外文資料翻譯--華盛頓的模范教師評(píng)價(jià)體系

1、<p>　　南 京 理 工 大 學(xué) 紫 金 學(xué) 院</p><p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　系： 計(jì)算機(jī)系 </p><p>　　專(zhuān) 業(yè)： 計(jì)算機(jī)科學(xué)與技術(shù) </p><p>　　姓 名：

2、 張肖南 </p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)： 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(qǐng)將該封面與附件裝訂成冊(cè)。附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文</p><p>　　IMPACT內(nèi)幕：華盛頓的模范教師評(píng)價(jià)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(xué)校教師，校長(zhǎng)，主要的教育工作者和管理者抽出他們的時(shí)間與我分享他們的見(jiàn)解和經(jīng)驗(yàn)。感謝明智的教育部門(mén)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(guān)于作者：</b></p><p>　　SUSAN HEADDEN教育部門(mén)的資深作者和編輯?？梢酝ㄟ^(guò)這個(gè)郵箱找到她sheadden@educationsector.org。</p><p><b>　　關(guān)于教育部門(mén)：</b></p><p>　　教育部門(mén)是一個(gè)獨(dú)立思考的敢于挑戰(zhàn)教育政策傳統(tǒng)思維的機(jī)構(gòu)。我們是一個(gè)非盈利性，無(wú)黨派組織

6、，致力于在教育方面實(shí)現(xiàn)重大影響，既要改善現(xiàn)有的改革方案又要開(kāi)發(fā)新的創(chuàng)新的解決方案，針對(duì)我們國(guó)家的最緊迫的教育問(wèn)題。 </p><p>　　教育部門(mén)鼓勵(lì)自由使用，復(fù)制和分配我們的思想，觀(guān)點(diǎn)和分析報(bào)告。我們的Creative Commons 許可證允許我們?cè)诜巧虡I(yè)的前提下運(yùn)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(shuō)明，請(qǐng)?jiān)L問(wèn)我們的網(wǎng)站www.educationsector.org。 &l

7、t;/p><p>　　對(duì)公立學(xué)校的教師,六月是傳統(tǒng)上的夢(mèng)醒時(shí)分。學(xué)生的測(cè)試已結(jié)束，最后的課程也已結(jié)束，從墻壁撕下來(lái)的藝術(shù)品，卷起來(lái)并送回家給了家長(zhǎng)。在最好的情況下，有一種感覺(jué)，大部分學(xué)生需要學(xué)習(xí)老師也允許學(xué)習(xí)的東西：如果沒(méi)有得到財(cái)富或公眾的認(rèn)可，至少要做個(gè)人滿(mǎn)意的工作并且做好。但今年以來(lái)，哥倫比亞公立學(xué)校學(xué)風(fēng)日下，教師也不能非常自由，直到他們看到他們關(guān)于他們教學(xué)努力的最終判決的一份報(bào)告，毫不夸張地說(shuō)，報(bào)告可以讓他們結(jié)

8、束職業(yè)生涯。</p><p>　　焦慮來(lái)自對(duì)新老師的評(píng)價(jià)。為全國(guó)區(qū)域的教學(xué)系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)的系統(tǒng)稱(chēng)為IMPAC，這是一個(gè)僵化的，基于數(shù)字的評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)，包括學(xué)生參與的過(guò)程，主要依靠班級(jí)的表現(xiàn)和班級(jí)成績(jī)?cè)u(píng)價(jià)教師。這個(gè)系統(tǒng)首先鏈接到教師的表現(xiàn)、報(bào)酬、能否保證工作準(zhǔn)時(shí)方面，IMPACT是Michelle Rhee開(kāi)始著手改革項(xiàng)目中最具爭(zhēng)議個(gè)的一個(gè)，。自從最近這兩年這種高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的報(bào)道卡片開(kāi)始進(jìn)行，這導(dǎo)致了幾十個(gè)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(lì)和動(dòng)力，或沮喪或恐懼。它幾乎讓當(dāng)?shù)氐暮芏嗍啄X失去了工作，同樣曾強(qiáng)了支持他的市長(zhǎng)的權(quán)利。像Rhee，就失去了工作。</p><p>　　IMPACT的目的很明確，就是讓教學(xué)更高效，從查看學(xué)生的理解到教師是否準(zhǔn)時(shí)去工作，許多老師很歡迎這個(gè)準(zhǔn)則，并以此來(lái)證明自己的同時(shí)提高薪水到了25000，另外一些人堅(jiān)持抗?fàn)帲麄儓?jiān)持他們不能僅僅依靠這些簡(jiǎn)單的手段來(lái)評(píng)價(jià)自己。華盛頓的老師發(fā)出了新的聲音，標(biāo)題

