基于网络的教师评价系统外文资料翻译.doc

南 京 理 工 大 学 紫 金 学 院
毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译

系： 计算机系
专 业： 计算机科学与技术
姓 名： 张肖南
学 号： 080601306
(用外文写)
外文出处：Headden, Susan.Inside IMPACT: D.C.'s Model Teacher Evaluation System.EducationSectorReports[J].Education ector,2011(06):50-68
附 件： 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文。

指导教师评语：
原文所涉及内容与课题有较好的关联，翻译难度适中。该生所作的译文，术语的使用基本准确，译文内容与原文含义基本相符，但部分译文语句不是很通顺。译文格式符合规范，按时完成了外文翻译任务。

签名：
年 月 日
注：请将该封面与附件装订成册。附件1：外文资料翻译译文

IMPACT内幕：华盛顿的模范教师评价体系

By Susan Headden www.educationsector.org

感谢
我要感谢所有华府公立学校教师，校长，主要的教育工作者和管理者抽出他们的时间与我分享他们的见解和经验。感谢明智的教育部门的同事他们给出有益的反馈还要感谢Robin Smiles的周到的编辑和她的耐心。
关于作者：
SUSAN HEADDEN教育部门的资深作者和编辑。可以通过这个邮箱找到她[e-mail]。
关于教育部门：
教育部门是一个独立思考的敢于挑战教育政策传统思维的机构。我们是一个非盈利性，无党派组织，致力于在教育方面实现重大影响，既要改善现有的改革方案又要开发新的创新的解决方案，针对我们国家的最紧迫的教育问题。
教育部门鼓励自由使用，复制和分配我们的思想，观点和分析报告。我们的Creative Commons 许可证允许我们在非商业的前提下运用我们的教育部资源和委任材料。欲了解更多信息和我们的材料用于商业用途的说明，请访问我们的网站www.educationsector.org。
对公立学校的教师,六月是传统上的梦醒时分。学生的测试已结束，最后的课程也已结束，从墙壁撕下来的艺术品，卷起来并送回家给了家长。在最好的情况下，有一种感觉，大部分学生需要学习老师也允许学习的东西：如果没有得到财富或公众的认可，至少要做个人满意的工作并且做好。但今年以来，哥伦比亚公立学校学风日下，教师也不能非常自由，直到他们看到他们关于他们教学努力的最终判决的一份报告，毫不夸张地说，报告可以让他们结束职业生涯。
焦虑来自对新老师的评价。为全国区域的教学系统设计的系统称为IMPAC，这是一个僵化的，基于数字的评价系统，包括学生参与的过程，主要依靠班级的表现和班级成绩评价教师。这个系统首先链接到教师的表现、报酬、能否保证工作准时方面，IMPACT是Michelle Rhee开始着手改革项目中最具争议个的一个，。自从最近这两年这种高风险的报道卡片开始进行，这导致了几十个老师被解雇，让几百人获得了注意，让其余的人得到了鼓励和动力，或沮丧或恐惧。它几乎让当地的很多首脑失去了工作，同样曾强了支持他的市长的权利。像Rhee，就失去了工作。
IMPACT的目的很明确，就是让教学更高效，从查看学生的理解到教师是否准时去工作，许多老师很欢迎这个准则，并以此来证明自己的同时提高薪水到了25000，另外一些人坚持抗争，他们坚持他们不能仅仅依靠这些简单的手段来评价自己。华盛顿的老师发出了新的声音，标题是：他们被测试了什么。但有一点是不会弄错的，IMPACT正在改变许多老师的教学方式。这个国家的各个教学区域都在设计他们自己的评价系统，这其中包括学生的测验成绩（就是所谓的增值测量）和班级表现。他们密切关注这个在国家首都进行的模板测试。他们这样做是为了将最好的来自实践的具有鼓励意义的课程制作成标准来评估教师并帮助提高教师水平。并且能够增强他们的责任感，提高公众对教育界的信心。但是他们同时也看到了找到这样一个有力的工具去核准并且给出想要的结果是如此之难。尽管如此，多功能的教师价值评估将会是K-12的未来，在华盛顿，未来就在不远处。
定义优秀教师
