FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W10376643> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W10376643 startingPage "336" @default.
• W10376643 abstract "After trying for many years to come up with a system of teacher evaluation that he could live with and that his staff would not dread or resent, Mr. Marshall boiled it down to the essentials: teachers need reassurance and constructive criticism, both based on specific examples. I HAD BEEN trying to do a good job of evaluating the 39 teachers at Mather Elementary School in Boston. Then I read a statement by Mike Schmoker that hit me right between the eyes. Research has finally told us what many of us suspected all along: that conventional evaluation, the kind the overwhelming majority of American teachers undergo, does not have any measurable impact on the quality of student learning, Schmoker said. In most cases, it is a waste of time.(1) Schmoker's statement forced me to confront several questions. How much were my evaluations contributing to teachers' professional development? Very little. Were my evaluations having an impact on student learning? Highly doubtful. Were they a waste of everyone's time? Well ... It's not that I am poorly trained. I have taken courses at Harvard, read voraciously about clinical supervision, and sat at the feet of some of the masters of teacher evaluation. My write-ups of the lessons I observe are clinical and thorough; I support every conclusion with descriptive narrative and with dialogue so accurate that some teachers wonder if I have spirited a tape recorder into their classrooms. Nor is it that Boston's outdated 25-item evaluation checklist makes it impossible to give teachers real feedback: I have found that I can say everything that needs to be said in the open-ended sections of the evaluation form. No, the problem is deepen But it took me several years to figure that out. As a rookie principal nine years ago, I was greatly influenced by Ronald Edmonds and his research on effective schools. Edmonds maintained that effective schools have principals who are instructional leaders. Not surprisingly, then, I felt that my most important role was to serve as a positive critic of teachers' classroom work and of the expectations they communicated to children. I believed that frequent supervision and detailed write-ups were the best means to affirm the good things that teachers were doing and to redirect them when I saw shortcomings and problems. So I began my first year with frequent classroom observations, followed by in-depth write-ups. Most teachers were astonished at and impressed by the richly detailed written feedback they were receiving, but a few teachers were aghast. They filed a grievance, and I lost. My boss said that I could continue my in-depth supervisory write-ups, but he ordered me to fill out the entire seven-page evaluation checklist every time I went into a classroom with pen in hand. This meant that I couldn't make an informal supervisory visit to a classroom and give the teacher feedback. Feedback could come only in the context of formal evaluation. That took the wind out of my sails. I had wanted to restrict my feedback to helpful observations, affirmations, and specific recommendations; summative evaluation was not what I'd had in mind. My visits to classrooms became less and less frequent. By my second year as principal, I had retreated to the minimum number of required observations: one per year (which later became one every two years for those teachers who had earned an overall rating of excellent). My supervision of and feedback on day-to-day teaching had gone almost completely by the board. Even within these strictures, I tried to make the evaluation process effective. I wanted evaluation to be a nonthreatening exercise that reassured and affirmed teachers, while providing specific correctives to any teacher who needed them. Each year I started the process three months before the May 15 deadline, and I invited teachers to let me know when they would be presenting lessons they felt particularly good about. …" @default.
• W10376643 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W10376643 creator A5075297303 @default.
• W10376643 date "1996-01-01" @default.
• W10376643 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W10376643 title "How I Confronted HSPS (Hyperactive Superficial Principal Syndrome) and Began to Deal with the Heart of the Matter" @default.
• W10376643 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W10376643 type Work @default.
• W10376643 sameAs 10376643 @default.
• W10376643 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W10376643 countsByYear W103766432013 @default.
• W10376643 countsByYear W103766432014 @default.
• W10376643 countsByYear W103766432016 @default.
• W10376643 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W10376643 hasAuthorship W10376643A5075297303 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C2777026412 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C2779356329 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C2780573756 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W10376643 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C145420912 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C15744967 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C17744445 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C180747234 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C19417346 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C199539241 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C2777026412 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C2779356329 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C2780573756 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C509550671 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C71924100 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C77805123 @default.
• W10376643 hasConceptScore W10376643C7991579 @default.
• W10376643 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W10376643 hasLocation W103766431 @default.
• W10376643 hasOpenAccess W10376643 @default.
• W10376643 hasPrimaryLocation W103766431 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W130259514 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W18388901 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W1966715412 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W1970152625 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W1971880116 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W1974713144 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2008426738 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2019164338 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2035816654 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2046387409 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2056184906 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2114859194 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2154912343 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2168643780 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W232170685 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W237811642 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W279847995 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W2994357891 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W362876912 @default.
• W10376643 hasRelatedWork W6056271 @default.
• W10376643 hasVolume "77" @default.
• W10376643 isParatext "false" @default.
• W10376643 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W10376643 magId "10376643" @default.
• W10376643 workType "article" @default.