestions given for improvement.


I have been observed twice unofficially by admins who aren't mine, but not once by my assigned admin. My mid year evaluation was all "meets" but there was no observation to even come to that conclusion. Other admins put much more effort in and I feel like I'm jumping through hoops for an admin won't even look at the material I'm gathering and that will give me the same summative evaluation regardless of anything I do.


My Principal came into my room for 10 minutes this year to observe me. She made comments on the observation that would have been answered if she'd stayed longer and watched more of the lesson. Also, she would not approve my SMARTR goal this year even though see approved last years. It was the same goal with different stats. Why would one year's goal be acceptable and not the following year? She loaded my class with 26 ESOL students even though we're Title 1. I'm being held accountable for the learning off all these students without the proper resources. (Title 1 3rd grade should be exceed 23 students.)

ES Teacher 2012 – 2013 2015 – 2016

I wish specialist such as reading teachers did not have to follow the teacher standards. I wish we follwed the same standards or procedures as other specialist such as AART. Our role is very different with coaching and other school responsibities that is not a direct match to a classroom teacher.


Arbitary, for Sped the evaluators were not knowledgeable about the curruciulum to offer constructive criticsm. Some evaluatators made suggestions that budget or time wise were impossible or close to impossible


23

There needs to be a system in place for inter-rater reliability to make sure that an evaluation does not depend on who evaluates you.

HS Teacher 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016

Someone could develop good instructions on how to use the system. A training class on tpep would be helpful.


I would rather have periodic, documented observations by other department members as a large part of how I am evaluated as an effective teacher.


My principal observed me once this year and has never observed me before in the three years I have been here. How can she really know what I do? I know she never read my previous SMARTR goals because she told me I made an error on the percentage of improvement I wanted to make and I figured my last two goals the exact same way. What a colossal waste of time!!!

ES Other 2015 – 2016

Make it discussion based. Each administrator has a 1 hour discussion with each teacher during which time they talk about successes and areas of concern. Part of that would include constructive comments for improvement.


The online interface is not at all user friendly. The old forms had prompts that helped you understand what was being asked for in the self assessment, for example. Administrators without content knowledge cannot adequately advise specialists. There should still be an option to have someone from the central office in your specialty area give you an evaluation for actual useful feedback. I value the reflection in the process, but without outside feedback, it's hard to really improve.

ES Teacher 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016

It is slightly easier to do it on-line, but still confusing and hard to find things. It needs to be simplified and not take nearly as much time to complete as it does.There should be much less emphasis on the SMARTr goal portion, especially since principals often dictate what they want those goals to look like. I spend so much time in CLTs, IEPs, Data Days and working on things related to evaluation that I sometimes wonder when I'm actually supposed to spend time with students.

ES Teacher 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016

As special ed deaprtment chair I have no classroom teaching duties. Eventhough the county has a different TPEP for us, my Principal requires us to have SMARTR goals tied directly to studednt achievement. I think my goals should be tied to something I have direct control over. I tried to write a goal for having my teacher complete effective transition plans, or standards based goals on IEPs, but that was not allowed. I resent having to create a teaching lessons and additonal work if I want control over my goal. I recieved the highest rating, but I am wishing I could retire before I have to go through that process again!

MS Other 2014 – 2015

It is ridiculous for librarians to have to provide numerical data that impacts student learning. I was fortunate that my administrator let me use circulation data in a variety of ways.

HS Other 2013 – 2014

Have the option for professional evaluators from Central office to observe and provide unbiased feedback when local admin is unable to provide valuable and/or unbiased feedback.


Most useful for teacher and evaluator, when evaluator has actually been in a classroom as a teacher. The lack of experience in a teaching evironment can skew the results.


24

Some administrators use the TPEP process to bully teachers. If an administrator does not like a teacher on a personal front, they use the evaluation process to look for any deficit that other administrators wouldn't think was important.