一些去过学校的人或者送孩子去学校的人都知道，有些老师是比另外一些老师好。在另外一些领域也是如此。但是，据知名杂志新教师划在2009年的报道中称，教师评价系统不能给出区分，并将所有的教师认为本质上是一样的，所以在新的可用的评价系统出来之前，教师必须明确老师能做什么不能做什么，并能够提前预知道会对学生产生什么样的影响。同时，IMPAC也在发展，尽管他最大得反对者也认为华盛顿需要一个方式来评估老师。在2007年，当Adrian Fenty 市长想控制这个城市广大的教育界时，这一地区的得分在NAEP中处于国家的最底部，他的黑人和白人之间的巨大的差别是11个地区中最大的。这一残酷的统计结果出来了，尽管这个城市花了更多的钱在每个学生身上----每人接近13000美元，比美国其他大部分地区的都多。
通过数据强烈的反应出华盛顿的教师评估系统和本国的其他地区一样，是不奏效的，基于一年一次的评估，系统要对超过3000的老师做出敷衍式的检查并罗列出来，其中不超过一英寸的地方用来写意见和结果和备注，事实上，他们所有人都在做一个很轻松的工作：95%的老师得到的是满意的评价或者更高层次。一个中学的老师综合这种情况说，我可以用一整节课什么都不讲，除了画画黄色，没人会发现的。
对评估系统的改革急迫性的展现在监管人Clifford Janey面前，但是驱使老师增强责任感的却是Rhee，这个直言不讳的新教师规划创始人，带着最大的决心和精力并敢于承认缺少公关能力的人，受到了Fenty的支持，Rhee因关闭学校、解雇管理者、雇佣新的负责人而让DCPS震惊，一路上也树敌无数。
在他所有努力的核心是提高教学质量，通过一份叫教与学框架的文件，我们了解到，当地政府很细致的定义出了什么事好老师，近期的一份Aspen机构的一份报道解释说，框架向负责任的管理者和老师提供了方式：一起工作，提高教学质量。与集中在教学相比，他们将注意力集中到怎么通过细致的讲解引导他们进入不同的领域，我们首先集中在教学方法，但是许多别的改革是集中在总课程，Scott Thompson DCPS的战略总监说，你可以有世界上最伟大的课程，但如果老师不能高效的将这些转运给你也是没用的，不是老师的人也许很好奇，关于好的教学就没有一个可以接受的寻常定义，但是华盛顿的教与学框架想要定义一个，一共有9条要求组成了一个教学行为好与坏的判别准则：
1.有组织，有明确教学目标。2.包含的东西解释清楚。3.通过缜密的工作吸引各个水平的学生。4.通过提供多种方式吸引学生。5.检查学生的理解情况。6.解答学生不理解的地方。7.通过高级提问发展学生的高层次的理解。8.指导时间最大化。9.建立一个互助支持互相学习的班组织。在这些条例刚被写上去的时候，这些条例被那些老师简称为教条1，教条2并以此来增强记忆。总之，IMPAC系统让老师将所有的因素全考虑了进去，相对而言比别的系统更有优势，班级表现在教与学框架中占据了对老师的好坏评估35%的比例，学生测试分数（就是所谓的增值数据）在老师的等级评估标准中占据50%的比例，对学校社团的奉献占据评估10%，学校增值数据即学生的测验成绩对学生学习的占据的比重为5%,在最后一项中，所有的老师都得到了相同的分数。
没有参加等级评估的老师，他的学生不能参加阅读和数学的测试，因此得不到增值的那部分，所以对他们来说，他们的班级表现对于他们能不能得到全部的75%的分数变得更加重要，针对这些老师，有一个被称为“教师评估学生达到的成就”的项目，占的比重为10%，其他的部分和参加级别评估的老师是一样的了，对所有的老师来说，最终的分数是依靠一个叫“专业核心”的因素，它包括尊重家长，工作可靠，准时上班，如果这些项目中有一个是不满意，则会扣掉老师10分。
综合价值测量，当然是有争议的，将老师的行为与各种影响分数的项目联系在了一起，老师们说他们经常控制不了分数的增减。最近有报道称老师和管理者在占据比重最大的项目上作假，这更加重了争议。当然，这还不是最让老师们震惊的。IMPAC中让86%没有参加等级评估的老师震惊的是班级整体表现，与测验成绩相比，依靠这个方法来评估老师的表现怎么样，批评者称这样太主观了，进一步讲，这样也不能评价他们，不能标榜他们，这种评估让他们在教学中只能按照死板的方式。
每一个地区的老师一年会被考察五次，三次是学校的校领导，两次是被称为“主要老师”来进行的，外聘的老师将会被第三方以公平的方式训练来遵守这些纪律。考察的时间是30分钟，通常不会多也不会少，通常是所有不仅一个管理者去暗访考察。以这种方式老师会被给予一个很重要的从1至4的排名，再加上其他的别的因素，他们制定出所有老师的IMPAC得分从100到400，并转换为“高度有效”“有效”“效率差”“无效”。一个被评估为无效的老师意味着被解雇，效率差的意味着给他一年的时间来提高或者也会被解雇，有效的将会被要求将进一步提高，高效的将会获得奖金，并且会被邀请到Kennedy Center参加很隆重的一个颁奖庆典。
附件2：外文原文
Inside IMPACT: D.C.’s Model Teacher Evaluation System

