This week I will be reflecting on my involvement with the Marzano Causal Evaluation Model which has recently been adopted as the teacher evaluation framework in most of the state of Florida. I volunteered to participate in intensive coaching and filming sessions throughout the past year and a half that were sometimes stressful but always revealing. I had always been a fan of Marzano’s work but was skeptical about the model for several reasons. Over the next several posts I will be outlining some of the changes that occurred in my thoughts related to the model and why I am excited about the direction that it is taking us in.
One of my first impressions and a frequent comment that I hear from colleagues is that the causal evaluation model is too prescribed and focused on the actions of the teacher. At the beginning this is probably true just as it would be of learning anything that is new. After all when you first learn how to ride a bike you have to concentrate pretty hard on each of the individual tasks required to keep you from hitting the pavement. As you develop proficiency you stop thinking about all the individual parts and start concentrating on other things. Once you become comfortable with the model I was much more in tune to how the students were reacting to what was happening as oppose to my actions.
The other frequent comment that I hear related to this is that good teachers have been using all of these strategies for a long time already and we don’t need Marzano or anybody else to tell us to do them. Again, there is some truth to this and good teachers have probably been doing well at incorporating a majority of the 60 elements. The difference though is that the causal model provides a framework and motivation to very deliberately improve each of the strategies that we have already been using. We all get locked into our habits and tend to have certain strategies that have worked well get reused year after year without considering how to improve them. Even veteran teachers can benefit from critically examining those strategies that they have in their tool belts.
Many of the arguments against any reform movement including the causal evaluation model is that as an art form, teaching cannot be effectively measured. Good teaching is undoubtedly an art and it should go without saying that you have no place in the classroom if you cannot develop relationships with students and are deeply committed to positive change on a very personal level. The art of it only takes you so far though and the science aspect needs to have a more prominent role in informing practice. We are in the infancy of using big data to inform decision making and it while it is impacting many aspects of life it still has not been used effectively in education. We need to take the leap from using data in an NCLB accountability style to a more democratic growth style.
Consider the clip below from Moneyball. A Sabermetrics approach would be a much more unlikely proposition when it comes to teachers than ballplayers but there are some comparisons that we could make. Many of the current corporate sponsored reform initiatives are from the perspective that we simply need to replace our teaching force with Harvard grads who would be chomping at the bit to go into teaching if it simply paid more. The thinking goes that if you could raise the standard required to enter the profession and then the salaries the field would be flooded with genius ivy league grads who would propel us into American domination. The truth of the matter is that we are not going to get a Yankees lineup with an As budget. Fabio is not going to be our shortstop. We need to develop the prospects that we have by focusing on growth and not accountability.
What's the problem? How do we make data useful instead of punitive for educators?
No comments:
Post a Comment