by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

Creating the Right Measuring Stick

"Teacher quality is the single most important school factor in student success" - Aspen Institute's Commission on No Child Left Behind

In a recent post, “Get rid of the bad teachers, but who are they?”, Mel Riddile raises a number of critical questions.  He asks whether teachers are born or made, what makes a teacher “good”, and how can we create a mechanism for districts to remove poor educators? 

I believe that good teachers are made not born.  No matter how innately talented, every educator can improve with positive classroom experiences, exposure to effective strategies and the tutelage of other talented educators.  But how can we quantify the quality of our teachers and develop an efficient method to remove those who are under performing?  I believe there is one route that can help with regard to both issues – the evaluation process.  It is a process that with a significant investment of additional time, money and emphasis can both identify ineffective teachers and help others to improve.

A Flawed Procedure

I was evaluated many times in the course of my career.  When I compared my experiences with other teachers there were remarkable similarities.  Every few years an assistant principal would make one prearranged and another unannounced classroom observation.  On average each visit was about twenty minutes in duration and generated four to six pages of educational boilerplate.  The only section I read carefully was entitled “Needs to Improve”.   Unfortunately none of these comments were enlightening.  The most memorable was that I had more males than females in class, a factor I had scant ability to control. 

In some instances the process was a waste of valuable resources.  In my thirty-ninth year of teaching I was evaluated by a young but gifted assistant principal who had four years of experience in social studies.  Though we both laughed good-naturedly about the situation, it was clear that the time and energy we both expended on the process could have been more effectively used in other areas of the school.

The Wrong Person for the Job

But placing the blame on the evaluators is unfair.  The vast majority of assistant principals have to deal with an overwhelming array of responsibilities. One of my most recent evaluators was tasked with the discipline of more than three hundred freshmen, administering three different departments, implementing a plan for state barrier exams, hall duty between change of classes, supervising several extra-curricular and athletic events, interviewing candidates for vacancies and training to oversee the program bridging the middle school to the high school.  All of these jobs were in addition to whatever other crises might arise during the course of a typical day.  It should not be surprising that the process of evaluating teachers especially those with established positive reputations would quickly fall to the bottom of her “to-do” list.  

Putting the “Value” Into Evaluation

There was, however, one evaluation I found extremely productive.  It was the process employed by my district during its brief dalliance with “merit pay”.  A great deal of thought and resources had been put into this evaluation procedure and those efforts resulted in the most instructive, detailed and sophisticated assessment of my career.  Based on that experience I believe that a modified form of this evaluation would be an excellent model for building a more effective plan. So how would an effective high school performance evaluation system work?

Three professionals would form a teacher’s evaluation team.  One (generalist) would be a highly trained observer who is thoroughly versed in the fundamentals of good teaching.  Another (curriculum specialist) would have similar training but would have taught in the subject field being observed.  The third would be a local assistant principal.  The generalists and curriculum specialists would be full time positions in the district.  These individuals would be required to have at least ten years of successful teaching experience in addition to the intensive training.  Retired teachers could be an outstanding and economical talent pool for these positions. 

The process would be intense.  It would consist of five formal observations.  The generalist and specialist would have two announced and two unannounced.  The local assistant principal would have one unannounced.  All observations would encompass the entire class period.  The two announced would be videotaped and the film would be a central component in post-observation conferences.  Each video would also be available to the other members of the team.  When appropriate, standardized test scores and failure rates would be included in the overall assessment.  Evaluators will, of course, be carefully trained in analyzing such data and how to utilize it in a fair, accurate manner.  At the end of the process, the three observers would meet and create the overall rating that would then be shared with the teacher. 

One of the critical components of the system must be the ability to efficiently terminate poor teachers.  To expedite this outcome and to maximize resources the major focus would be on the early part of a teacher’s career.  It is unrealistic to assume that teachers will either significantly improve after three or four years of mediocrity or that a successful educator would suddenly become ineffective after two decades of exemplary work.  Thus, the most intense focus would be during a teacher’s early years.    During the first three years, ineffective teachers must be terminated or mentored.  Those who complete these probationary years would continue the evaluation process every third year in a modified form.  At this point the evaluation would be the three unannounced visits.  Individuals who have at least twenty years of successful service can opt out of required evaluations.  Teachers would also have the option of choosing to be evaluated in off years.  The optional process would be the three unannounced visits.  And why would anyone choose to voluntarily be evaluated?  If the process were truly effective, many educators would welcome such scrutiny as a path toward professional improvement. 

The performance of students is a direct reflection of the quality of their teachers.  To ensure that only the best educators are in our classrooms a strong effective system of evaluation needs to be in place.  This process should have three essential outcomes.  It must clearly define the performance level of teachers, serve as a learning tool for improvement, and provide the foundation for the removal of under achieving personnel in a timely manner.  The immediate financial investment should not be a deal breaker.  Not when the rewards – quality teachers - are so critical to student success.

Next:  Determining the best candidates

(For more thoughts on improving teachers you might be interested in Ensuring New Teachers Become Old Ones: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3  Also in the April 26 Washington Post Jay Mathews discusses the issue of evaluation and creating better teachers in “Explosive book for a new teacher generation”)