Position Statement
Music Teacher Evaluation: Clarification and Recommendations Michigan Society for Music Teacher Education
Preamble
On July 19, 2011, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed teacher tenure reform legislation (Pubic Act [PA] 102, 2011) requiring school districts to make staffing decisions based on student achievement and growth rather than seniority. This legislation is similar to that recently enacted in a number of states in an effort to secure educational funding through the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative (White House Press Office, n.d.).
Beginning September 1, 2011, all school districts, with the involvement of teachers and administrators, must adopt and implement a “rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation system” (PA 102, 2011, p. 2) that labels teachers as “highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective” (p. 4). The system must establish clear approaches for (a) measuring student growth, (b) providing teachers and administrators with relevant data on student growth, and (c) evaluating a teacher’s job performance “using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor” (p. 2). Beginning with the 2013-14 school year, at least 25% of teacher evaluations must be based on student growth and assessment data. This percentage increases to at least 40% in 2014-15 and at least 50% in 2015-16. Classroom observations will continue to be a part of the evaluation process and must include a review of (a) the teacher’s lesson plan, (b) the state curriculum standard(s) used in the lesson, and (c) pupil engagement.
PA 102 requires school districts to evaluate teacher performance at least once per year (or biannually for teachers rated as highly effective for three consecutive years), provide timely and constructive feedback, and use evaluations to inform decisions regarding teacher effectiveness, promotion, retention, development, tenure, compensation, and full certification. Although this law allows school districts to use a variety of national, state, and local assessments, it is unclear how administrators will evaluate music educators in relation to student growth and achievement. The Michigan Society for Music Teacher Education (MISMTE) offers the following recommendations to aid teachers and administrators in this process.
Recommendations I.
The MISMTE recommends that all music educators:
a. Be involved in developing and implementing preK-12 music curricula for general, vocal, and instrumental music based on the Michigan Music Content Standards and Benchmarks (Michigan Department of Education, 2011). Curricula should state clearly what students should know and be able to do in music at the end of each grade level of instruction.
b. Work with school administration at the beginning of each evaluation cycle to identify objective measures of student learning and develop a timeline for data collection that will be part of the evaluation system.
c. Utilize assessments that clearly measure musical growth and achievement as stated by local curricula and Michigan state standards and benchmarks (Michigan Department of Education, 2011; see addendum for examples).
d. Consult colleagues, including those in higher education, for assistance in developing assessment procedures when necessary.
e. Work to maintain the integrity of the assessment and data collection process. Data used to evaluate teachers in other subjects will likely come from outside sources such as standardized test scores. Music educators, however, will probably need to provide their own evidence of student growth and achievement through a variety of assessments. Teachers should, therefore, make every effort to objectively and effectively measure student learning, and use this data to improve instruction whenever possible. They should also collect artifacts of student work (e.g., recordings, compositions, reflections, etc.) and the tools (e.g., rubrics, exams, quizzes, etc.) used to evaluate them so that they will be able to describe their assessment process to parents, students, and administrators.
10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29