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)
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)
  4. 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)