外文資料翻譯--華盛頓的模范教師評價體系

1、<p>　　南 京 理 工 大 學 紫 金 學 院</p><p>　　畢業(yè)設計(論文)外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　系： 計算機系 </p><p>　　專 業(yè)： 計算機科學與技術 </p><p>　　姓 名：

2、 張肖南 </p><p>　　學 號： 080601306 </p><p>　　外文出處：Headden, Susan.Inside IMPACT: D.C.'s Model Teacher Evaluation System.EducationSectorReports[J].Education ector,2

3、011(06):50-68 </p><p>　　附 件： 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文。 </p><p>　　注：請將該封面與附件裝訂成冊。附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文</p><p>　　IMPACT內幕：華盛頓的模范教師評價體系</p><p>　　By Susan Headden ww

4、w.educationsector.org </p><p><b>　　感謝</b></p><p>　　我要感謝所有華府公立學校教師，校長，主要的教育工作者和管理者抽出他們的時間與我分享他們的見解和經驗。感謝明智的教育部門的同事他們給出有益的反饋還要感謝Robin Smiles的周到的編輯和她的耐心。 </p><p><b>　

5、　關于作者：</b></p><p>　　SUSAN HEADDEN教育部門的資深作者和編輯?？梢酝ㄟ^這個郵箱找到她sheadden@educationsector.org。</p><p><b>　　關于教育部門：</b></p><p>　　教育部門是一個獨立思考的敢于挑戰(zhàn)教育政策傳統(tǒng)思維的機構。我們是一個非盈利性，無黨派組織

6、，致力于在教育方面實現重大影響，既要改善現有的改革方案又要開發(fā)新的創(chuàng)新的解決方案，針對我們國家的最緊迫的教育問題。 </p><p>　　教育部門鼓勵自由使用，復制和分配我們的思想，觀點和分析報告。我們的Creative Commons 許可證允許我們在非商業(yè)的前提下運用我們的教育部資源和委任材料。欲了解更多信息和我們的材料用于商業(yè)用途的說明，請訪問我們的網站www.educationsector.org。 &l

7、t;/p><p>　　對公立學校的教師,六月是傳統(tǒng)上的夢醒時分。學生的測試已結束，最后的課程也已結束，從墻壁撕下來的藝術品，卷起來并送回家給了家長。在最好的情況下，有一種感覺，大部分學生需要學習老師也允許學習的東西：如果沒有得到財富或公眾的認可，至少要做個人滿意的工作并且做好。但今年以來，哥倫比亞公立學校學風日下，教師也不能非常自由，直到他們看到他們關于他們教學努力的最終判決的一份報告，毫不夸張地說，報告可以讓他們結

8、束職業(yè)生涯。</p><p>　　焦慮來自對新老師的評價。為全國區(qū)域的教學系統(tǒng)設計的系統(tǒng)稱為IMPAC，這是一個僵化的，基于數字的評價系統(tǒng)，包括學生參與的過程，主要依靠班級的表現和班級成績評價教師。這個系統(tǒng)首先鏈接到教師的表現、報酬、能否保證工作準時方面，IMPACT是Michelle Rhee開始著手改革項目中最具爭議個的一個，。自從最近這兩年這種高風險的報道卡片開始進行，這導致了幾十個老師被解雇，讓幾百人獲得

9、了注意，讓其余的人得到了鼓勵和動力，或沮喪或恐懼。它幾乎讓當地的很多首腦失去了工作，同樣曾強了支持他的市長的權利。像Rhee，就失去了工作。</p><p>　　IMPACT的目的很明確，就是讓教學更高效，從查看學生的理解到教師是否準時去工作，許多老師很歡迎這個準則，并以此來證明自己的同時提高薪水到了25000，另外一些人堅持抗爭，他們堅持他們不能僅僅依靠這些簡單的手段來評價自己。華盛頓的老師發(fā)出了新的聲音，標題

10、是：他們被測試了什么。但有一點是不會弄錯的，IMPACT正在改變許多老師的教學方式。這個國家的各個教學區(qū)域都在設計他們自己的評價系統(tǒng)，這其中包括學生的測驗成績（就是所謂的增值測量）和班級表現。他們密切關注這個在國家首都進行的模板測試。他們這樣做是為了將最好的來自實踐的具有鼓勵意義的課程制作成標準來評估教師并幫助提高教師水平。并且能夠增強他們的責任感，提高公眾對教育界的信心。但是他們同時也看到了找到這樣一個有力的工具去核準并且給出想要的結

