My mental model resulted in an argumentative attitude and counter productive behavior for at least the first hour. I am struggling with the stated goal being to develop a model to support teacher growth over time with what I believe is a primary intent, rating teachers to find leverage to overcome LIFO, last in first out as shared in this Christian Science Monitor article. It was another difficult experience that demonstrates how mental models can control behavior. Through feedback from others such as Amy telling me I interrupted her and focusing on how the model can support teacher and adminstrator conversations, I was able to suspend my assumptions enough to contribute to the work.
Even after a more positive experience, however, I continue to struggle with this mandate. Like many things, our system is ahead of many others. We have a model, Classroom 10, and a system goal already in place. The state is in year two of the TPEP pilot and has identified three models for systems to choose from. We are not a pilot district and we don't want to give up our model, so we find ourselves in the position of aligning Classroom 10 with one of the three choices, the 5D's from the Center for Educational Leadership at the UW. Using their product is supportive of meeting the mandate, but I question if it is value added to our effort.
Though I have many questions, the mandate is in place and we must move forward. We are doing this by working collaboratively with a small team of TEA representatives and administrators. Today was day two of the work and I hesitate to guess how many more days will be needed to draft the entire document and then turn to developing the mandated principal evaluation model.
Before closing, let me ask one additional question. If the intent of the model is to support growth over time, of what value is there in the state reporting by district the number of teachers rated in each of the four mandated categories, Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Exemplary?