teachers, we’d only need to consider
his or her classroom. For example, if a
to ensure that all student populations
15 elements (these are highlighted in
teacher were unaware of strategies for
represented in class are experiencing its
the figure). In other words, if our goal
engaging students in friendly contro-
positive effects. For example, to help
is efficient measurement, following
versy (Element; 30 in Figure; 1), he or
English language learners better under-
Strong’s model, which appears to dis-
she would be at the not using level.
stand new content, a teacher might
criminate between teachers better than
At the beginning level, a teacher uses a adapt a previewing strategy by using
many previous models, we would need strategy but with errors and omissions.
pictures downloaded from the Internet.
only a relatively small subset of elements For example, a teacher who simply asks
These five levels are designed to
and could leave out some variables that students to state their opinions about
enable teachers (usually with the aid
have historically been associated with
a topic with the goal of generating dis-
of a supervisor or instructional coach)
effective instruction.
agreement would be at the beginning
to pinpoint their current level of per-
However, if we wished to help
level because errors and omissions are
formance for a specific strategy and
teachers develop instead of just mea-
in play. Although students are, in fact,
set goals for operating at higher levels
suring them, we’d obtain ratings on all
stating their opinions, they need to learn within a given period of time.
41 elements so teachers could identify
how to support their opinions using
Contrast this scale with one designed
primarily for measurement. To illus-
trate, consider the scale for one of the
elements in the RATE system: understanding students’ backgrounds and
comfort with the material (Strong,
2011). This element involves three
parts: intentionally sequencing the
material based on knowledge of where
students are in the instructional process,
relating new knowledge to content that
students have already mastered, and
conveying to students that they are able
to reach the learning goal in a manner
areas of strength and weakness and then evidence and how to disagree respect-
that instills confidence.
systematically begin improving those
fully with others.
The scale for this element involves
areas of weakness. Teachers don’t need
At the developing level, the teacher
three levels. A teacher receives a score
to be scored on each of the 41;elements doesn’t make such mistakes. Rather, he of 1 if he or she exhibits none or only
yearly. Rather, they should gradually
or she uses the strategy without signif-
work through the elements over time as icant error and with relative fluency.
they seek to improve their competence
in the classroom.
Although using a strategy at the
developing level is a step in the right
one of these elements or does a poor
job trying to execute these elements. A
teacher receives a score of 2 if two of the
three elements are present. A teacher
direction, it’s at the applying level and
receives a score of 3 if all three ele-
The System Includes
above that a strategy starts to produce
ments are present at levels that clearly
a Developmental Scale
A second characteristic of a teacher
evaluation system that focuses on
development is that it employs a scale
or rubric that teachers can use to guide
positive returns in student learning. At
the applying level, a teacher monitors
the class to ensure that the strategy is
having its desired effect—in this case,
that students are backing up their
influence students in a positive way.
Although this type of scale is efficient
and effective for measurement purposes,
it provides little guidance to teachers,
instructional coaches, or administrators
and track their skill development. Such opinions with evidence and expressing
regarding how to improve.
a scale would articulate developmental
disagreement in a controlled and
levels, such as not using, beginning, devel- respectful manner.
The System Acknowledges
oping, applying, and innovating (Marzano,
Frontier, & Livingston, 2011).
At the not using level, a teacher is
not even aware of a particular strategy
Finally, at the innovating level, the
teacher not only monitors the class to
ensure a strategy is having its desired
effect with the majority of students
and Rewards Growth
The third characteristic of an evalu-
ation system designed for teacher
development is that it acknowledges
or is aware of it but has not tried it in
but also makes necessary adaptations
and rewards teacher growth. In a
