Marshall Teacher Rubric
Marshall Teacher Rubric
Marshall Teacher Rubric
2. The rubrics are designed to give teachers an end-of-the-year assessment of where they stand in all performance areas
and detailed guidance on how to improve. They are not checklists for classroom visits. To knowledgeably fill out the
rubrics, supervisors need to have been in classrooms frequently throughout the year. It is irresponsible to fill out the
rubrics based on one classroom observation. Unannounced mini-observations every 2-3 weeks followed by face-to-face
conversations are the best way for supervisors to have an accurate sense of teachers performance, give ongoing praise
and suggestions, and listen to concerns. For a detailed account of the development of these rubrics and their broader
purpose, see Kim Marshalls book, Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation (Jossey-Bass, 2009).
3. The Effective level describes solid, expected professional performance; teachers should feel good about scoring at this
level. The Highly Effective level is reserved for truly outstanding teaching that meets very demanding criteria; there will
be relatively few ratings at this level. Improvement Necessary indicates that performance has real deficiencies; no teacher
should be content to remain at this level (although some novices might begin here). Performance at the Does Not Meet
Standards level is clearly unacceptable should lead to dismissal if it is not improved immediately.
4. When scoring, take each of the ten criteria, read across the four levels (Highly Effective, Effective, Improvement
Necessary, and Does Not Meet Standards), find the level that best describes the teachers performance, and circle or
highlight that cell. This creates a clear graphic display of areas for commendation and areas that need work. Then give an
overall score for that domain at the bottom of the page (averaging the scores on the page) and make brief comments in the
space provided. When all six pages have been scored, record the ratings on the summary sheet (page 8).
5. Evaluation conferences are greatly enhanced if the supervisor and teacher fill out the rubrics in advance, then meet and
compare scores one page at a time. The supervisor has the final say, of course, but the discussion should aim for
consensus based on actual evidence of the more accurate score for each criterion. Supervisors should go into the
evaluation process with humility since they cant know everything about a teachers instructional activities, collegial
interactions, parent outreach, and professional growth. Similarly, teachers should be open to feedback from someone with
an outside perspective. For a discussion of the role of student achievement in teacher evaluation, see Merit Pay or Team
Accountability(Education Week, Sept. 1, 2010) by Kim Marshall.
6. Some supervisors sugar-coat criticism and give inflated scores to keep the peace and avoid hurting feelings. This does
not help teachers improve. The kindest thing a supervisor can do for an underperforming teacher is give candid, evidence-
based feedback, listen to the teachers concerns, and provide robust follow-up support.
7. If an entire staff is scored honestly using these rubrics, its possible to create a color-coded spreadsheet that can serve as
a powerful (confidential) road-map for schoolwide professional development (see the sample on page 9).
8. These rubrics are open source and may be used and adapted by schools and districts as they see fit.
A. Planning and Preparation for Learning
2 1
4 3 Improvement Does Not Meet
Highly Effective Effective Standards
The teacher: Necessary
Is expert in the subject area Knows the subject matter well Is somewhat familiar with the Has little familiarity with the
a. and up to date on authoritative and has a good grasp of child subject and has a few ideas of subject matter and few ideas
Knowledge research on child development development and how students ways students develop and on how to teach it and how
and how students learn. learn. learn. students learn.
Has a detailed plan for the Plans the year so students will
Has done some thinking about Plans lesson by lesson and has
b. year that is tightly aligned meet high standards and be
how to cover high standards little familiarity with state
Standards with high standards and ready for external
and test requirements this year. standards and tests.
external assessments. assessments.
Plans all units embedding big Plans most units with big Plans lessons with some Teaches on an ad hoc basis
c. ideas, essential questions, ideas, essential questions, thought to larger goals and with little or no consideration
Units knowledge, and skill goals knowledge, and skill goals and objectives and higher-order for long-range curriculum
that cover all Bloom's levels. most of Bloom's levels. thinking skills. goals.
Anticipates students'
Has a hunch about one or two
misconceptions and Anticipates misconceptions Proceeds without considering
e. ways that students might
confusions and develops that students might have and misconceptions that students
Anticipation become confused with the
multiple strategies to plans to address them. might have about the material.
content.
overcome them.
Skillfully uses coherence, Maximizes academic learning Sometimes loses teaching Loses a great deal of
h. momentum, and transitions so time through coherence, lesson time due to lack of clarity, instructional time because of
Efficiency that every minute of classroom momentum, and smooth interruptions, and inefficient confusion, interruptions, and
time produces learning. transitions. transitions. ragged transitions.
Is alert, poised, dynamic, and Tries to prevent discipline Is unsuccessful at spotting and
Has a confident, dynamic
i. self-assured and nips virtually problems but sometimes little preventing discipline
presence and nips most
Prevention all discipline problems in the things escalate into big problems, and they frequently
discipline problems in the bud.
bud. problems. escalate.