The system is too subjective and leaves to much discretion to the evaluator. If the standards are more specific or lent themselves to more quantitative evaluation, the results would be more consistent across evaluators. There should also be more explicit requirements for evaluator to consider artifacts from all three years of the evaluation cycle, rather than focusing on only the most recent year. The current system leaves to much room for evaluator preferences and personality considerations. This can lead to a high performing teacher receiving a poor evaluation. My evaluator this year has been critical of my artifacts as she feels they should show the impact of my work; however, the performance standards focus on actions and not outcomes. If it is desired for the focus of performance standards to be on outcomes, then the standards should explicitly require the teacher’s artifacts to address outcomes.

ES SBTS 2015 – 2016

My evaluator had only visted me once this year, last monday, and gave me feedback that I felt was irrelevant and socred me based on items that she had no previous observations to compare. I felt that system was very unfair and subjective based on the evaluators "thoughts" about what the advanced classroom should look like.

ES Teacher 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016

I would very much like for my Music class teaching to be judged by A MUSICIAN. I would like for the most important objectives in my class be the ones for which I am held accountable. (Exposing children to Music, engaging them constantly. (Not just focusing on the SMARTR goal of the most paper-focused activities.) Classes should be judged differently. The Fine Arts Office could create our Music Teacher Evaluation, for example. Many administrators need to admit that they know little or nothing about the best practices for Music. Many other staff members have different job descriptions and responsibilities than just a "regular" classroom teacher who focuses on SOL's. It is not fair to be judged by a completely different standard than what one's job actually is. if possible, teachers should not be evaluated by someone new to the building, when being judged on the previous three years of work. Paper work should be much less. The old system WAS FINE!!!!!!


Peer evaluations need to be a part of the process. Other professions are evaluated by peers who understand the demands of the profession. Administrators in education often do not have the necessary content knowledge to make effective observations.


Administrators need to spend more time in the classroom observing.


My principal could actually observe me!! She has had ample opportunity but yet she doesn't do it! I don't think it should be up to me to track her down and make sure that she is actually observed me. The last time I went through this (different administrator), it was mostly a lie because he hadn't observed me more than ONE TIME!! Or at least that was all that he wrote up... how can that be?! AND Just because they don't see you do something, they think that YOU can't do it!!?? WHAT?! Doesn't make sense!! Of course EVEN if i did recieve all EXEMPLARY or whatever the highest rank is... it doesn't mean a thing! I don't get more pay, I don't get any kind of compensation, not even an 'atta girl' from administration... so WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY?? It doesn't make much sense. The current TPEP is a waste of time. In fact, my principal didn't even watch the video I gave her of a lesson that I had done, wouldn' that have counted as an observation. Right now she is scrambling to observe me

ES Other 2015 – 2016

25

Have someone observe me who understands my content/subject area and actually understands my classroom set up and if I have any idea what I'm doing.


I continue to be concerned about my performance review being tied to student performance on summative assessments. I'm a special ed teacher and my kids don't necessarily demonstrate consistent academic progress (ex: 1year's progress every year). It irks me that AAP teachers don't have to worry about this aspect of their evaluation, but my evaluation is resting on whether the 15 kids I teach in a self-contained setting - some in and out of the prison system, some psychologically unstable, some enrolled in ID classes the rest of the day - can demonstrate a year's worth of academic progress. I do believe my admins are trying to be as understanding and fair as they can, but their hands are tied by the "one size fits all" state criteria.

MS Teacher 2012 – 2013 2015 – 2016

Evaluators don't always understand the curriculum of the different areas and specialties so an evaluation of those areas isn't realistic. Specialties can't be lumped in with classroom teachers. They are so very different. They see the students for a fraction of the time that classroom teachers see the same students. Environments are so very different.


I have never been formally observed in all 3 years I have worked in FCPS

ES Teacher 2012 – 2013 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016

We are told to encourage our students but as teachers we are discouraged from expecting an exceeds rating. After 26 years of dedicating myself to my career, I have only received 1 exceeds...I have presented at conferences, written curriculum, been Dept. Chair, attended Nat'l Conferences, worked in classroom, as an itinerant, and with adults...I feel disheartened not to be recognized for my hard work. I fear I may cry this year at what will be my final evaluation. I will retire in 2 years. I can't wait.


fea survey about fcps’ teacher performance evaluation ... · fcps purchased the tpep system from...

Documents