By Susan Headden www.educationsector.org
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all the DCPS teachers, 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 helpful feedback and to Robin Smiles for her thoughtful editing and patience.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR SUSAN HEADDEN ：
is senior writer/editor at Education Sector. She can be reached at [e-mail]. 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 achieving measurable impact in education, both by improving existing reform initiatives and by developing new, innovative solutions to our nation’s most pressing education problems.
Education Sector encourages 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. 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.
For public school teachers, June 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 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 of Columbia Public Schools, teachers will not be breathing freely until they see one final judgment of their pedagogical efforts—a report that, it is no exaggeration to say, has the power to end careers. The anxiety comes from the new teacher evaluation system known as IMPACT, a rigid, numerically based process that rates teachers primarily on classroom observations and student test scores. As one of the first in the nation to link teacher performance, pay, and job security to such measures, IMPACT is the most polarizing of the bold reforms initiated by ex-schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. In the two years since this high-stakes report card was launched, it has led to the firing of scores of educators, put hundreds more on notice, and left the rest either encouraged and re-energized, or frustrated and scared. It almost certainly cost the local union president his job, and it helped force the mayor who supported it, as well as Rhee, out of office.
IMPACT sets clear expectations for effective teaching, from probing students’ understanding to coming to work on time. Many teachers in the district welcome these standards 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 bitterly of being “impacted” or boosters talking about “getting great feedback on my ‘Teach 1,’” D.C. teachers are speaking a new language—that of the rubric by which they are measured. And that is an unmistakable sign that IMPACT is changing the way many teachers teach.
As school districts around the country work to devise their own evaluation systems that 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 will 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 faith in a school system. But they will also see how difficult it is to calibrate such a powerful tool so that it works in practice as intended. Nonetheless, multiple-measures teacher evaluation is the future of K-12 education. And in Washington, D.C., the future is happening now.
Defining Good Teaching
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 organization 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 place, educators had to recognize that what teachers do, or don’t do,has a profound effect on how much students learn.
At the time IMPACT was developed, even its staunchest opponents would have agreed that D.C. 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 lowest 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 money per pupil—nearly $13,000—than most of the largest public school systems in America..
The data 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—allowing 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 typical level of vigilance this way: “I could have spent a whole class teaching nothing but the color yellow and no one would have noticed.”
Reforms to the evaluation process took root under former superintendent Clifford Janey.But the push to raise teacher accountability went into overdrive 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 and full support by Fenty, Rhee shook up DCPS by closing schools, firing administrators, hiring new principals, and making countless enemies along the way.
At the core of all her efforts was improving the quality of instruction. 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 provided 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 different subject areas. “We focused first on pedagogy, whereas most other reforms focused on curriculum,” says Scott Thompson, director of teacher effectiveness strategy for DCPS. “You could have the greatest curriculum in the world, but if the teachers are ineffective in conveying it, then it’s not going to matter.”
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 commandments 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 rigorous work.4. Provide students with multiple ways to engage with content. 5. Check for student understanding.6. Respond to student misunderstandings. 7. Develop higher-level understanding through effective questioning. 8. Maximize instructional time. 9. Build a supportive, learning-focused classroom community.
In the months since they were written, these directives and their related elements have been reduced to shorthand in the parlance of teachers—“Teach 1, Teach 2”—and, inevitably, committed to memory.
Overall, the IMPACT system rates teachers on a combination of factors, some weighted far more heavily than others. 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 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 worth another 5 percent. On this last measure, all teachers in a school receive the same score.
Teachers who are not in testing 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 score. 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 final score is then adjusted based on Teachers not 10 percent; and school value-added data—a measure of the school’s overall impact on student learning—is worth another 5 percent. On this last measure, all teachers in a school receive the same score.
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 further 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 86 percent who are not in testing grades is classroom observation. Even more than the
test scores, it is this method of measuring teachers’ on-the-job performance that critics say can treat them too subjectively and, by extension, misjudge them mischaracterize them, and force them to teach in an overly prescriptive way.
The View From the Classroom
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 teacher 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 these observations, teachers are assigned a crucial ranking, from 1 to 4. Combined with other factors, they produce an overall IMPACT score of from 100 to 400