Evaluation Interview

Lynn rush
EDU 704 Supervision & Evaluation
March 22, 2015

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
One of the primary topics in education is educator effectiveness. The U.S.
DOEs requirement that student progress on state assessments be part of the
evaluation of teachers and principals is one of the major factors in evaluation process
being a present important discussion focus in education.
I am a new administrator and evaluation and supervision is a topic I find not only
interesting, but also very important and because of the importance, I interviewed two
people. Ken Coville is the superintendent of RSU 74. He also was the Special Education
Director and Superintendent of CSD 9 during the late 1980s to the beginning 1990s. I
was a special education teacher during this time period and found Ken to be an
innovative leader who had a vision for improvement in the field of education. Jan
Neurether is the special education director of RSU 29. She has experience with
observations and evaluations of special education teachers and special education
technicians. Interviewing a superintendent and special education provided me a broader
view of the topic
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is the category of personnel you formally evaluate (e.g. grades/subjects, regular
education, special education, teachers, instructional assistants etc.) How many teachers
and other instructional personnel do you directly, formally evaluate?
Ken Coville:
Ken shared that he evaluates six administrators, seven direct staff such as director
of transportation, and four central office staff personnel. He explained that the evaluation
process differs based on the role of the position, but they are also similar. He said some
standards are basic work skills such as coming to work on time, attendance, work

completion and so on. He said that he also assists principals with observations and
explained that RSU 74 evaluation process include multiple observers.
Jan Neurether:
Jan is the Special Education Director of RSU 29. This is her third year in this
position and she describes herself as being anal with the need to take care of details
correctly. She researches questions and embraces her position with all she has to offer.
She shared that she is responsible to observe thirty-six education technicians and fifteen
teachers. She explained that the intent is to have multiple observers, but that it does not
always happen for the teachers so she puts forth effort in completing observations that
she is responsible for. She wants the teachers to feel respected.
2. Describe the evaluation process that is used in your school system. (Include specific,
concrete examples of this person interacting with specific individuals in this response and
throughout.
Ken Coville:
Ken shared that the evaluation process is based on the contract, which states
observations will be open. I asked him how the open observation concept was approved
as compared to scheduled observation. Ken stated that it was the request of the teachers
because they wanted the observation to have clout and not to be a dog and pony show.
He shared that probationary teachers are observed two times yearly, continual teachers
with effective ratings are observed once per year, and continual teachers with partial
effective ratings are provided two observations per year with the inclusion of an action
plan. Ken explained that teachers can request scheduled observations that focus on
specific standards and he said that administration can also schedule an observation with
the intent to observe areas that a teacher has on his/her action plan. He explained that

observation process is a work in process and if the majority of the people being observed
meet all the standards, then the standards are too low.
Jan Neurether:
Jan shared that the evaluation / observation process follows the school board
policy. Probationary teachers have an observation yearly for three years. Each year the
probationary teacher has a new observer, the superintendent, a principal, and the special
education director. Non-probationary teachers are on a three-year cycle, which includes
the Marzano teachers rubric (Marzano School Leader Evaluation System). She said that
RSU 29 had used the Danielson model, but they recently switched to Maranos model.
They also use IObservations. I asked Jan to share about the process of observing
education technicians. She shared that the education technicians observations are based
on the support staff contract but there are some similarities. Probationary education
technicians are observed three times for the first year and all other education technicians,
every three years.
3. Does the supervisor have any choice in the evaluation process used or is the process
mandated without any modification? Is there choice in how the supervisor implements
the process?
Ken Coville:
A committee that was based on a collaborative fashion between teachers and
administrators developed the evaluation process. He explained that the process began
with him attending meetings in Augusta. He shared that RSU 74 was not a member of
the Teacher Action Fund (not sure if I wrote this correctly), but he continued to attend the
meetings. When two districts dropped out, Barbara Moody from the DOE, invited RSU
74 to participate. I asked how did he get the teachers association to agree to participate.

He explained that he had been sharing information with the association throughout his
visits and so there was already a buy-in mind-set with the association. The
participation provided funding, networking, and technical assistance, such as Peachscape,
ARANDA Tower, SLO, and Marzanos I Observations. He described ARANDA Tower
as an agnostic system that is non-biased. The system does not favor one evaluation
model instead it provided templates that allows a school system to create a system that
best suits their needs and philosophy.

