Problems with traditional methods of teacher evaluation
As long ago as the early 1980’s, teachers in America were critical of
their evaluation systems and were calling for a more specific and
rigorous approach. (Wise et al 1984, cited in Marzano 2013).
Darling-Hammond (2013, p.6) believes that “most teachers want more from
an evaluation system. They crave useful feedback and the challenge and
counsel that would enable them to improve.” A group of expert teachers,
the Accomplished California Teachers (2010) network, identified six main
problems with teacher evaluation which they had encountered across a
number of districts. Marshall (2013) devotes an entire chapter to a
consideration of what he considers to be the seven main problems
underlying the need for a new approach. Both lists are very similar and
will be synthesised, together with other research and the author’s
experiences as a teacher, vice-principal and principal, to produce the
following 6-point summary of problems arising from traditional methods
of teacher evaluation. Since “teacher evaluation traditionally has been
based on the act of teaching and documented almost exclusively through
the use of classroom observation” (Tucker and Stronge 2005, p.7) much
of what follows is written in relation to this particular technique.
There is no shared and agreed definition of what constitutes
‘good teaching’“Teachers and administrators rarely have a good understanding of what
good instruction looks like” (Marshall 2013, p23). If this is true
(and Marshall presents supporting statistical evidence) then it
follows that the contents of any ‘observation instruments’ which are
used to evaluate instruction, might generate similar differences of
opinion. Darling-Hammond (2013) notes that even when instruments list
elements of effective teaching, they often fail to elaborate on what
constitutes evidence of these, thus hampering a fair and objective
assessment of teaching. If observers are looking for one thing, and
teachers think they should be doing something different, clearly any
evaluation will be seriously compromised.
Lack of a clear, shared understanding as to the purpose of the
evaluation.
A common-sense assumption about observation is that its purpose is to
provide feedback and guidance for improving professional practice.
However, ”teachers rarely get feedback and teachers and principals have
few authentic conversations about teaching and learning” (Marshall
2013, p.46) The ACT (2010) found that in a survey of 1010 teachers, only
26% reported that their most recent formal evaluation was useful and
effective. 41% felt it was just a formality whilst 32% said it was, at
best, well-intentioned but not particularly helpful. These are not
encouraging statistics. Tucker and Stronge (2005, p.5) note that many
authors add the additional purpose of “documenting accountability”.
Where this is the case, outcomes can be linked to contract renewal or
tenure (Winters and Cohen 2012). New Federal requirements in the USA
encourage the use of evaluations “to inform decisions about tenure and
continuation, compensation and promotion, advanced certification and
dismissal” (Darling-Hammond 2013,p.2) making teachers understandably
nervous about the whole process. In the UK, the National Union of
Teachers stated that:The various purposes for which observations may be required has
meant that in some schools the total number of observations has
increased, and the context in which they are carried out can be felt to
be hostile and bullying, rather than supportive and developmental. (NUT
2010, p1)
- Current systems of evaluation are time consuming and unwieldyMarzano (2013, p.13) notes that “live classroom observations are very
time-consuming and expensive”. Darling-Hammond (2013, p.4) concurs
stating that “in many schools…….principals have little
time or training for evaluation or support”.
She goes on to say that evaluations can go awry because schools create
“unmanageable systems”. Marshall (2013) argues that because each
cycle of observation takes at least four hours of the principal’s
time, it is difficult to schedule and coordinate. Consequently it is
very difficult for the principal to see each teacher more than once a
year. (see point 6 below) He also notes that observation write-ups of
4 or 5 pages are the norm in many districts.
- Little or no connection to student outcomes/learningTucker and Stronge (2005) assert that most teacher evaluation focusses
on the act of teaching rather than student outcomes. Most
evaluations pay little or no attention to the performance of a
teacher’s students and hence provide little advice about how to
support student learning. The ACT teachers noted that as long as a
class is well managed and seems to be on task, not much else
matters. (Darling-Hammond 2013) In other words, little or no learning
might be taking place even though the teaching appears to be
acceptable. This relates to point 1 above, for if the purpose of the
evaluation is seen as assessing teacher performance, the real focus of
student learning gets overlooked. Marshall (2013) notes that because
principals are too busy scripting the lesson to get up and check on
the learning, they are left with little choice but to focus on
teaching inputs rather than learning outputs.
- Lack of appropriate training for the observerIn point 3 above, we have already drawn attention to the lack of
training for administrators in the art of evaluation or support. An
area to which policy often does not devote enough attention is that of
skills development for evaluation (OECD 2009). Darling-Hammond (2013
p.1) states that “many principals have not had access to the
professional development and support the need to become expert
instructional leaders and evaluators of teaching”. Principals are
usually very experienced educators, and it is therefore assumed that
they will make good evaluators. Without appropriate training this may
not be the case and “well-intentioned programmes can revert to the
blind leading the blind” (Coe et al.2014 p.25)
- The observer sees only a ‘snapshot’ of teaching which may be
unrepresentative
Most teachers plan and teach about 900 lessons per year and principals
typically evaluate just one or 0.1%. The remaining 99.9% of the time
each teacher is essentially alone with students (Marshall 2013). He goes
on to say that “when teachers are left alone, mediocrity happens”.
(ibid. p.21) There are many problems with this. The infrequency of
observation means that when it is announced, most teachers prepare and
produce an entirely atypical ‘all singing, all dancing’ show lesson
which bears little resemblance to normal practice. Even if the lesson is
more usual, what happens if the teacher gets nervous, has a bad day or
the children play-up? What happens if the computer crashes at the start
of an IT- based lesson? Every teacher’s worst fear is being judged on a
bad moment or being taken our of context, so the desire to have more
control over evaluation visits is quite understandable. But the downside
is obvious, the principal may not be seeing the kind of teaching
students are experiencing on a daily basis, making the appraisal
inaccurate. (Marshall 2013)