11、果是如此之難。盡管如此，多功能的教師價值評估將會是K-12的未來，在華盛頓，未來就在不遠處。</p><p><b>　　定義優(yōu)秀教師</b></p><p>　　一些去過學校的人或者送孩子去學校的人都知道，有些老師是比另外一些老師好。在另外一些領域也是如此。但是，據知名雜志新教師劃在2009年的報道中稱，教師評價系統(tǒng)不能給出區(qū)分，并將所有的教師認為本質上是一樣的，所

12、以在新的可用的評價系統(tǒng)出來之前，教師必須明確老師能做什么不能做什么，并能夠提前預知道會對學生產生什么樣的影響。同時，IMPAC也在發(fā)展，盡管他最大得反對者也認為華盛頓需要一個方式來評估老師。在2007年，當Adrian Fenty 市長想控制這個城市廣大的教育界時，這一地區(qū)的得分在NAEP中處于國家的最底部，他的黑人和白人之間的巨大的差別是11個地區(qū)中最大的。這一殘酷的統(tǒng)計結果出來了，盡管這個城市花了更多的錢在每個學生身上----每人接

13、近13000美元，比美國其他大部分地區(qū)的都多。</p><p>　　通過數據強烈的反應出華盛頓的教師評估系統(tǒng)和本國的其他地區(qū)一樣，是不奏效的，基于一年一次的評估，系統(tǒng)要對超過3000的老師做出敷衍式的檢查并羅列出來，其中不超過一英寸的地方用來寫意見和結果和備注，事實上，他們所有人都在做一個很輕松的工作：95%的老師得到的是滿意的評價或者更高層次。一個中學的老師綜合這種情況說，我可以用一整節(jié)課什么都不講，除了畫畫黃

14、色，沒人會發(fā)現的。</p><p>　　對評估系統(tǒng)的改革急迫性的展現在監(jiān)管人Clifford Janey面前，但是驅使老師增強責任感的卻是Rhee，這個直言不諱的新教師規(guī)劃創(chuàng)始人，帶著最大的決心和精力并敢于承認缺少公關能力的人，受到了Fenty的支持，Rhee因關閉學校、解雇管理者、雇傭新的負責人而讓DCPS震驚，一路上也樹敵無數。</p><p>　　在他所有努力的核心是提高教學質量，通

15、過一份叫教與學框架的文件，我們了解到，當地政府很細致的定義出了什么事好老師，近期的一份Aspen機構的一份報道解釋說，框架向負責任的管理者和老師提供了方式：一起工作，提高教學質量。與集中在教學相比，他們將注意力集中到怎么通過細致的講解引導他們進入不同的領域，我們首先集中在教學方法，但是許多別的改革是集中在總課程，Scott Thompson DCPS的戰(zhàn)略總監(jiān)說，你可以有世界上最偉大的課程，但如果老師不能高效的將這些轉運給你也是沒用的，

16、不是老師的人也許很好奇，關于好的教學就沒有一個可以接受的尋常定義，但是華盛頓的教與學框架想要定義一個，一共有9條要求組成了一個教學行為好與壞的判別準則：</p><p>　　1.有組織，有明確教學目標。2.包含的東西解釋清楚。3.通過縝密的工作吸引各個水平的學生。4.通過提供多種方式吸引學生。5.檢查學生的理解情況。6.解答學生不理解的地方。7.通過高級提問發(fā)展學生的高層次的理解。8.指導時間最大化。9.建立一個

17、互助支持互相學習的班組織。在這些條例剛被寫上去的時候，這些條例被那些老師簡稱為教條1，教條2并以此來增強記憶?？傊琁MPAC系統(tǒng)讓老師將所有的因素全考慮了進去，相對而言比別的系統(tǒng)更有優(yōu)勢，班級表現在教與學框架中占據了對老師的好壞評估35%的比例，學生測試分數（就是所謂的增值數據）在老師的等級評估標準中占據50%的比例，對學校社團的奉獻占據評估10%，學校增值數據即學生的測驗成績對學生學習的占據的比重為5%,在最后一項中，所有的老師都得

