My supervisor, [Supervisor], has given me no written reason for his low professionalism assessment. He originally gave me straight "no evidence" in all boxes, although he then upgraded two of the categories to "novice" standard. While I will focus on the professionalism component because it was substantially out of synch with reality, [Supervisor] also gave me "no evidence" or ""little evidence" ratings in other standards when he had in fact seen substantial evidence.

Assessment Ratings

I realize that supervisor assessments are extremely inconsistent within STEP; however, I believe that my ratings have been used to give me a low grade in practicum. Consequently, I feel that evidence of my engagement with the assessment standards warrants comparison with other students to ensure a consistent rating criteria.

Standard One: Supports and Engages Students in Learning

"builds on students’ prior knowledge, life experience, and interests to achieving learning goals"

Rating: "No evidence"

Evidence that [Supervisor] was aware of:

• In my algebra support class, I conceived of a plan to help our Algebra Support students see school activity as directly related to their long-term plans. [Cooperating Teacher] and I created a brief questionnaire asking the students what they wanted out of this class and what were their long term goals. I talked about this activity in supervisory.
• In supervisory, I have often talked about a student in my algebra support class ...how I focus on his [life] goals to help him keep on track in all his school work, not just his Algebra class.

In all other areas of Standard One, [Supervisor] rated me with "Novice" status. I have attached my own assessment, in which I list the type of activities I do engage students in learning. I have discussed all of these in supervisory meetings; my test procedure was the subject of an extended discussion in a larger group. I submit these warrant higher than a "Novice" rating, particularly in comparison with other STEP students.

Standard Three: Understanding and Organization of Subject Matter

3.4: "Uses knowledge of student development, subject matter, instructional resources, and teaching strategies to make subject matter accessible for all students."

Rating: No evidence

Evidence: [Supervisor] references in other areas an "excellent" exponential assessment I created, but apparently doesn’t see this as applicable to this category. I submit that my knowledge of exponent properties, the students’ abilities and common misconceptions, and an innovative teaching strategy to help students gain a better understanding of exponential properties.

Standard Five: Assessing Student Learning

5.1: "establishes and clearly communicates learning goals for all students."

Rating: Novice

Evidence:

[Supervisor] has both seen me engage my "missing homework" ritual and heard me discuss it in supervisory. I regularly print out students’ missing homework and remind them of the impact it has on their grade. This is a ritual of my own devising; [Supervisor] knows I have strong feelings about giving students lower grades because of missing homework. He also knows that the ritual has resulted in many students turning in more work than they would otherwise.
[Supervisor] is aware that I routinely engage with all students and tell them where they are and what they need to do to improve their grades. He knows that none of the Algebra II/Trig students in two classes failed, which is rather extraordinary.

My test gatekeeping procedure, in which I send students back if they haven’t shown work or skipped a problem or made an avoidable mistake, has been extremely successful. Mr. Yezerski now does it, too.

I submit that my innovations warrant a higher rating than "novice".

Standard Six: Professionalism

I included the other ratings because I feel they show a consistent pattern of understating the evidence that [Supervisor] has of my abilities. However, I am primarily concerned with my professionalism rating, in which [Supervisor] originally gave me "No evidence" across the board. He later boosted two of them to "Novice", which still considerably understates the existing evidence.

6.1: "reflects on teaching practice and actively engages in creating a professional development plan"

Rating: Original "No Evidence", upgraded to "Novice".

Evidence:

I am passionate about discussing teaching issues and talking about my teaching challenges. Our supervisory was, until the troubles began, a non-stop discourse in teaching and reflection on teaching. I used to love supervisory precisely because we talked about the practice of teaching—mine, [supervisory partner], and teaching in general. Apparently, [Supervisor] does not consider my form of discussion to be reflection. He did not tell me this. Nor did he tell me that he would only consider written reflections (more on this later) evidence of reflection.

[Supervisor] knows very well that I selected my secondary class, Algebra Support, for reasons of professional development. I want to work with students who struggle with math and who have difficulty succeeding in school. I am known for this. He knows I originally wanted it to be my primary class, a request he concurred with, until we were told that the primary class must be a credit course (Algebra Support is an elective).

[Supervisor] also knows that I have not only passed all three Math Single Subject CSETs, but also those in Social Science and that I intended to finish up the English Single Subject CSETs in January (I took the test on January 10th and expect to pass, as I majored in English and it’s my strongest subject).

