Charlotte Danielson: Teacher Evaluation System

Charlotte Danielson: Teacher Evaluation System

In today’s school district system, quality of education standards remains to be an issue of high importance. Scholars and government officials in the education sector are constantly trying to develop a high quality teacher evaluation and supervision system. Charlotte Danielson’s teacher evaluation system model for teacher supervision and evaluation is the most popular teaching framework.

Danielson charlotte argues that a good model should be based on four queries: How good is good enough? Good enough at what? How do we know? Lastly, who should decide? (Danielson, 2010) .These queries create a bigger picture of instructional supervision and evaluation.

The relevance of teacher supervision and evaluation is to set up a system whose objective is to ensure teachers are able to teach using the most effective methods that students can relate to but also convenient with the teachers. It is like creating a convenient partnership between a student and a teacher.

By having a well defined evaluation system, it ensures teaching qualities are not compromised and also promotes professional development (Danielson, 2010). Another important reason is because public schools are financed using taxpayers money and high quality teaching and standards are expected.

These ideals can be used in decision making since it is easier to use a proved model of supervision and evaluation as opposed to school heads deciding on their own what is method should be used.However this model has its strengths and weakness. As much as this model promotes professional development and ensures teacher quality, a challenge arises since a system that ensures quality focuses on clinical supervision whereas promoting professionalism is collaborative with room for changes. It is better when the prerequisite of the two functions are set with an intention of the structure itself.

These limitations can be highlighted by considering a typical supervision and observation process in most schools. The scenario is where an overseer observes by taking notes while in the classroom then gives the teacher a report of what they saw. The analysis is based on the overseer’s perception which might not be accurate since the teacher who was teaching does not get an opportunity to contribute on the evaluation.

Conclusion

It would be ideal if a model is used where teacher evaluation produces more beneficial results other than quality assurance. This will facilitate room for teacher growth by creating prospects of professional conversation focusing on approved benchmarks of practice. Some of the queries that still linger around include: What is the universally acceptable of definition of good teaching? Are the evaluators skilled enough to conduct the evaluation?

These are some of the loopholes that should be addressed. A supervisor can implement the framework for professional practice to ensure a school system of accountability by using set standards of evaluation but giving room for flexibility in cases where teachers use methods contrary to evaluation benchmarks but are still able to achieve the ultimate objectives. If I were to become a supervisor, I would give room for teachers to exercise their expertise and in relevant cases their experience to achieve set objectives using their own methodologies. But this should not pose a threat or jeopardise the basic and acceptable working ethics in the teaching profession.

 

Reference
Danielson, C. (2010, December 28). Evaluations That Help Teachers Learn. Educational Leadership , 35-39.