The need for monitoring and evaluation
It follows then that if high quality instruction has such a powerful
effect, establishing and maintaining good teaching must be a priority
for all schools. In short, they should implement some form of quality
assurance. As Murphy (2013, p.3) points out “There is now widespread
acceptance among researchers within the UK and internationally that good
teaching is at the heart of good schools, and must therefore be at the
heart of any school improvement programme”. The effective monitoring
and evaluation of teaching is central to the continuous improvement of
the effectiveness of teaching in a school (OECD 2009) . In this regard
there can be few more apposite quotes than the one from Lortie (1975) at
the top of this paper; it is over 40 years old and still resonates
today.
So far, so good. We know that good teaching (whatever that is) leads to
an improvement in student achievement (however that is measured) and
that because of this, schools should monitor and evaluate the quality of
their teaching (however that is done).
But…there is an abundance
of research which supports the notion that current systems of teacher
evaluation are not working well. Weisber et al (2009) state that
teacher evaluation systems have traditionally failed to provide accurate
and credible information about the effectiveness of individual teacher’s
instructional performance. A report for the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation entitled ‘Gathering Feedback for Teaching’ reported on the
failings by saying:
The nation’s collective failure to invest in high-quality
professional feedback to teachers is inconsistent with decades of
research reporting large disparities in student learning gains in
different teachers’ classrooms (even within the same school). The
quality of instruction matters. And our schools pay too little attention
to it.
Kane and Staiger (2012, p3)
Existing systems rarely help teachers improve or clearly distinguish
those who are succeeding from those who are struggling (Darling-Hammond,
2013). Toth and Rochman (2008, p 1) said that traditional evaluation
practices are “superficial, capricious and often don’t even address the
quality of instruction much less measure students’ learning”. This does
not sound encouraging, so what is going wrong?