10、是：他們被測(cè)試了什么。但有一點(diǎn)是不會(huì)弄錯(cuò)的，IMPACT正在改變?cè)S多老師的教學(xué)方式。這個(gè)國(guó)家的各個(gè)教學(xué)區(qū)域都在設(shè)計(jì)他們自己的評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)，這其中包括學(xué)生的測(cè)驗(yàn)成績(jī)（就是所謂的增值測(cè)量）和班級(jí)表現(xiàn)。他們密切關(guān)注這個(gè)在國(guó)家首都進(jìn)行的模板測(cè)試。他們這樣做是為了將最好的來(lái)自實(shí)踐的具有鼓勵(lì)意義的課程制作成標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)評(píng)估教師并幫助提高教師水平。并且能夠增強(qiáng)他們的責(zé)任感，提高公眾對(duì)教育界的信心。但是他們同時(shí)也看到了找到這樣一個(gè)有力的工具去核準(zhǔn)并且給出想要的結(jié)

11、果是如此之難。盡管如此，多功能的教師價(jià)值評(píng)估將會(huì)是K-12的未來(lái)，在華盛頓，未來(lái)就在不遠(yuǎn)處。</p><p><b>　　定義優(yōu)秀教師</b></p><p>　　一些去過(guò)學(xué)校的人或者送孩子去學(xué)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(lǐng)域也是如此。但是，據(jù)知名雜志新教師劃在2009年的報(bào)道中稱(chēng)，教師評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)不能給出區(qū)分，并將所有的教師認(rèn)為本質(zhì)上是一樣的，所

12、以在新的可用的評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)出來(lái)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(yù)知道會(huì)對(duì)學(xué)生產(chǎn)生什么樣的影響。同時(shí)，IMPAC也在發(fā)展，盡管他最大得反對(duì)者也認(rèn)為華盛頓需要一個(gè)方式來(lái)評(píng)估老師。在2007年，當(dāng)Adrian Fenty 市長(zhǎng)想控制這個(gè)城市廣大的教育界時(shí)，這一地區(qū)的得分在NAEP中處于國(guó)家的最底部，他的黑人和白人之間的巨大的差別是11個(gè)地區(qū)中最大的。這一殘酷的統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果出來(lái)了，盡管這個(gè)城市花了更多的錢(qián)在每個(gè)學(xué)生身上----每人接

13、近13000美元，比美國(guó)其他大部分地區(qū)的都多。</p><p>　　通過(guò)數(shù)據(jù)強(qiáng)烈的反應(yīng)出華盛頓的教師評(píng)估系統(tǒng)和本國(guó)的其他地區(qū)一樣，是不奏效的，基于一年一次的評(píng)估，系統(tǒng)要對(duì)超過(guò)3000的老師做出敷衍式的檢查并羅列出來(lái)，其中不超過(guò)一英寸的地方用來(lái)寫(xiě)意見(jiàn)和結(jié)果和備注，事實(shí)上，他們所有人都在做一個(gè)很輕松的工作：95%的老師得到的是滿(mǎn)意的評(píng)價(jià)或者更高層次。一個(gè)中學(xué)的老師綜合這種情況說(shuō)，我可以用一整節(jié)課什么都不講，除了畫(huà)畫(huà)黃

14、色，沒(méi)人會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)的。</p><p>　　對(duì)評(píng)估系統(tǒng)的改革急迫性的展現(xiàn)在監(jiān)管人Clifford Janey面前，但是驅(qū)使老師增強(qiáng)責(zé)任感的卻是Rhee，這個(gè)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(rèn)缺少公關(guān)能力的人，受到了Fenty的支持，Rhee因關(guān)閉學(xué)校、解雇管理者、雇傭新的負(fù)責(zé)人而讓DCPS震驚，一路上也樹(shù)敵無(wú)數(shù)。</p><p>　　在他所有努力的核心是提高教學(xué)質(zhì)量，通

15、過(guò)一份叫教與學(xué)框架的文件，我們了解到，當(dāng)?shù)卣芗?xì)致的定義出了什么事好老師，近期的一份Aspen機(jī)構(gòu)的一份報(bào)道解釋說(shuō)，框架向負(fù)責(zé)任的管理者和老師提供了方式：一起工作，提高教學(xué)質(zhì)量。與集中在教學(xué)相比，他們將注意力集中到怎么通過(guò)細(xì)致的講解引導(dǎo)他們進(jìn)入不同的領(lǐng)域，我們首先集中在教學(xué)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(shuō)，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(zhuǎn)運(yùn)給你也是沒(méi)用的，

