part of the curriculum (e.g., band, orchestra, and choir), stu- dent growth data as demonstrated by group performance can and should be taken into consideration, as well as data per- taining to individual students.
Several other criteria must also be considered. It is impera- tive that evaluation parameters be established at the local level with input from all stakeholders, as locally constructed guidelines reflecting each district’s curricula will provide the most appropriate means for gathering and analyzing VAM data. Assessments that are used as part of the teacher evalu- ation process should be consistent with recognized local, state, and/or national standards and should be developed collaboratively by the administrator and teacher at the local level. A fair and complete evaluation of the music teacher’s effectiveness should take into account a wide variety of fac- tors, including the quality of the curriculum, the quality of the program offerings, the teacher’s service to the profession, the displayed musical growth of performance ensembles, en- gagement of students, and the strength of the program as evi- denced by successful performances by both ensembles and individual students. Additionally, the impact of factors out- side of the teacher’s control should be carefully considered, e.g., scheduling, instructional time limits, staffing, class size, student-to-teacher ratio, budget, instructional materials and resources, and the adequacy of facilities.
Criteria for Designing a Viable Music Teacher Evaluation Tool was PMEPD’s first effort to directly inform and edu- cate policy makers in Lansing. The document was sent to the MCEE in December 2012 and PMEPD president Rick Catherman communicated with MCEE regularly throughout 2013, monitoring the progress of its work. President Cath- erman attended multiple sessions presented by the MCEE Chairperson, Dr. Deborah Ball (University of Michigan), including the Governor’s Education Summit, where he was able to directly communicate the concerns of music edu- cators regarding teacher evaluation.
Catherman maintains
close communication with the members of the Michigan De- partment of Education, including Superintendent of Instruc- tion Mike Flanagan and Board of Education President John Austin.
In July 2013, MCEE released its final report, Building an Im- provement-Focused System of Educator Evaluation in Mich- igan. The report recognized the importance of arts educators and recommended a number of things strongly supported by PMEPD: a choice of four observation tools (Charlotte Dan- ielson’s Framework for Teaching, Marzano Teacher Evalu- ation Model, The Thoughtful Classroom, or 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning); the confidentiality of personnel information; the flexibility of “a suite of tools” for measur- ing student growth; and having at least one observation com- pleted by an expert in the teacher’s subject matter. These are
9
all sound policy decisions.
However, PMEPD was concerned with other aspects of the report. The MCEE failed to adequately emphasize the need for content specialist to serve as qualified peer observers and did not fully address the need for adequate training and fund- ing of observers, especially in music and other non-core con- tent areas. Additionally, in spite of recognizing the scientific concerns regarding VAM, the report allows for teachers to be evaluated, in part, on 1) the learning of their own students in subject areas that they do not directly teach; and 2) the learning of students whom they do not directly teach (Build- ing an Improvement-Focused System, 21). How such mea- surements can be validated is both uncertain and doubtful, as a number of educational researchers have already expressed. PMEPD responded to Building an Improvement-Focused System in a letter to MCEE in September 2013, sharing both its support and concerns regarding the report and its readi- ness to work with that organization toward a useful, effec- tive policy that will help produce a truly “fair performance evaluation system.” A copy of this response was also sent to State Board of Education President John Austin. Austin assured PMEPD that its thoughts and concerns would be shared with the Board and the Michigan Department of Edu- cation.
PMEPD will continue to closely monitor state policy makers as they continue to develop a new teacher evaluation system. Teacher evaluation is only our first project; our goal is to ad- dress important topics as they arise and to monitor, educate, and inform policy makers in Lansing. While PMEPD does not represent any of the existing Michigan music education organizations, its members do come from a variety of music education backgrounds, from Kindergarten general music classrooms to the graduate music programs in our largest state universities. We are committed to improving music education in Michigan. You can learn more about PMEPD and read our policy statements at our website, http://pmepd.
weebly.com.
Dr. Kenneth J. Moore is the director of bands at Dexter High School, a founding member of the Partnership for Music Edu- cation Policy Development, and an active officer of MSBOA. Honors he has received include the ASBDA Award of Excel- lence, the MSBOA District 12 Teacher of the Year, and the Dex- ter Most Influential Teacher Award.
Rick Catherman began teaching in 1990, and is currently band director at Chelsea H.S. He earned music education degrees from Michigan State University and The University of Iowa, and hold’s NBPTS National Board Certification. He recently initiated a non-profit music education advocacy group – Part- nership for Music Education Policy Development: A Michigan Think Tank. Mr. Catherman was voted the 2012 MSBOA Teacher of the Year for Band.
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 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48