18、到了相同的分數。</p><p>　　沒有參加等級評估的老師，他的學生不能參加閱讀和數學的測試，因此得不到增值的那部分，所以對他們來說，他們的班級表現對于他們能不能得到全部的75%的分數變得更加重要，針對這些老師，有一個被稱為“教師評估學生達到的成就”的項目，占的比重為10%，其他的部分和參加級別評估的老師是一樣的了，對所有的老師來說，最終的分數是依靠一個叫“專業(yè)核心”的因素，它包括尊重家長，工作可靠，準時上班，

19、如果這些項目中有一個是不滿意，則會扣掉老師10分。</p><p>　　綜合價值測量，當然是有爭議的，將老師的行為與各種影響分數的項目聯系在了一起，老師們說他們經常控制不了分數的增減。最近有報道稱老師和管理者在占據比重最大的項目上作假，這更加重了爭議。當然，這還不是最讓老師們震驚的。IMPAC中讓86%沒有參加等級評估的老師震驚的是班級整體表現，與測驗成績相比，依靠這個方法來評估老師的表現怎么樣，批評者稱這樣太主

20、觀了，進一步講，這樣也不能評價他們，不能標榜他們，這種評估讓他們在教學中只能按照死板的方式。</p><p>　　每一個地區(qū)的老師一年會被考察五次，三次是學校的校領導，兩次是被稱為“主要老師”來進行的，外聘的老師將會被第三方以公平的方式訓練來遵守這些紀律。考察的時間是30分鐘，通常不會多也不會少，通常是所有不僅一個管理者去暗訪考察。以這種方式老師會被給予一個很重要的從1至4的排名，再加上其他的別的因素，他們制定出

21、所有老師的IMPAC得分從100到400，并轉換為“高度有效”“有效”“效率差”“無效”。一個被評估為無效的老師意味著被解雇，效率差的意味著給他一年的時間來提高或者也會被解雇，有效的將會被要求將進一步提高，高效的將會獲得獎金，并且會被邀請到Kennedy Center參加很隆重的一個頒獎慶典。</p><p><b>　　附件2：外文原文</b></p><p>　　

22、Inside IMPACT: D.C.’s Model Teacher Evaluation System</p><p>　　By Susan Headden www.educationsector.org </p><p>　　ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS </p><p>　　I would like to thank all the DCPS teac

23、hers, principals, master educators, and administrators who somehow found time in their packed schedules to share their insights and experiences with me. Thanks also go to my wiser Education Sector colleagues for their he

24、lpful feedback and to Robin Smiles for her thoughtful editing and patience. </p><p>　　ABOUT THE AUTHOR SUSAN HEADDEN ：</p><p>　　is senior writer/editor at Education Sector. She can be reached at

25、 sheadden@educationsector.org. ABOUT EDUCATION SECTOR Education Sector is an independent think tank that challenges conventional thinking in education policy. We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to ach

26、ieving measurable impact in education, both by improving existing reform initiatives and by developing new, innovative solutions to our nation’s most pressing education problems. </p><p>　　Education Sector e

27、ncourages the free use, reproduction, and distribution of our ideas, perspectives, and analyses. Our Creative Commons licensing allows for the noncommercial use of all Education Sector authored or commissioned materials.

28、 We require attribution for all use. For more information and instructions on the commercial use of our materials, please visit our web- site, ww.educationsector.org. </p><p>　　For public school teachers, Ju

29、ne is traditionally a time to exhale. The requisite tests have been given, the last lessons delivered, the artwork torn from the walls, rolled up, and sent home to parents. In the best cases, there is a sense that most

30、of what students needed to learn they did, allowing the teacher, if not riches or public recognition, at least the personal satisfaction of having done a hard job well. But this year, as classes wind down in the District

31、 of Columbia Public Schools, t</p><p>　　IMPACT sets clear expectations for effective teaching, from probing students’ understanding to coming to work on time. Many teachers in the district welcome these stan

32、dards and are motivated by salary bonuses of up to $25,000 to prove they can meet them. Others complain of being judged on elements of a craft that they insist can’t be measured. But whether they are critics talking bitt

33、erly of being “impacted” or boosters talking about “getting great feedback on my ‘Teach 1,’” D.C. teachers are sp</p><p>　　As school districts around the country work to devise their own evaluation systems t

34、hat include student test scores (so-called value-added measures) and classroom observations, they are closely watching how this high-profile prototype is playing out in the nation’s capital. As they do, they wil

35、l find encouraging lessons in how codifying best practices can be used to objectively assess teachers and help them improve, and how greater accountability can considerably enhance the public’s fa</p><p>　　D

36、efining Good Teaching </p><p>　　Anyone who has ever attended school or sent a child to one knows that some teachers are better than others. It’s true in every other field of endeavor. But, as the organizatio

37、n known as The New Teacher Project reported in 2009, teacher evaluation systems fail to make these distinctions, treating all educators as if they’re essentially the same. So, before meaningful evaluations could take pla

38、ce, educators had to recognize that what teachers do, or don’t do,has a profound effect on how much stude</p><p>　　At the time IMPACT was developed, even its staunchest opponents would have agreed that D.C.