[Supervisor] knows, because I told him in early October, that my goal is to teach in all three subjects, focusing primarily on students struggling in math and composition, with my dream history class being AP US History.

I believe I am the only STEP candidate who has multiple single subject CSETs passed (although I know one math candidate tentatively planning on taking the Physics test). I did this all on my own, something else [Supervisor] knows. I do not understand why this would not be considered evidence that I am actively engaged in creating a professional development plan.

6.2: "establishes professional learning goals, pursues opportunities to develop professional knowledge and skill, and participates in the extended professional community"

Rating: No Evidence

Evidence:

[Supervisor] knows, because I mentioned it in supervisory, that I took on the challenge of reviewing two math books for my C&I instructor despite an extraordinarily heavy workload during the summer quarter. I was paid an honorarium, but I did it for the chance to get the experience of reviewing textbooks, and said so to my instructor at the time.

As a private instructor and tutor with five years experience, I have a wide network in the community. I am a key resource at College Track, an East Palo Alto tutoring organization that I work with both as a Kaplan instructor and as a volunteer, and maintain a website of student test scores and their improvement to demonstrate the value of test prep for low income and minority students.

If STEP allows me to finish the program, it will be my second Master’s degree. I came back to school because as much as I love tutoring and private instruction, I wanted to develop professionally as a public school teacher. [Supervisor] may not like my method of doing so, but he is well aware of the fact that I’m a lifelong learner and that I am here because I wanted to become a teacher.

6.3: "Learns about and works with local communities to improve professional practice".

Rating: Originally "No Evidence", upgraded to "Novice"

Evidence:

[Supervisor] upgraded me because of my College Track work (which he knew about already but didn’t mention until I reminded him).

I am an employee of two major private instruction companies (Kaplan and Elite Education), and have considerable ties to the larger teaching community. I occasionally talk about my work at Kaplan and how I use that work to make tests and college admissions more real for my students.

I submit that my work for College Track goes well beyond the "Novice" category. Many other students I’ve talked to received straight "Proficient" ratings in professionalism, even thought they have no contacts in the larger teaching community.

6.5: "Contributes to school activities, promotes school goals, and improves professional practice by working collegially with all school staff."

Rating: No Evidence:

Evidence:

[Supervisor] knows that I subbed without pay for the math department head, a member of our Algebra II/Trig team. If I hadn’t covered for her, her class would have been behind the rest and had a difficult time catching up.

I not only attend my required Algebra II/Trig teacher meeting, but also attend the Algebra Support meeting, in order to get insight into an additional teaching community. Again, [Supervisor] knows this.

When [supervisory partner], my supervisory partner, was worried about passing the Calculus/Math History CSET, I told her (in [Supervisor]’s presence) that I’d be happy to loan her a terrific calculus book that had all sorts of great vignettes on math historians. I did loan it to her, and as [Supervisor] also knows, I emailed her a few websites with useful information.

6.7: "Uses and accepts constructive criticism"

Rating: No Evidence

I believe that this rating is a key reason for [Supervisor]’s dissatisfaction with me. He told me in our 11/19 meeting (more on that later) that I reject all criticism and argue with him about everything. Had he made his feelings clear earlier, I would have modified my manner of discourse to make him feel more comfortable.

However, as I tried to tell him, I have a number of very clear teaching philosophies. I love debating approaches and priorities, and thought that’s what we were doing—as did [supervisory partner], my supervisory partner. Thus, when [Supervisor] told me to talk more slowly, I nodded and said "Yes, I always need to remember that, thanks"—which would seem to me to be accepting constructive criticism. But when [Supervisor] told me to never, EVER tell a student that he or she has given an incorrect answer, I replied that I completely disagree with that approach. I believe it’s perfectly appropriate to say casually, without emphasis, that the student has given the wrong answer. That doesn’t mean I do it all the time, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t welcome his advice. It just means that to me, the far more interesting discussion is the issue of why so many teachers always tell their students that mistakes are okay but never want to actually tell them that they’ve made a mistake. I’ve been teaching classes in test prep, composition, and US History for five years, and this is something I have thought about a lot.

[Supervisor] has told me that he sees such responses as "defensiveness". Nothing could be further from the truth. However, had he told me this sooner, I would have understood that he was unhappy and changed my approach.

I am not arguing with this rating, since it accurately reflects [Supervisor]’s belief. However, his inability to address this with me for the first 10 weeks of practicum and then angrily speak loudly to me about it in the middle of November has been a source of distress and sadness for me.