Christina,
Welcome to the program leadership and improvement list and congratulations on your new position as a lead teacher :-). I've enclosed copies of the instrument we use in our agency in a separate email since list messages can't include enclosures. 
With our instrument, ratings are based on supervisor observations and teacher portfolios. The evaluation becomes the basis for individual professional development plans each year and, in fact, is tied to a teacher's annual salary increase (the same is true for administrators and support staff, though there are different instruments for other categories).

Teacher evaluations are a sensitive area but, in my opinion, they can also be wonderful tools for improving practice. When we implemented our adult education evaluation system, we did it over a two year period. In the first year, I got a group of teachers together to provide input into the DRAFT instrument, and then we piloted the instrument at several locations. I also did an extensive round of "meet and discuss" sessions with teachers in an effort to address questions and concerns. When there hasn't been a system in place, there can be lots of concerns about implementation of a new instrument can impact job security, change practice in ways that are not comfortable, increase the demands on teachers without increasing the support, etc. Also, our board of directors believes in performance-based salary increases, and that isn't an easy concept to move into an adult basic education arena.

The instrument isn't perfect, but it does create regular opportunities for teachers and administrators to talk about the specifics of instruction and to negotiate areas for improvement. It also helps new teachers understand what's expected of them in this world of adult basic education, and that's been very helpful. Our biggest challenge right now, as I see it, is rater reliability. We're a large program, so we have 4 different administrators using this instrument with our staff and we have work to do in reaching consensus on how to rate certain behaviors. Again, I think just having the conversation and working to do the right thing makes us better program leaders. 
I'd be very interested in knowing how other programs deal with teacher evaluation.

Sandy Strunk
Lancaster Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13
Adult Basic and Family Literacy Education
1110 Enterprise Road
East Petersburg, PA 17520
(717) 519-1006

Christina Mathew wrote:

>Hello Sandy,

>

>I'd love a copy of the performance appraisal system that you developed.  >I've looked at the Pennsylvania Teacher Competencies in the Special  >Collection. I am a new lead teacher in our county and am trying to find  >the best ways to do parts of my job that I don't have experience with.  >Teacher evaluations feel very important, but also like a sensitive  >area. Anything you have on that area would be appreciated.

>

>I'm so happy to have found this list! I immediately forwarded the  >invitation to another lead teacher in our county. Where else can you  >potentially talk about the NRS and have people know what you mean!

>

>Thanks,

>Christina L. Mathew (clmathew at earthlink.net

>Lead Teacher, Adult Basic Education Program

>DeKalb Technical College

>Atlanta, Georgia

>On Mar 16, 2004, at 7:06 AM, Sandy Strunk wrote:

>

>> Linda,

>> Pennsylvania developed Teacher Competencies a few years ago and you  >> can find

>> both the competencies and User's Guide at

>>

>> http://www.able.state.pa.us/able/cwp/view.asp? >> a=13&Q=39875&ableNav=|2842|2845|

>>

>> Our agency took the competencies and meshed them with Charlotte  >> Danielson's

>> framework (the basis for our K-12 teacher evaluation) to come up with  >> an adult

>> educator teacher performance appraisal system. I'll send you a copy  >> when I get

>> back to the office (I'm on the road right now).

>>

>> The American Institutes for Research also published teacher  >> competencies.

>> They're in the PLI Special Collection (as are PA's competencies).

>>

>> I hope this helps.

>>

>> Sandy Strunk

>> Lancaster Lebanon IU 13

>>

>

>

>RFC822 header

>-----------------------------------

>

> Return-Path: <clmathew at earthlink.net>

> Received: from relay.iu13.org ([unix socket])

> 	by mail.iu13.org (Cyrus v2.1.11-Lancaster-Lebanon-IU13-Mail-Services) >with LMTP; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:49:33 -0500

> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2

> Received: from gabbro.iu13.org (gabbro.iu13.org [172.21.1.73])

> 	by relay.iu13.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C9D47007F

> 	for <sandy_strunk at iu13.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:49:32 -0500 (EST)

> Received: from firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net >(firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.247])

> 	by gabbro.iu13.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F792FE96

> 	for <sandy_strunk at iu13.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:49:21 -0500 (EST)

> Received: from dialup-67.30.252.111.dial1.atlanta1.level3.net ([67.30.252.111])

> 	by firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)

> 	id 1B3SzX-0007fG-00

> 	for sandy_strunk at iu13.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:49:20 -0800

> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606)

> In-Reply-To: <1079438795.4056edcbbf587 at webmail.iu13.org>

> References: <926ED06409F3074D83086BFFE128CA643F0CA5 at AAEXCH-A.dese.state.mo.us> ><1079438795.4056edcbbf587 at webmail.iu13.org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

> Message-Id: <71229BE7-77CE-11D8-9DF4-000A95E7EBD2 at earthlink.net>

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: Christina Mathew <clmathew at earthlink.net>

> Subject: Re: [NIFL-PLI] RE: NIFL-PLI Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1

> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:49:15 -0500

> To: Sandy Strunk <sandy_strunk at iu13.org>

> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606)

> X-ELNK-Trace: >a1cc9d8c2c8fcd831aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79ed4b691ee985d9dafb97b2aff91

>86da1350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c

> X-Content-Scanned: by IU 13 eMail Scanning

> 


Sandy Strunk
Lancaster Lebanon Intermediate Unit 13
Adult Basic and Family Literacy Education
1110 Enterprise Road
East Petersburg, PA 17520
(717) 519-1006