Switch course ▾
Session 4. Assessing Teachers and Preparing Trainers
Objective. Choose assessment methods that fit each outcome, write a short rubric and pass rule, check marking with moderation, and plan how trainers are selected, trained and supported.
Assessing teachers is different from assessing pupils: they are colleagues, they are busy, and the certificate will be read by others. This lesson goes beyond the key ideas: how to keep a portfolio honest and small enough to mark, and how to handle the borderline case that every programme meets in its first year. A fair process earns trust, and trust is what makes teachers willing to try new things in class.
Key ideas
Three methods, each good at one thing
- A portfolio is a small collection of evidence of real practice over time: a lesson plan, pupil work samples (names removed), and a short reflection. It suits outcomes about sustained practice and reflection. Its weaknesses are marking time and the risk of copied work.
- A practical task asks a teacher to do the thing: teach a 10-minute segment, or analyse a set of pupil answers, while someone observes with a checklist. It is the strongest evidence of 'can do now', but it needs observer time and classes differ.
- A test is quick and fair for knowledge, such as telling literal from inferential questions. Use scenario items rather than definitions. Match methods to outcomes in a table, and use at least two methods for the programme as a whole.
Rubrics, pass rules and fairness
- A rubric is a short table of criteria with a description at each level, for example Not yet, Meets, Strong. Describe what you can see in the evidence, not feelings such as 'good effort'. Keep to three or four criteria per task.
- Decide the pass rule before the programme starts: must a teacher meet every component, or can a strong portfolio balance a weak test? For competency-based awards, require every outcome to be met at least once. Allow one resubmission with feedback.
- Check fairness: is the task in the language of instruction the teacher uses, does it need technology that rural schools lack, and are the instructions clear? Tell teachers the criteria on day one, so that assessment is not a surprise.
Marking that people can trust: moderation
- Two trainers can read the same portfolio and disagree. Before marking, mark three anonymous samples together (anchor samples) and discuss every difference until the descriptors are clear.
- Then moderate: a second marker re-marks a sample, for example one in five, plus every borderline and every fail. Where marks differ by a level, the two discuss and agree; if they cannot, a third reads it.
- Give teachers feedback they can use: one strength, one next step. Protect integrity with a colleague's signature on school evidence and a short oral check on a portfolio entry. Pupil work in portfolios is anonymous and used only with the school's permission.
Preparing the trainers
- Choose trainers by evidence: several years of strong classroom practice, ability to work with adults, and time. Being the best teacher in a school is not the same as being able to help others teach.
- A three-day training of trainers works well in this form: day 1, experience a module as a learner; day 2, teach a session to peers and receive feedback; day 3, calibrate marking and study the trainer guide. Build on what you learned in course 11.8 about facilitation.
- Then use a ladder: observe a session, co-teach a module, lead with an observer. Meet the trainers after every module for 30 minutes to share problems and update the guide.
Three methods, three strengths
Portfolio
Practice over time
- Plan, pupil work, reflection
- Slow to mark
Practical task
Can do now
- Observed segment, checklist
- Needs observer time
Test
Knowledge
- Scenario items
- Misses practice
A portfolio small enough to mark
Limit the portfolio to three to five entries and say exactly what each contains: the task, one to three anonymous pupil work samples, and a half-page reflection answering two prompts such as 'What did pupils' work show?' and 'What will you change?'. A large folder of everything a teacher did is slow to mark and hides weak thinking behind volume.
Keep it honest with light checks. A colleague signs that the lesson took place, the entry has a date, and the trainer asks one oral question per portfolio, such as 'Show me where in these three answers you saw the problem.' Remember the ethics: pupil work is anonymous and used only with the school's permission, and a teacher's reflection about a struggling lesson is not used against them.
Borderline cases and fairness
Every programme meets a teacher who is almost there. Decide the rule in advance: who reads the borderline work, what extra evidence may be offered, and how long the teacher has. A 'not yet' with a clear next step and a short window to resubmit is fairer and more useful than a flat fail, and it matches the idea that the certificate says what a teacher can do.
