Victor A. Montemurro
Comprehensive Digital Portfolio
St. John's University School of Education
EDU 7701: Research and Development in Innovative Instructional Strategies
Professor Frank L. Smith, Jr., Ed.D.
SJU Graduate Bulletin 2000-2002
on the myrtle flower to jump to
The current evaluation system focuses in individual teacher performance not on the performance of the school system and not on variation of the pathways that students travel as they move through the system. School leaders need to watch the variation in the paths that children move on. The end goal is too reduce variability of the pathways to the smallest level possible in order to increase student achievement.
How do we construct a supervisory/evaluation system that focuses on the variation in the pathways?
How do we construct a supervisory/evaluation system that looks at the system?
How do we construct a supervisory/evaluation system that is more Toyota (scientific approach to improvement shared by members of the organization) than Taylor (one best way usually imposed by management or experts) in that the system looks at:
Even if we could perfect the Taylor system, and get all administrators to work with a standardized supervision and evaluation system, then we would still not have dealt with the issues within the system that affect student achievement.
(Lecture Notes, Professor Smith, 2003)
The figure to the left was developed as a graphic representation of a conceptual rationale to use when looking at cohort member data about the evaluation and supervisory process.
Cohort members were required to attend the first class with a prepared analysis of their history of evaluation and supervision including observation reports, recollections of conversations with supervisors, and information that could be accessed in personnel folders.
Self-evaluation of supervision (PDF)
Professional development versus professional activity in Patchogue-Medford School District (PDF)
Professor Smith's Course Outline
The conceptual rationale that I chose to develop, as seen in the above figure, indicates that the discourse, when meaningful,creates a constructivist system that promotes inquiry, develops trust and builds a professional community. There is a flow of knowledge distributed throughout the system. When the discourse about teacher efficacy is meaningless, absent, or unclear, the teacher is excluded and isolated and leadership and learning are restricted or dead-ended. No reasonable judgment about teacher efficacy can occur. The purpose of evaluation and supervisory systems is to judge teacher efficacy towards instruction and the improvement of student learning. Elmore provides a definition of improvement that can be aligned with a constructivist, open, and meaningful discursive teacher evaluation process:
“Improvement, then, is change with direction, sustained over time, that moves entire systems, raising the average level of quality and performance while at the same time decreasing the variation among units, and engaging people in analysis and understanding of why some actions seems to work and others don’t” (Elmore, 2000, p.13).
Text and Supplemental Texts:
Lester Frank Ward
Heuristics and Curriculum Theory