Teacher Evaluation: A Puzzling Process by Maria Younger
The role of instructional supervisors is one of the most crucial components in effective schools. Denham (as cited in Ebmeier, 2003) finds it remarkable, considering its importance, that it has been neglected for the last forty years in educational research studies. Studies of teacher evaluation are available, however they are descriptive, correlational, or comparative in nature. Davis (as cited in Ebmeier, 2003) finds the lack of explanatory models, including empirical data, has opened the field of discovery for each school system in employing the supervision method with the "right fit." (Ebmeier, 2003). Traditional, bureaucratic models primarily conduct summative evaluations for accountability purposes. In some cases, newer models or elements of models are employed but fail to connect teacher efficacy to the mission of the school.
Teacher evaluation in these cases becomes a ritual based on too narrow a view of teaching performance, professional development, and student learning (Adams & Holland, 2002). Others report that evaluation is neglected or conducted in a negative environment (Danielson, 2001). Trial and error in the problem-solving process must be employed to create a meaningful, formative teacher evaluation - one that will link teacher observation, teacher development, and professional growth. The school or district is dependent on professional growth for successful goal attainment. Recently, Japan has addressed the need to reorganize their teacher evaluation system based on competition, deregulation, choice, and accountability. Their global perspective is to be commended while American models fall short in extending education beyond the district and its community (Ono & Takakura, Collinson, 2001).
The Ladue School District, pioneers in teacher evaluation since 1953, identify teacher satisfaction as the crucial variable leading to school success. Balancing teacher
commitment, student needs, and teacher financial rewards led to changing the school system philosophy and its leadership. A committee of eight teachers and three administrators evaluate criteria annually to revise and monitor school goals. Evaluations with pre- and post-observation conferences, a summative conference in the spring, faculty surveys, and faculty meetings and updates allow for continual communication between administrators, evaluators, and teachers. Performance points based on the evaluation are rewarded with salary increases. A value of $150 per point is set if the budget allows. Teachers with up to five years of experience may earn a maximum of ten points for instructional assignments and a maximum of four points for extracurricular duties. Teachers with more than five years of experience may earn a maximum of thirteen points for instructional assignments and a maximum of four points for optional curricular duties. There are no quotas, and base salaries are competitive with the local market. According to Ladue, this incentive pay plan reflects current research on teacher motivation. The evaluation is the center of this model and plays an active role in maintaining persistent effort to meet school goals (Morice & Murray, 2003).
The Japanese evaluation system is more directed at eliminating weak personnel and rewarding the efforts of eager teachers. Recognizing that the individual teacher is the most important component of education, the old system based on seniority was replaced by the results of self-reports and the principal's objective and fair evaluation. These results provide information for faculty development, which involve having the teacher work in the community. Not to be misconstrued with the American version of community service, the teacher is expected to expand his/her experience to the real world. The evaluation is the sole vehicle for the type and depth of professional training selected. Tailoring professional development to fit each individual teacher is the key to efficient school management. Challenges cited by the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education include training principals and peers as evaluators in addition to how to clearly disclose the evaluation information to the faculty member(Ono & Takakura, 2001). Disclosure can be the most negative aspect of the evaluation. Clearly, the Japanese used this specific term to target communication skills.
School improvement requires a professional and democratic approach. Moving towards a culture of inquiry (i.e. empowering teachers to question school operations, curriculum, school issues, etc.) allows the teacher to have responsibility and ownership of the educational process and diminishes the principal's power. Professional development plans (PDPs) are as solid as the teachers and administrators make them. Teachers practicing reflection, collaboration, action research, and innovation generate the shift of responsibility. Brainstorming, designing, administering, and revising PDPs cannot be a top-down affair (Elieff, n.d.). Using reflection, the teacher confronts, analyzes, and interprets teaching behaviors. Collaboration is a synergistic movement reaching an educational alliance. This collective practice encourages commitment to the grade level, department, district curriculum specialist, consultant, administration, and community. Collaboration is the foundation of teacher evaluation. Innovation is the characteristic of teaching which allows the teacher to show his/her unique abilities. Teachers are able to target methods, strategies, and materials that can contribute to learning, student interest, and effective means of parent communication. Darling-Hammond and Glickman (as cited in Adams & Holland, 2002) describe the most empowering factor, research, places the school as the center of inquiry. Teachers create appropriate plans for school settings and contexts. Schools need to work closely with universities (Goldberg, 2001). All are involved in a systematic investigation in the school's best interest (Adams & Holland, 2002).
