This page contains archived content from a LINCS email discussion list that closed in 2012. This content is not updated as part of LINCS’ ongoing website maintenance, and hyperlinks may be broken.
Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j2MHPCC10367; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:25:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:25:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <003b01c52f05$1f7265e0$0202a8c0@frodo> Errors-To: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk From: "Marie Cora" <email@example.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:1005] Re: Teacher assessment X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2269 Lines: 57 Hi Maureen, This sounds like a well-rounded process. I really like that the performance goals are the first thing that you start with. Actually, for me this is sort of a parallel structure to classroom curriculum, which is really great because then your whole program (the students and the teachers experience) is structured in the same way. You're right that the staff dev. and the evaluation are linked together. Maybe after a while, teachers will get used to it and it will become more routine. How do the peers evaluate each other? Are they able to observe each other? Or do they work together? Thanks, marie -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Maureen OBrien Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:31 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:999] Re: Teacher assessment Marie, thank you for responding to my email. What follows is the content of our NDEC Peer Evaluation Form. 1. Agree on two to three performance goals with activities for this year. These should include the major elements of your job description, taking into account NDEC agency goals and priorities, your department goals, and your own personal professional goals.(For each goal, three specific activities are determinded.) 2. Write your staff development goal(s) for this year: Goal: What do you want to learn? How: How will you learn it? NDEC workshop: Do you want us to organize a teacher sharing session or in-house staff development workshop on this topic? 3. (To be completed at end of school year) Peer review of job performance: review progress on previously established goals and activities. For each goal and its activities address the following questions as appropriate: Did your partner achieve the goals as established? Was the activity successful? Why wasn't the goal reached? Why wasn't the activity successful? What were major accomplishments? As for challenges, looking upon the process as 'routine' may be the biggest challenge. i.e. another form to be passed in. Some strengths of using a process like this is that staff development and staff evaluation are effectively linked. I look forward to hearing from you again, Maureen O'Brien NDEC Boston
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:47 EST