Analysis

Teacher Evaluation Systems Need Change – Here Are Three Ideas to Make Things Better

By Ruben Ingram - July 8, 2010

In my view, teacher evaluation systems in California public schools need considerable reform and change.  We have used the checklist approach for many years, and even with the use of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the forms continue to be boxes to be checked with little or no inter-rater reliability from evaluator to evaluator.  In other words, principals are not thoroughly trained and retrained on a regular basis to ensure that from one principal to another the standards are being applied evenly, fairly, and rigorously.

In addition, there has always been limited time on the part of principals to visit classrooms and hold conferences.  In the current environment, with cutbacks in administrative staff, there is even less time.

The California Education Code at Section 44662 (b) (1) has for many years required that teachers be evaluated in terms of student progress toward established standards, and that state-adopted criterion-referenced tests can be used to evaluate teachers.  To my knowledge, no California district has ever really done this.

While there are many other issues related to teacher evaluation, these are the most pressing in my view.  So what are the solutions?

1. The California Standards for the Teaching Profession should be supported by locally developed quality indicators that truly reflect effective practices.  These protocols then must be taught extensively and intensively to those who will do the evaluations, whether they are principals or peers.  Principals will never be able to do this without assistance, and peers are the best ones to do it.  Unions, however, have generally opposed the use of bargaining unit members to evaluate other bargaining unit members.
2. Districts have to face the fact that some form of student achievement data and information should be used for at least part of teachers’ evaluations.  In medicine, this is called evidence-based medicine where mortality rates, infection rates, and second operations for the same condition are used to judge quality.  There is work around the nation on Value Added Teaching which uses this concept.
3. Finally, local districts and their unions need to develop a collaborative and committed approach to reforming teacher evaluation.  Current negotiated agreements often limit the ability of principals to visit classrooms, require in-service, and do the job that needs to be done on behalf of students.  On the other hand, many principals are hesitant to carry out these responsibilities as needed for fear of loss of loyalty from the teachers, or criticisms from the unions and/or the communities.

Like everything else in life, this situation could be improved, but only with commitment and caring.

Editor's Note:  Ruben L. Ingram, Ed.D. is executive director of the School Employers Association of California (SEAC). He has been a teacher, principal, superintendent, university professor, education / management consultant, and state agency and professional association executive director.