Peer-Assisted, Self-Evaluation Plan is a rare form of evaluation. The teacher selects two colleagues, one from the teacher's subject area and the other a team member. This group collaborates to form a list of teacher responsibilities. They also evaluate the teacher based on observations, a daily journal, a compilation of selected graded papers, a videotaped classroom session, and journal articles the teacher reads (Elieff, n.d.). It is noted that administrators do not have expertise in all subject areas and often do not have the time to devote to the observation process, thereby giving the peer-based program even more merit (Bassett, 2002). Not entirely giving the authority to colleagues, this suggested plan may be incorporated along with the 360-degree Performance Appraisal created by the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS, n.d.). This survey instrument uses nine-questions to rank performance, conduct, and attitude. Interestingly, using budget resources effectively is the second question posed under performance. As most expenditures are approved by the administration and not the individual teacher, this question may betray a lack of trust in personnel. Surveys or self-report questions need to be carefully thought out to facilitate teacher efficacy. NAIS offers common sense criteria for evaluation, giving advice such as evaluation must be based on data, evaluation makes everyone anxious, and good evaluation takes a lot of time (Clem, n.d.).
The evaluation process, whether conducted by peer or administrator, must focus on a bi-directional process comprising four domains: interaction, consistency, commitment, and knowledge. The evaluator must be experienced and successful (Dekert-Pelton & Zimmerman, 2003). Respect, safety, trust, and collaboration are the most commonly reported aspects of evaluation. There are numerous tensions in the observation itself. It is a win-lose situation held within only one class period. There are four major responses to teacher evaluation; "nerve-wracking", "wonder-why", "put on the best show", and "embarrassing experience." While these replies are largely self-explanatory, the "wonder-why" reaction is of utmost importance and requires more discussion. Lack of specific and positive feedback from the evaluator creates a suspicious environment as the teacher is ultimately left with no voice (Day & Wang, 2002).
Actively supporting and encouraging effective teaching leads to confidence. Confidence and trust in peers lead to satisfaction with working conditions, commitment to school goals, and commitment to teaching. Confidence in peers indirectly leads to overcoming external obstacles and a greater sense of personal efficacy (Ebmeier, 2003). This cycle is the cornerstone of every evaluation system. Portfolios, student surveys, self-reporting, and/or observations, are effective steps toward evaluation that each school must choose for itself to develop a successful and productive environment.
Maria Younger (myounger@aoshouston.org) teaches mathematics at Annunciation Orthodox School in Houston.
References
Adams, P. & Holland, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching [Electronic version]. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5, 227-247.
Bassett, P. F. (2002, April). Evaluation: Adult Peer Mentoring and Coaching. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.nais.org
Bassett, P. F. (n.d.). Faculty Evaluation. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.nais.org
Clem, S. (n.d.). Evaluation and Supervision: Assumptions and Approaches. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.nais.org
Clem, S. (n.d.). Possible Criteria for the Evaluation of Administrators. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.nais.org
Danielson, C. (2001, February). New Trends in Teacher Evaluation [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 12-15.
Day, C. & Wang, W. (2002). Issues and Concerns about Classroom Observation: Teachers' Perspectives. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 467 734)
Deckert-Pelton, M. & Zimmerman, S. (2003, September). Evaluating the Evaluators: Teachers' perceptions of the Principal's Role in Professional Evaluation. (ISSN: 01926365). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 672 932)
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How Supervision Influences Teacher Efficacy and Commitment: An Investigation of a Path Model. (ISSN: 08821232). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 660 834)
Elieff, T. (n.d.). Faculty Evaluation: Toward a Healthy Faculty Culture. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.nais.org
Goldberg, M. (2001, February). The Ability to Persuade People to Change. An Interview with Mary Hatwood Futrell. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 465-468. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from Academic Search Premier database.
Morice, L & Murray, J. (2003, May). Compensation and Teacher Retention: A Success Story. Educational Leadership, 60, 40-44. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from Professional Development Collection database.
National Association of Independent Schools. Performance Appraisal (Example). (n.d.). Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.nais.org
Ono, Y. & Takakura, S. (2001, August). Restructuring Teacher Evaluation in Japan: Recent Developments in Personnel Management System. (SP 041154). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 477 498)