Check fairness from the teacher's chair. Are the instructions in the language the teacher works in? Does a Grade 1 teacher in a village school with 38 pupils have the same chance to show the competency as a teacher in a small city class of 22? Allow evidence from different contexts, and keep a record of every decision with its reason, so you can explain it if someone asks.
Examples from the classroom
Three entries, one question each
Scene. In Samarkand a programme limits portfolios to three entries. Each has a one-page frame: the task, up to three pupil answers, and two reflection prompts. Trainers ask one oral question per portfolio at the final Saturday session. Marking takes about an hour per portfolio, down from two hours when teachers brought full folders in the first trial. Teachers say the frame helped them decide what to leave out.
Insight. A frame limits volume and keeps attention on evidence and reflection.
Anchor samples before marking
Scene. Two trainers in Fergana meet for an hour before marking 40 portfolios. They mark three anonymous samples separately, then compare. They disagree on criterion B for two of them; they decide that 'a next step for at least two groups' means two named groups with a reason from pupil work, and they add one example in brackets. In moderation afterwards only 2 of 8 re-marked portfolios differ, and both are resolved in ten minutes.
Insight. Marking together first makes the descriptors mean the same thing to everyone.
A 'not yet' with a window
Scene. A Grade 3 teacher in a Bukhara village submits a portfolio in which the reflection only describes what happened. The trainer marks 'not yet' for criterion C, writes one strength and one next step, and gives two weeks to resubmit. The teacher rewrites the reflection linking a change to two pupil answers and meets the criterion. The programme records the decision and the reason.
Insight. A clear next step and a window turn assessment into learning.
Common pitfalls
- Collecting a huge portfolio of everything, so marking is slow and weak thinking hides in volume.
- Marking alone with descriptors like 'good reflection' that each marker reads differently.
- Giving only a mark with no strength and no next step.
- Using a teacher's honest reflection about a difficult lesson against them.
Match, Mark and Moderate
- Open the Activity Kit: six outcomes of 'Reading for Meaning', a rubric for a portfolio entry on checking understanding, three anonymous portfolio extracts and a trainer-preparation table. (5 min)
- Alone (10 min): match each outcome to the best method (portfolio, practical task, test) and give one reason. Then suggest weights that total 100.
- Pairs (12 min): agree one blueprint. Check feasibility: for a cohort of 25, how many marking and observation hours does it need, and does that fit the 15 assessment hours per teacher? Write the pass rule.
- Alone (10 min): without talking, mark the three extracts against the rubric (Not yet 1, Meets 2, Strong 3) for each criterion, and underline the words that made you decide.
- Trios (15 min): compare marks. Where two of you differ by a level, find the rubric words that caused it and rewrite them. Decide your moderation rule: which sample, who second-marks, what happens at a disagreement.
- Whole group (5 min): one trio reports its biggest disagreement and the new wording.
- Part B, trainers (18 min): fill the trainer-preparation table for your programme: selection criteria, a three-day training outline, the ladder before leading alone, support during delivery and a quality check on trainers.
- Alone (10 min): write your leadership task from the Kit.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- Where did your first match of method to outcome change after you thought about marking time?
- Which rubric words caused disagreement, and what does that show about writing descriptors?
- What is the first thing a new trainer in your programme would not know, and how does your preparation plan cover it?
Reflect
- Who checks the markers in your system, and how would a teacher who disagrees with a mark appeal?
- What evidence of practice can a teacher in a very busy school realistically produce?
- Who is a future trainer in your cluster that nobody has asked yet?
Try it tomorrow
- Rewrite one criterion in your own rubric by adding an example in brackets that shows what 'Meets' looks like.
- Ask a colleague to mark one anonymous piece of work without talking to you and compare marks.
- List who might be a trainer in your cluster and one fact from a classroom that supports each name.
Further reading and links
Match the method to the outcome, write rubrics that two people read the same way, moderate a sample, and prepare trainers with experience, practice and a ladder.