Saturday
March 08, 2008
A few days ago, I attended a training at the Chicago New Teacher Center on the Danielson Rubric, which you may remember is being adopted as the teacher evaluation rubric in Chicago Public Schools over the course of the next year or two.
The rubric describes teaching behaviors in levels ranging from unsatisfactory to basic to proficient to distinguished, in four areas: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professionalism.
The session leader asked, “when might you expect a distinguished teacher to score in the basic range in some area?” Answers came quickly to people: new grade level, new subject area, new curriculum, returning to teaching after a long absence.
It was a great reminder that excellence in teaching is not an all or nothing game. That the point of using a rubric rather than an overall rating is to allow for nuance and depth of analysis.
When I was in the classroom, I was really proficient in a few categories on the rubric, including directions and procedures, management of transitions, activities and assignments. But I was clearly at the basic level in others, especially communicating with families and maintaining accurate records.
Was I an overall distinguished teacher? Nope. But could I have been helpful to teachers who struggled with pacing and transitions? Absolutely.
Obviously, one of the main purposes of the rubric is to find areas of weakness and help teachers correct them. But it will be an even stronger tool for professional community if it encourages school leaders to identify teachers with particular skills and create ways for them to share their knowledge.
Labels:
