"I am still receiving emails about my Nov. 23 column on Dan Goldfarb, the first teacher to share with me the results of an evaluation under the new D.C. teacher assessment plan, IMPACT. Goldfarb was not happy with his score, 2.3 out of a possible 4 points. He said the rules forced his evaluator to focus on trivia, like whether he had been--to quote the IMPACT guidelines--“affirming (verbally or in writing) student effort or the connection between hard work and achievement.” He said the evaluator told his principal of his complaints about the program and about D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, violating promised confidentiality.
Goldfarb had legitimate gripes. But his was a tiny sample of this innovative attempt at rating teachers. When I sought evaluations from teachers not so opposed to IMPACT, several said they would send theirs over, but so far only one has done so. That evaluation differed from Goldfarb’s in intriguing ways. The score was almost perfect, 3.92 out of 4. But the analysis seemed to me out of sync with thinking behind this program."
Goldfarb had legitimate gripes. But his was a tiny sample of this innovative attempt at rating teachers. When I sought evaluations from teachers not so opposed to IMPACT, several said they would send theirs over, but so far only one has done so. That evaluation differed from Goldfarb’s in intriguing ways. The score was almost perfect, 3.92 out of 4. But the analysis seemed to me out of sync with thinking behind this program."