Complexity of the Work is Good, Complexity in Documents is Cumbersome

Current evaluation systems do include some items that reflect quality teaching. But they're too complex. They are hard for teachers and administrators to implement and do not place enough emphasis on the few things teachers do that matter most: collaboration, taking part in professional learning communities, building student, family and collegial relationships and creating engaging, research-based lessons.

One of the main publicized intentions of the evaluation systems approved through Race to the Top is the firing of bad teachers (Lavigne, 2014). The assumptions that give this intention validity are grounded in deficitthinking—the belief that failure is cause by an individual's inherent deficiencies or traits they lack. Our evaluations focus on the least effective and have little to offer those who are performing well. Berliner (2018) estimated that 3-6% of the nation's teachers are ineffective. We implemented an evaluation system to address a small percentage of teachers. We are also finding that ineffective teachers are not being removed from the classroom. Current systems of teacher evaluation are not able to identify or remove bad teachers.

This "deficit" model is opposed to a system that focuses on the effective teachers and their ability to influence student achievement. We need tools that focus our attention on making the good teachers we have better. Instead of measuring effectiveness, we need to evaluate teacher effectiveness and let the local schools and teachers drive the improvement.

The theory in performance appraisals is that by improving individual performance we can improve the performance of the organization. There is very limited research to suggest that this is possible (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). Standardized knowledge, skills and abilities must be translated into specific terms to improve organization-level performance (DeNisi & Smith, 2014).

Why are we evaluating teachers based on their ability to deliver lessons, when it is the work that happens before the lessons that has the largest effect on student achievement? Current teacher evaluation systems stifle instructional leadership because they evaluate a teacher's performance in isolation.

Case Study: The Teacher Evaluation Process

Mrs. Jones was a veteran teacher with 23 years' experience. She was highly regarded by students, parents, teachers and her past four principals. Her third graders always grew. Of course, achievement scores were usually very good, with their normal ups and downs. But Mrs. Jones knew her students. She could sit down with a parent and in 15 minutes paint a complete reader profile of the student, and send the parent home with a few things to work on to continue to stimulate their reading development. That is one thing Mrs. Jones always understood: that learning to read is a developmental process. She knew how to develop good, healthy readers.

Mrs. Jones sat down with her principal at the beginning of the year, as they had in years past, to go over the evaluation rubric, evaluation processes and timelines and set goals for student achievement. Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith both expressed their mutual appreciation for one another and what they each did to serve students and families. Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith both signed the required paperwork and went on their way.

A few weeks later Mrs. Smith was making her way into classrooms to conduct her formal observations of teachers for their evaluations. She stopped by Mrs. Jones' room. Mrs. Smith would not have described the classroom as a disaster, but the kids did seem a little off and Mrs. Jones was clearly not at her best. Mrs. Smith did see the bulk of reading instruction and knew things were not progressing as Mrs. Jones had wished. Mrs. Smith also saw Mrs. Jones bring the kids back together and make a few links in the literary elements before the kids went to recess. Mrs. Smith thought Mrs. Jones did a great job bringing the kids back together and refocusing them before a break. Mrs. Smith conducted her evaluation and forgot about it. She knew Mrs. Jones was great. One observation was not going to flip her opinion of Mrs. Jones' abilities. However, the scenario stuck with Mrs. Jones for weeks. She was devastated that her principal saw her and her students on a bad day.

Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith sat down at the end of the year to go over student data, observation notes and rubric scores to determine Mrs. Jones placement on the effectiveness continuum. Mrs. Jones was a nervous wreck. She was sure that her evaluation would be reflective of her scores during one of Mrs. Smith's observations. To her surprise she was rated exactly the same as last year, "Highly Effective." Mrs. Smith again told Mrs. Jones how much she appreciated her. They had a conversation about the tremendous growth that all of her students had made this year, just as in years past. Mrs. Jones asked Mrs. Smith about the poor observation and if that came into account. Mrs. Smith reiterated her previous thoughts to Mrs. Jones: "One observation is not going to taint what I already know about your teaching ability." Mrs. Jones was relieved.

In this scenario, Mrs. Jones is lucky she has a good working relationship with Mrs. Smith and that they know each other professionally very well. Some people would say that Mrs. Smith acted unprofessionally or even unethically, or at the very least that she was not following the system.

The problem isn't with Mrs. Smith's actions—it's with what she was being asked to do. Imagine a college football coach observing each one of his starting offensive and defensive players perform their set of skills and drills individually for 30-45 minutes at a time, spending another 30 minutes writing a narrative about what he saw, and then having a 30-minute meeting with the athlete about what was observed. When would the coaching staff create the vision for the team, set the direction of the offensive and defensive schemas, watch film, scout other teams, analyze data and recruit new players? Where is the time for press conferences, community relations and NCAA compliance? Coaches do not evaluate players in this manner. They observe, collaborate, assess, complete needs-based assessments, provide learning opportunities through instruction and conduct position meetings, skill clinics and film sessions with multiple coaches and teammates at the same time. Schools, educators, teachers and principals can implement the type of learning communities that benefit college football teams.

All teacher evaluation documents incorporate some sound strategies, behaviors and techniques. The problem is the context in which they are used and their ability to influence the increase in collective efficacy needed to improve. The evaluation documents highlighted in this chapter, and many more just like them, are great documents to be used by collaborative teams to decide how they are going to teach lessons, solve problems, meet student needs and implement tailored pedagogical practices. They should not be used to assess overall effectiveness.