Evaluation of Choral Teaching: A Case Study
James Borst
The passing of Public Act 102 by the Michigan legislature launched a major shift in evaluating teacher’s job performance. This shift involves the development of a uniform evaluative pro- cess through which all Michigan public school teachers are scrutinized for their efficacy in the class room. According to the law, each district must a) Annually evaluate each teacher, b) In- corporate student growth measures that provide administrators with relevant data, c) Use mul- tiple rating categories (highly effective, effec- tive, minimally effective, and ineffective) that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor, and d ) Uses the evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding all of the following: (i) The effectiveness of teach- ers (ii) Promotion, retention, and development of teacher, (iii) Granting of tenure or full certi- fication, or both (iv) Removing ineffective ten- ured and untenured teachers (PA 102, 2011).
How this law manifests itself in the teaching life of choral music educators in Michigan remains ill-defined, because there is no standardized measuring tool for evaluation (Fee, personal communication, January 2, 2014). Moreover, defining excellent choral teaching that results in student improvement is a nebulous endeavor, because performance classes are highly com- plex and multidimensional (Borst, 2002). The purpose of this article is to share my personal story regarding the impact of this law on my teaching life. I examine the process of an annu- al evaluation, explore the results, and describe the sentient properties that resulted from the en- tire procedure.
How My District Implemented the Law at my High School
During a weekly faculty meeting in the fall of 2011, my administrators clearly spelled-out the implementation of the evaluation process ac- cording to the new law. State guidelines were discussed, forms were explained, and timelines for evaluations were given. As the administra- tors spoke, it appeared to me that they were frustrated with the legislative directives, be- cause at the time (and as of this writing), no uni-
form evaluation tool from the state was in place for them. To comply with the law, our school district redesigned a comprehensive evaluation tool for the entire school system, comprising both quantitative and qualitative areas of assess- ment. The tool includes a section where mea- suring student improvement must be explained. The evaluation tool contains: 1. A goal outline form, 2. An interim goal outline, 3. A summary goal outline, and 4. A final summary form. Each form is accompanied by a meeting with the principal. The forms are available on-line and include examples of how to fill them out. The process also includes an hour-long classroom observation and a subsequent follow-up meet- ing.
My administrators reviewed with us the entire process with transparency, concern and encour- agement. It was explained that, until the state clearly identified measurable outcomes of the law, all tenured teachers would receive a final rating of “effective” or below from the rank- ings “highly effective”, “effective”, “minimally effective”, and “ineffective” (J. Fee, personal communication, January 2, 2014).
Observation Process
I began the observation process by ruminating about how I would assess student improvement. I decided to measure my students’ sight reading ability. In late October, I filled out the evalua- tion goal form and met with my administrator for approval. The form contained the following:
Goals: The goal for my students in Women’s Chorus, Varsity Men’s Chorus, Chorale and Chamber is to acquire sight-singing skills that allow them to read music for the first time using solfege sylla- bles with 75% accuracy. The students will read at the primary level according to the Michigan School Vocal Music Association.
Activities:
The practice of sight-singing exercises in class on a weekly basis. 2. Application of solfege syl- lable training to the literature that is studied in
28
Choral
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