39、needed a new way to evaluate teachers. In 2007, when then-mayor Adrian Fenty assumed control of the city’s vast school system, the district’s scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress were among the lowes

40、t in the nation, and its black-white achievement gap was the widest of 11 urban districts that reported their results. Those grim statistics came despite the fact that the city spent more </p><p>　　The data

41、loudly suggested that D.C.’s teacher evaluation system, as with most others in the country, was ineffectual. Based on once-a-year observations, the system graded more than 3,000 teachers on a perfunctory checklist—allowi

42、ng less than an inch of space for comments—and found, remarkably, that virtually all of them were doing a fine job: Fully 95 percent of teachers were rated “satisfactory” or above. One middle school teacher summed up the

43、 typical level of vigilance this way: “I could have</p><p>　　Reforms to the evaluation process took root under former superintendent Clifford Janey.But the push to raise teacher accountability went into over

44、drive with the arrival of Rhee, the blunt-spoken founder of the New Teacher Project who brought to the top job determination and energy along with an acknowledged shortage of public relations skills Given wide latitude a

45、nd full support by Fenty, Rhee shook up DCPS by closing schools, firing administrators, hiring new principals, and making countless en</p><p>　　At the core of all her efforts was improving the quality of ins

46、truction. And with a document known as the Teaching and Learning Framework, district officials worked to precisely define what good teaching was. As explained in a recent report by the Aspen Institute, the framework prov

47、ided a way for principals teachers, and administrators to work together to improve instruction. Instead of focusing on what to teach, they concentrated on how to teach, with explicit directions that cut across differe<

48、;/p><p>　　Non-educators may be surprised to know that there is no universally accepted definition of good teaching. But the Teaching and Learning Framework is D.C.’s attempt to write one. And its nine commandme

49、nts form the all-important rubric on which classroom performance is judged. They are as follows: 1. Lead well-organized, objective-driven lessons. 2. Explain content clearly.3. Engage students at all learning levels in

50、 rigorous work.4. Provide students with multiple ways to engage with content. 5.</p><p>　　In the months since they were written, these directives and their related elements have been reduced to shorthand in

51、the parlance of teachers—“Teach 1, Teach 2”—and, inevitably, committed to memory. </p><p>　　Overall, the IMPACT system rates teachers on a combination of factors, some weighted far more heavily than others.

52、Classroom performance on the Teaching and Learning Framework counts for 35 percent of a teacher’s overall rating; student test scores (so-called value-added data) for teachers in grades that take standardized tests count

53、 for 50 percent; commitment to the school community gets 10 percent; and school value-added data—a measure of the school’s overall impact on student learning—is wort</p><p>　　Teachers who are not in testing

54、grades—whose students are not required to take standardized reading and math tests—do not receive value-added data, and so their classroom performance becomes even more important, counting for fully 75 percent of their s

55、core. For these teachers, a component called“teacher-assessed student achievement data” counts for 10 percent, and the other factors count the same as they do for the other teachers. For both categories of teachers, the

56、final score is then adjusted</p><p>　　The value-added measure is, of course, controversial tying as it does teacher performance to factors they say are very often beyond their control. And it has drawn furth

57、er fire with recent reports of cheating by teachers and administrators on the tests on which it is largely based. Yet, surprisingly, that is not what has teachers most agitated. What IMPACT really comes down to for the 8

58、6 percent who are not in testing grades is classroom observation. Even more than the </p><p>　　test scores, it is this method of measuring teachers’ on-the-job performance that criti

59、cs say can treat them too subjectively and, by extension, misjudge them mischaracterize them, and force them to teach in an overly prescriptive way. </p><p>　　The View From the Classroom

60、 </p><p>　　Every teacher in the district is observed five times a year: three times by a school administrator (usually the principal) and twice by a “master educator,” an outside te

61、acher trained in the same discipline who is seen as an impartial third party. The observations take 30 minutes—usually no more and never any less—and all but one of the administrator visits are unannounced. Based on thes