The quality of a school system simply cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and as school leaders, we have no greater opportunity to impact teacher development than through the evaluation process.
Why does MB Enterprise offer Evaluation Audit Services?
To increase capacity, quality teachers need to receive quality coaching and descriptive feedback from quality evaluators.
In our experience, superintendents often lack the time, expertise, and patience to review every word of every teacher evaluation and provide actionable suggestions for improvement to all evaluators. This results in valuable performance data that is collected but not often utilized.
We expect our teachers to use data to drive their instruction in the classroom. When they do, student capacity increases. Leaders who do the same, improve staff capacity as well.
Analyzing data and supporting principals to help teachers become the best they can be based on that data, makes a tremendous impact on student learning and success.
Our independent audit service is the solution that superintendents need to increase teacher efficiency and efficacy because superintendents who utilize collected data, can help principals skillfully help teachers.
How is the work completed?
- Every word of every evaluation is read by a trained and experienced MB ENTERPRISE team member and examined holistically, with driving questions in mind.
- Actionable suggestions for improvement are then provided based on research, data and experience.
What does the final product look like?
A 20+ page document will be provided as the final evaluation analysis which includes:
- key findings
- suggestions for improvement
- next steps for the evaluator AND superintendent
A one page “Executive Summary” is provided with a bulleted version of the “Key Findings” and answers to research-based questions.
An example of a “Key Finding” is provided below:
“The provided narrative did not always reflect the rating given." I reference back to 11 of 15 teachers evaluated who were recommended to utilize open-ended questions throughout a lesson to increase student engagement and critical thinking, yet only 3 of the 11 evaluated, received a “Needs Improvement” rating.
Additionally, in one narrative summary, the evaluator stated that he/she clearly did not observe regular proficient practice, but the lesson plans observed indicated proficiency, so that was the rating awarded. This rating, based on the narrative only, seems to be mismatched with the component descriptor.”