Hooks all students interest Activates students prior Is only sometimes successful
Rarely hooks students interest
d. and makes connections to prior knowledge and hooks their in making the subject
or makes connections to their
Connections knowledge, experience, and interest in each unit and interesting and relating it to
lives.
reading. lesson. things students already know.
Orchestrates highly effective Orchestrates effective Uses a limited range of Uses only one or two teaching
f. strategies, materials, and strategies, materials, and classroom strategies, strategies and types of
Repertoire groupings to involve and classroom groupings to foster materials, and groupings with materials and fails to reach
motivate all students. student learning. mixed success. most students.
Attempts to accommodate
Successfully reaches all Differentiates and scaffolds Fails to differentiate
h. students with learning
students by skillfully instruction to accommodate instruction for students with
Differentiation differentiating and scaffolding. most students learning needs. deficits, but with mixed learning deficits.
success.
Has students set ambitious Urges students to look over Allows students to move on
Has students set goals, self-
d. goals, continuously self-assess, their work, see where they without assessing and
assess, and know where they
Self-Assessment and take responsibility for stand academically at all times.
had trouble, and aim to improving problems in their
improving performance. improve those areas. work.
Relentlessly follows up with Takes responsibility for Tells students that if they fail a
Offers students who fail tests
g. struggling students with students who are not test, thats it; the class has to
some additional time to study
Tenacity personal attention so they all succeeding and gives them move on to cover the
and do re-takes.
reach proficiency. extra help. curriculum.
Makes sure that students who Sometimes doesnt refer Often fails to refer students for
When necessary, refers
h. need specialized diagnosis and students promptly for special special services and/or refers
students for specialized
Support help receive appropriate help, and/or refers students students who do not need
diagnosis and extra help.
services immediately. who dont need it. them.
Shows each parent an in-depth Shows parents a genuine Does not communicate to
Tells parents that he or she
b. knowledge of their child and a interest and belief in each parents knowledge of
cares about their children and
Belief strong belief he or she will childs ability to reach individual children or concern
wants the best for them.
meet or exceed standards. standards. about their future.
Makes sure parents hear Promptly informs parents of Lets parents know about
Seldom informs parents of
d. positive news about their behavior and learning problems their children are
concerns or positive news
Communication children first, and immediately problems, and also updates having but rarely mentions
about their children.
flags any problems. parents on good news. positive news.
Carries out assignments Is punctual and reliable with Occasionally skips Frequently skips assignments,
c. conscientiously and paperwork, duties, and assignments, is late, makes is late, makes errors in
Reliability punctually, keeps meticulous assignments; keeps accurate errors in records, and misses records, and misses paperwork
records, and is never late. records. paperwork deadlines. deadlines.
Is invariably ethical, honest, Is ethical and forthright, uses Sometimes uses questionable Is frequently unethical,
e. and forthright, uses good judgment, and maintains judgment, is less than dishonest, uses poor judgment,
Judgment impeccable judgment, and confidentiality with student completely honest, and/or and/or discloses student
respects confidentiality. records. discloses student information. information.
OVERALL RATING:
Highly Effective Effective Improvement Necessary Does Not Meet Standards
(The teachers signature indicates that he or she has seen and discussed the evaluation; it does not
necessarily denote agreement with the report.)
8
9
Sources
Alexandria Public Schools (Virginia) performance evaluation rubrics (2003)
Aspire Charter Schools, California teacher evaluation rubrics (2003)
Boston Public Schools Performance Evaluation Instrument (1997)
City on a Hill Charter School (Boston) performance evaluation rubrics (2004)
Conservatory Lab Charter School (Boston) performance evaluation rubrics (2004)
Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching by Charlotte Danielson (ASCD, 1996)
Indicators of Teaching for Understanding by Jay McTighe and Eliot Seif (unpublished paper, 2005)
Leading for Learning: Reflective Tools for School and District Leaders, Michael Knapp et al., Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington (February 2003)
Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning by Pamela Tucker and James Stronge (ASCD, 2005)
North Star Academy Charter School of Newark: Teaching Standards (2004-05)
Roxbury Preparatory Charter School, Boston: Criteria for Outstanding Teaching (2004-05)
The Skillful Teacher by Jon Saphier and Robert Gower (Research for Better Teaching, 1997)
The Three Big Rocks of Educational Reform by Jon Saphier (Research for Better Teaching, 2005)
Vaughn Next Century Learning Center, Chicago performance evaluation rubric (2004)
What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action by Robert Marzano (ASCD, 2003)
Acknowledgements
Pete Turnamian, Mark Jacobson, Andy Platt, Jon Saphier, and Rhoda Schneider provided valuable suggestions
on the development and revision of these rubrics. Committees of principals, teachers, and central office
personnel from the Hamilton County schools in Tennessee did a through critique of the rubrics in 2010 and
suggested a number of important improvements. Staff in the New York State Department of Education provided
valuable feedback in the summer of 2011.
10