KNEA believes evaluation is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Local associations and school districts have a responsibility to negotiate a meaningful evaluation provision into the negotiated agreement. What constitutes a quality evaluation should be a provision in negotiated agreement.
The process should focus on improvement, not punishment.
It should be clear and understandable to all parties.
It contains balance. Both teachers and administrators must work together to improve the quality of instruction and the quality of an individual's performance.
Quality Standards for Personnel Evaluation Systems
KNEA developed and adopted twelve quality standards for personnel evaluation systems. Based on years of study by KNEA leaders and staff, three common weaknesses were identified in evaluation systems: lack of validity of evaluation criteria and descriptors, lack of constructive feedback from evaluators to evaluatees, and lack of consistent implementation of evaluation systems.
Consistent with the best practices identified in the literature, and in the spirit of offering constructive feedback from evaluators to evaluatees, Kansas NEA offers these twelve quality standards for personnel evaluation systems:
1. The system must include a clear statement of purpose, consistent with district/institutional educational goals. No system should be adopted simply because that system works in another district/institution.
2. The system, including process and documents, must be developed cooperatively by all participants in the evaluation process. It must reflect local concerns and must be monitored at regular intervals by all parties.
3. The methods for selecting those who will develop and monitor the evaluation process must be established through professional negotiations.
4. The system must include a thorough orientation for those being evaluated and comprehensive training for both evaluators and evaluatees.
5. The system must be implemented and maintained by commitment of sufficient district/institutional resources.
6. The system must include an ongoing formative assistance component, including but not limited to peer assistance, administrator assistance, and district/institution-supported staff development.
7. The system must include a summative evaluation component, which is the sole responsibility of the district's/institution's administrators and which meets the requirements of state law. Only the job responsibilities related to the evaluatee's primary contract shall be considered in a summative evaluation. Information obtained from peer assistance activities must not be used in any connection with summative evaluation.
8. The system must include criteria and descriptors which are valid and significant and whose terms are clearly understood by all parties. Rating scales used within a document must be accompanied by narrative rationale.
9. The system must include criteria and descriptors appropriate to the job responsibilities of each evaluatee.
10. The system must include multiple means of gathering data for summative evaluations. The number and length of formal observations must be specified, and pre- and post-observation conferences must be held. The system must require evaluators to provide candid and constructive feedback, including identified strengths.
11. The system must require evaluators to provide evaluatees with any identified deficiencies, remedial options, counseling, sufficient resources, and continuing opportunities for improvement at district/institutional cost.
12. The system must require that records of summative evaluations and responses be available, as prescribed in Kansas law. All records of and information gained from peer assistance activities must be the confidential property of the person receiving assistance. Such records and information shall not be used to make employment-related decisions.
Subscribe to the Works4Me newsletter and never miss a great tip!