|Rube Goldberg Machine|
But here is as much as I was able to take away from it.
Basically, there are three parts to the system (like Gaul in a way).
First there is the Marzano (ALL HAIL MARZANO) part, which is 50% of our evaluation. We will be evaluated on how well we are doing on the "Domains" that Marzano (ALL HAIL MAR--well, you get the joke) has established as the practices of effective teachers, things like posting learning goals, classroom management, assessing student progress, and so on.
|All Hail Marzano, the new God of Public Education!|
Then it gets a little weird. The next part of our evaluation comes from student performance. How well students do on their high performance tests. This accounts for 35% of our evaluation, and it makes teaching a high poverty student body a very risky prospect indeed.
But we are told to have no fear, that all is well.
|The creator of the VAM|
Actually, that is OAM or "Other Academic Measures." Here we select a couple of things we feel we should be evaluated on that are appropriate to our teaching area. For example, if I were to teach Advanced Placement English, then I might choose as a part of my evaluation how my students did on the AP exams. Or if I taught music, then how my students did in competitions. So in all, 50% of my evaluation could be centered on student performance.
Of course, all of this is really a first impression, but the impression is that this system is rather complex and rather subjective. I fear that due to this evaluation method, teachers will more and more choose NOT to teach in schools that are already low-performing because of the inherent risk factors involved in an evaluation process that rides on whether or not those students, despite their socioeconomic backgrounds, respond to the teacher's best efforts. The schools with the highest need will be the ones that the best teachers will avoid at all cost.
I fear that this is a train wreck in the making.