16、不是老師的人也許很好奇，關(guān)于好的教學(xué)就沒(méi)有一個(gè)可以接受的尋常定義，但是華盛頓的教與學(xué)框架想要定義一個(gè)，一共有9條要求組成了一個(gè)教學(xué)行為好與壞的判別準(zhǔn)則：</p><p>　　1.有組織，有明確教學(xué)目標(biāo)。2.包含的東西解釋清楚。3.通過(guò)縝密的工作吸引各個(gè)水平的學(xué)生。4.通過(guò)提供多種方式吸引學(xué)生。5.檢查學(xué)生的理解情況。6.解答學(xué)生不理解的地方。7.通過(guò)高級(jí)提問(wèn)發(fā)展學(xué)生的高層次的理解。8.指導(dǎo)時(shí)間最大化。9.建立一個(gè)

17、互助支持互相學(xué)習(xí)的班組織。在這些條例剛被寫(xiě)上去的時(shí)候，這些條例被那些老師簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)為教條1，教條2并以此來(lái)增強(qiáng)記憶。總之，IMPAC系統(tǒng)讓老師將所有的因素全考慮了進(jìn)去，相對(duì)而言比別的系統(tǒng)更有優(yōu)勢(shì)，班級(jí)表現(xiàn)在教與學(xué)框架中占據(jù)了對(duì)老師的好壞評(píng)估35%的比例，學(xué)生測(cè)試分?jǐn)?shù)（就是所謂的增值數(shù)據(jù)）在老師的等級(jí)評(píng)估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中占據(jù)50%的比例，對(duì)學(xué)校社團(tuán)的奉獻(xiàn)占據(jù)評(píng)估10%，學(xué)校增值數(shù)據(jù)即學(xué)生的測(cè)驗(yàn)成績(jī)對(duì)學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)的占據(jù)的比重為5%,在最后一項(xiàng)中，所有的老師都得

18、到了相同的分?jǐn)?shù)。</p><p>　　沒(méi)有參加等級(jí)評(píng)估的老師，他的學(xué)生不能參加閱讀和數(shù)學(xué)的測(cè)試，因此得不到增值的那部分，所以對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)，他們的班級(jí)表現(xiàn)對(duì)于他們能不能得到全部的75%的分?jǐn)?shù)變得更加重要，針對(duì)這些老師，有一個(gè)被稱(chēng)為“教師評(píng)估學(xué)生達(dá)到的成就”的項(xiàng)目，占的比重為10%，其他的部分和參加級(jí)別評(píng)估的老師是一樣的了，對(duì)所有的老師來(lái)說(shuō)，最終的分?jǐn)?shù)是依靠一個(gè)叫“專(zhuān)業(yè)核心”的因素，它包括尊重家長(zhǎng)，工作可靠，準(zhǔn)時(shí)上班，

19、如果這些項(xiàng)目中有一個(gè)是不滿(mǎn)意，則會(huì)扣掉老師10分。</p><p>　　綜合價(jià)值測(cè)量，當(dāng)然是有爭(zhēng)議的，將老師的行為與各種影響分?jǐn)?shù)的項(xiàng)目聯(lián)系在了一起，老師們說(shuō)他們經(jīng)?？刂撇涣朔?jǐn)?shù)的增減。最近有報(bào)道稱(chēng)老師和管理者在占據(jù)比重最大的項(xiàng)目上作假，這更加重了爭(zhēng)議。當(dāng)然，這還不是最讓老師們震驚的。IMPAC中讓86%沒(méi)有參加等級(jí)評(píng)估的老師震驚的是班級(jí)整體表現(xiàn)，與測(cè)驗(yàn)成績(jī)相比，依靠這個(gè)方法來(lái)評(píng)估老師的表現(xiàn)怎么樣，批評(píng)者稱(chēng)這樣太主

20、觀(guān)了，進(jìn)一步講，這樣也不能評(píng)價(jià)他們，不能標(biāo)榜他們，這種評(píng)估讓他們?cè)诮虒W(xué)中只能按照死板的方式。</p><p>　　每一個(gè)地區(qū)的老師一年會(huì)被考察五次，三次是學(xué)校的校領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，兩次是被稱(chēng)為“主要老師”來(lái)進(jìn)行的，外聘的老師將會(huì)被第三方以公平的方式訓(xùn)練來(lái)遵守這些紀(jì)律。考察的時(shí)間是30分鐘，通常不會(huì)多也不會(huì)少，通常是所有不僅一個(gè)管理者去暗訪(fǎng)考察。以這種方式老師會(huì)被給予一個(gè)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(zhuǎn)換為“高度有效”“有效”“效率差”“無(wú)效”。一個(gè)被評(píng)估為無(wú)效的老師意味著被解雇，效率差的意味著給他一年的時(shí)間來(lái)提高或者也會(huì)被解雇，有效的將會(huì)被要求將進(jìn)一步提高，高效的將會(huì)獲得獎(jiǎng)金，并且會(huì)被邀請(qǐng)到Kennedy Center參加很隆重的一個(gè)頒獎(jiǎng)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