The Evaluation Process

Samantha Rucks
CUR/528
October 3, 2016
Siddeeqah Johnson
 The Evaluation Process
The following report was conducted in order to determine if the professional

development that was given at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year was effective to all

stakeholders involved. After analyzing the data, it was determined that there was a need for

further professional development (Royse et al., 2010).

Program Description

A two-day professional development training was provided for 50 lead teachers and 50

instructional assistants in order to clarify job expectations and performance evaluations that

occurred for the 2014-2015 school year. Before the training began, a survey was completed by

all participants which assisted facilitators to prepare for the training. The following was

discussed: best practices, expectations, integrity, work ethic, schedules, job description,

professionalism, responsibilities, and the new instructional assistant evaluation, that was

implemented into the 2014-2015 school year. The new assessment process requires two

evaluations during the months of November and May which will be conducted by the lead

teacher and an administrator. Lead teachers and instructional assistants were provided with a

rubric and job description at the professional development. Previously, no guidelines were

provided for the lead teacher and instructional assistant to abide to. This left individuals feeling

unsure of what their role was in the classroom setting (Royse et al., 2010).

The training program was created in order for the lead teacher and instructional assistant

to adhere to the provided guidelines pertaining to each individuals job description. The rubric

was used to assess the job performance of the instructional assistant. After the two-day

professional development, lead teachers, instructional assistants, and an administrator will be

required to follow through with the new program that was provided in the training. When both
instructional assistants and lead teachers have completed the mandatory two-day training,

reflections upon every aspect of the training were required to take place. The final step in the

training process involved a meeting between the lead teacher and the assigned instructional

assistant, before the beginning of the school year, in order to define the instructional assistants

roles and how it will conform to the expectations of the lead instructor in the classroom (Royse

et al., 2010).

Description of the Problem

Statistical data showed that 45% of the participants showed a need for improvement. In

order to remedy this problem, it was decided by the training evaluator and administration, that

more professional development needed to be provided for the lead teacher and instructional

assistants. The chart, which uses the elements from the rubric that was provided to all stake

holders, showing the specific areas that need improvement. The data shows that the area that

needs the most improvement is effective communication (Royse et al., 2010).

Purpose of the evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the new

evaluation process and communication model was effective during the 2014-2015 school year.

In order for lead teachers and instructional assistants to work cohesively as a team in the

classroom environment, a program was implemented. The evaluation was conducted to

determine how effective the training was in the beginning of the school year for the lead teacher

and instructional assistant. If the evaluation showed that 80% of all stakeholders showed growth

when the new program was implemented, then no further professional development would be

required during that time (Royse et al., 2010).

Data collection procedures. After the completion of the 2014-2015 school year, evaluations

were collected from all participants, in order to obtain feedback about the new program that was

set in place. All evaluations were collected anonymously, from both observations that occurred

during the school year (Royse et al., 2010).

Procedures for analyzing data. Each instructional assistants evaluation was read and discussed

by the program evaluators and administration. The rubric that was provided to all lead teachers

and instructional assistants was used to determine job performance of the instructional assistant.

The following needed to be analyzed: effective communication amongst stakeholders and

program fidelity. Confidential interviews were conducted with all participants to identify points

of conflict and relationships that appeared confusing or dysfunctional in the lead teacher and

instructional assistant relationship (Royse et al., 2010).

Results and Findings. The evaluation showed that there was still a need for additional

professional development for the lead teachers and instructional assistants. The dynamics

between the two, over the course of the school year, were mostly still ineffective. After

reviewing the evaluation scores, a survey was distributed to all participants in order to determine

if all steps, that were provided at the professional development, were completed. The survey

indicated that not all of the lead teachers and instructional assistants followed the appropriate

guidelines that were set in place. Instructional assistants and lead teachers failed to follow the

devised plan with fidelity (Royse et al., 2010).

Unfortunately, most lead teachers failed to communicate expectations to the instructional

assistants. Lead teachers were not able to step out of their comfort level by directing their

instructional assistant to perform tasks. While reviewing the recent surveys, lead teachers

expressed that they were not comfortable telling the instructional assistants to perform tasks
because they were not the instructional assistants supervisor. The lead teachers feared that the

instructional assistants would not like being told what to do and contact their union

representative. This lack of a chain of command clearly creates a dysfunctional relationship

between the lead teacher and the instructional assistant. Most felt that the instructional assistant

should have known what to do according to the rubric that was provided at the initial

professional development (Royse et al., 2010).

What emerged from the training and analysis of anonymous feedback was a lack of

accountability on the part of both the lead teachers and the instructional assistants. No clear

sense of responsibility coupled with a weak chain of command and little or no consequence for

actions not taken, resulted in responsibility ignored and little, if any, synergy of classroom

dynamics. With clear expectations of what is expected, who is accountable to whom, and who is

in charge and writes performance reviews, a strong chain of command is formed. The lead

teacher must be superior and the instructional assistant the subordinate in this relationship. Such

a relationship minimizes conflict and presents a positive role for the students. Minimal problems

will arise within the workplace and if and when they do, a rational process for conflict resolution

is in place. Continued professional development will provide this opportunity for lead teacher

and instructional assistant to improve communication in their day to day interactions with one

another and the students (Royse et al., 2010).

Conclusion

There is still a need for clear communication but the lead teacher must be the

performance reviewer of the instructional assistant. Additional professional developments will

focus on clear and effective communication within the work environment. If there is a concern

from the lead teacher regarding the working relationship, an administrator will observe and
counsel with the lead teacher to make the necessary adjustments. This will reinforce the chain of

command and support the dominant role of the lead teacher. Decisions to help remedy any

problem will involve the administrator, the lead teacher, and the instructional assistant. If there

is an unresolvable conflict of interest, the lead teacher may request a different assistant for the

new school year. The results of the survey and professional development will allow for all

stakeholders to have goals that are aligned to meet the needs of the students.
 References
Royse, D., Thayer, B., Padgett, D. (2010). Program evaluation: An introduction. 5th Edition.
Retrieved at: https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/1133141021/cfi/32!/4/2/2@0:88.7