I asked Ken how did they create a collaborative

environment. He chuckled and said people often want to provide feedback verses
providing input. He referenced the work of Stephen Covey as being a resource to learn
skills that encourage input.
Jan Neurether:
Jan shared that the supervisors of RSU 29 have no choice in the evaluation
process because the process is mandated by the school board and MDOE. She said that
the evaluation committee use to be able to do formal observation or walk-throughs; three
walk-throughs were equal to one observation. For probationary teachers, there needed to
be nine walk-throughs because of the requirement of three observations.
4. What do you believe to be the strengths of the process that is used and how it is
implemented?
Ken Coville:
Ken explained that evaluations and observations are a work in process, but they
provide opportunities to measure quality service. He added that a good evaluation
system that includes performance pay assessment based on evaluation that includes
student growth is not only educationally effective, but also cost effective. He explained
that it allows systems to hire quality teachers. He shared that the evaluation process is

explained during the interview process and there are times when people withdraw their
application when they discover student growth is part of the evaluation process. He also
said it is a means to reward those who do an excellent job. He also added that teachers
want to work with students who have high potential for growth instead of only wanting
the advance classes.
Jan Neurether
Jan said that the evaluation process makes the supervisor do observations to see
the staff in action. The length of the observation depends on what is being observed. She
said that evaluations keep everyone accountable. She explained that staff evaluations can
also be self-evaluations. They can provide information about needs for training. She
stated that she loves doing observations because they provide opportunities for
conversation.
5. What do you as the supervisor believe to be weaknesses in the process and challenges
that have occurred in its implementation?
Ken Coville:
One of the dangers for a system is when they make the product the ultimate focus
and to borrow a model that another system is using and simply tweaking it just to get the
work done. He said there needs to be integrity of interpretation of measurement of data.
He explained that percentage of growth is dangerous because of differential achievement
measures and shared additional information of failing deficiency and the information that
can be provided on student growth if one understands the interpretation of such data.
Jan Neurether:
Jan said the greatest challenge is time. She said that she supervisors 50 people
and it is very hard to find the time to complete observations and complete evaluations.

6. Have the supervisor ever made any adjustments in the evaluation process to fit the
supervisor's style, the needs and preferences of the individual being evaluated, or a
situation in the school?
Ken Coville:
Ken explained that the process is adjustable based on style, but not on standards.
All the supervisors observe stated standards, but they can use different techniques in
doing so. He explained that some principals use a script approach and records everything
that takes place within the classroom. They then take the script and compare it with the
standards and use it as the format for the observation. He explained that he does not use
a script approach. Instead he uses a checklist and checks off the specific things noted
during the observation. He includes short narratives that provide details of the standard
that was checked. He said he would like to get to the point of video tapping observations
and use it for self-observations purposes during post-conferences. He explained that
such video taping technology is being used that includes links to areas of challenge for
the teacher in order to provide specific professional development opportunities.
Jan Neurether:
I asked Jan if observations needed to be scheduled. She explained that she does
not do scheduled observation because every time she scheduled an observation some
emergency would require her time. She described doing mini-observations, but referred
to them as pop-ins. She explained that she finds them more valuable because they are
not canned observations. She tries to stay for at least an hour when she does a formal
evaluation in order to observe the entire lesson.
7.
I asked them to share additional information about formal/summative evaluation
process.
Ken Coville:

Ken shared that the core principals of evaluation process includes equity and
comparability. Equity, he explains is the opportunity and comparability is accountability.
He explained the difference between theoretical and empirical aspects of the evaluation
process. He explained that some standards can be measured through observation and
portfolios, which are based on the theory of a model. The empirical measures are
objective and can offer true measures, such as student growth and student perception
survey. He explained that RSU 74 use the percentage reduction Gap and Cambridge 7 Cs
and Tripod Survey. He shared that there are some excellent measurement tools that are
already developed such as Washington States assessment tools, and N.Y. Regent exam for
U.S. History. He said they RSU 74 uses the National Board of Teacher Standards as their
standards and explained that there are 14 standards under 5 core principals and two are
not observable. Portfolios are used for 4 and 5.
Jan Neurether:
Jan said that RSU 29 used the Danielson model and the Marzano model. She
explained that they did not use the Danielson model very long and that Marzzano is very
comprehensive. I asked her if she found it to be an effective tool. She said yes, but for
special education teachers, regulations and timelines are not really addressed. She said
Danielsons rubric includes some areas that address it. She said that she is not sure where
Marzano addresses timelines and paperwork. She also said that there are so many
standards and domains to focus on.
8. I asked for any additional insights and suggestions that they would like to share
regarding the formal/summative evaluation process?
Ken Coville:

Ken recommended for schools going through the process of effective educator /
evaluation process to first pick a model and do what needs to be done on the standards
and to put energy on the theoretical aspects of evaluation and less on empirical side. He
explained that people typically get caught up on student growth and such details, instead
of discussing theoretical aspects of the model of improving education. He also said it is
important that people accept the reality that only 10 to 15 percent of the teachers are
really highly effective. The largest percentage, 70% are adequate, should not be fired but
have a need for improvement, and 10 to 15% are marginal and need an intensive
improvement plan.
Jan Neurether:
Jan shared that it is important to build relationships prior to doing observations.
She said relationship is important before feedback is given. She also shared that it is
important not to wait until the end of the year to address issues. She explained that it is
important to work through issues and to note growth. She explained that it is important
to let staff know about areas of need and give them time to improve before nailing
them on an observation. She also suggested using the sandwich approach to feedback by
starting with a positive, include areas for improvement, and end with a positive.
Reference:
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano,