by: Mery Tellez
Teacher evaluations are determining for many teachers around the world. The process behind them, has been designed and re-designed many times to fit many different realities.
I believe that the way in which we as teachers are evaluated should mirror our beliefs around evaluation of our students. In that sense, and as it was presented in previous posts, I am a firm believer in evaluation and assessment as communication tools that allow teachers and students to track progress and observe aspects that can improve. Translating this to the teacher evaluations, I believe these should be framed in the same way; as communication tool between teachers and evaluators/administrators/mentors.
The person observing my teaching, should aim to provide me with feedback on the current status of my teaching techniques and with steps and suggestions that can take me towards progress in the areas in which improvement is required.
In my first year as a teacher I was lucky enough to be evaluated and observed by an inspiring principal who made the process easy, gratifying and productive for me and in extension for the school. The 3 key components that I was able to identify as successful in both his technique and feedback were:
1. He was a human being first of all: He understood it was my first year, and he understood how difficult it is to have an "intruder" in your classroom. Therefore, he was kind and understanding during pre, observation and post-observation, he showed a smile and interacted with me and the students helping us all to see that his was a visit and that he was interested in learning about our dynamic and our interactions, more than in judging them.
2. He framed the post-observation as a mentor-mentee session and not as the moment of the verdict. He started by pointing out the parts of the observation that were impressive or simply positive from his perspective. Then he moved to provide me with strategies, suggestions, actionable items that I was able to immediately apply in order to improve.
3. He helped me to set goals for myself and my class, he was interested not in telling me how good or bad I was, but in telling me where the next step was for me to improve. My evaluation and observation were linked to my professional development plan and he made it clear throughout the process. His feedback was supportive and accompanied by literature and/or resources aimed to help me improve.
The components of my first evaluation allowed me to grow as a teacher and benefit my students and the goals of the school.
Teacher evaluation systems come in all shapes and forms. Normally, their components are mainly determined by the objectives a specific school or district has for the process, or in a wider range to governmental policies and requirements. Working in the international school area, provides to some extend a flexibility for a school to pick and choose some of the best pieces of different system.
The following two models are very different in their approach and components, and therefore I believe is worth to look at them and compare their differences and similarities.
The first one is the one proposed by the Ohio Department of Education. Under this framework, teacher evaluation are determined by a 50-50 division in which half of the teacher evaluation is determined by students' performance as given by different types of growth measures. While the remaining 50% of the evaluation is determined by the teacher performance as measured by his/her professional growth plan, formal observations and completion of performance rubrics.
The framework claims to have recognition of excellence as one of their first objectives, moving to improvement of the quality offered to students, and professional development of educators, among others.
Additionally, the framework provides the instruments for teachers to be evaluated under each one of the suggested components.
There is also another alternative for school, if they want to select having a third component in their evaluations, in which schools can opt for having a 15% taken out of the student performance component for an "optional component" that can be filled with: student feedback, student portfolios, teachers' self or peer reflections.
A second model known as the Empowerment Evaluation; first introduced by Fetterman in 1993, offers what I believe to be a much more comprehensive framework for teacher evaluation, but most importantly, for teacher growth. Contrary to what is stated in the prior Ohio model, in this case, the rationale behind the model is to use the tools of evaluation and measuring to foster improvement. That translates, to the main goal of the entire evaluation system to be the growth and improvement of teachers, by means of evaluation, not as a consequence of it.
The main difference from the empowerment evaluation from other models, is the movement of the responsibility of the evaluation from the administration and towards the teacher; empowering them to build their own process, determine goals, and decide and collect good evidence pieces of their own growth.
The framework is composed by 10 guiding principles that are aimed to help the community to set goals for growth and progress as a community. The first of these principles is improvement: the common goal of the entire process is aimed towards this; improvement, not measuring or evaluating, but progressing. The remaining ones are community ownership, inclusion (participation of the community at large), democratic participation, social justice, community knowledge, evidence-based strategies, capacity building, organisational learning and accountability
Additionally, the framework provides the instruments for teachers to be evaluated under each one of the suggested components.
There is also another alternative for school, if they want to select having a third component in their evaluations, in which schools can opt for having a 15% taken out of the student performance component for an "optional component" that can be filled with: student feedback, student portfolios, teachers' self or peer reflections.
A second model known as the Empowerment Evaluation; first introduced by Fetterman in 1993, offers what I believe to be a much more comprehensive framework for teacher evaluation, but most importantly, for teacher growth. Contrary to what is stated in the prior Ohio model, in this case, the rationale behind the model is to use the tools of evaluation and measuring to foster improvement. That translates, to the main goal of the entire evaluation system to be the growth and improvement of teachers, by means of evaluation, not as a consequence of it.
The main difference from the empowerment evaluation from other models, is the movement of the responsibility of the evaluation from the administration and towards the teacher; empowering them to build their own process, determine goals, and decide and collect good evidence pieces of their own growth.
The framework is composed by 10 guiding principles that are aimed to help the community to set goals for growth and progress as a community. The first of these principles is improvement: the common goal of the entire process is aimed towards this; improvement, not measuring or evaluating, but progressing. The remaining ones are community ownership, inclusion (participation of the community at large), democratic participation, social justice, community knowledge, evidence-based strategies, capacity building, organisational learning and accountability
So, which components should be determining of a comprehensive teacher evaluation? Several studies in the US indicate that teacher evaluation systems, are in fact ineffective at differentiating or judging the quality of teachers, and dramatically fail at being a supportive system for the progress and learning of teachers. (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Observing the different frameworks and approaches available, there are some common components that stand out as particularly important from my perspective as member of an educational community. This are some of the aspects that I consider important to be included in a custom made teacher evaluation.
Student engagement: Certainly this constitutes an elusive, yet fundamental aspect of a successful classroom. Engagement of the students is something very difficult to identify during an observation, as it is very dependant on the topic covered in a certain specific lesson and in many other emotional aspects that cannot be controlled by any teacher in a 100% of the cases. Nonetheless, triangulation of the measures can provide a better picture of the level of engagement a students is achieving with her/his students, by adding components of students evaluations, and quality of teacher-student interactions, a better picture of this important aspect could be included as a fundamental piece of an ideal teacher evaluation system.
Student feedback: An aspect that I personally consider absolutely necessary, as a component by itself, or as a piece of evidence of teacher goals and evaluation. Students are the only real observants of our teaching practices on a daily basis, and even though some teachers fear the lack of objectivity from their behalf, there are many studies that have proven otherwise, and that have proven how student provided information, actually is a clear indicator of teachers' performance.
Sources:
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET Project’s three year study. Bellevue, WA: MET Project. Retrieved from http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitio ner_Brief.pdf
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17(3), 305–313. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0149718994900108
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17(3), 305–313. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0149718994900108
