The Evolution of Teacher Evaluation in the United States - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Education The Evolution of Teacher Evaluation in the United s: History, Trends, Effectiveness, and Future Challenges Essay Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Abstract Teacher evaluation programs have historically undergone various transformations, both in its goals, purposes, and philosophical values. The United States have witnessed major educational reforms that failed to produce the intended result: a better teacher evaluation system. Many factors are responsible for these failures. One is the weak relationship between teachers and administrators. Without open and efficient communication between teachers and administrators, a highly competent evaluation program will remain an idea. This essay analyzes the evolution of teacher evaluation systems in the United States. The discussion includes specific examples from two districts, namely, the Midwest School District and South Central Texas School District. The final section provides some recommendations that will help educators design a better evaluation system for the 21st century. Introduction The incongruity of teacher evaluation is that it has the capability to significantly contribute to the growth and improvement of every teacher, but in reality it helps only a very few people. The capability of teacher evaluation is widely known. Almost all states mandate standard evaluation in compliance to the law and validate such mandates, partly, based on the obligation of teachers to improve. Most districts have collective bargaining contracts or rules specifying evaluation processes. In fact, numerous of the major educational reforms in the United States (e.g. career ranking, performance incentive/merit pay, etc.) are rooted in the belief that strong, effective evaluation processes can be formulated. Even so, in truth, teacher evaluations performed in most schools are short, inconsistent, formal procedures requiring several instances of classroom inspection every year at least accompanied by the accomplishment of a compulsory evaluation document, which is approved by all involved entities and then stacked away to oblivion. When this takes place, state law provisions and requirements of the collective bargaining contract have been satisfied, but in reality nothing valuable is accomplished for the teachers, schools, students, or community (Marsh, 2009). This essay, on the first part, discusses the history, trends, and effectiveness of teacher evaluation in the United States. The second part discusses the similarities and differences between two distinct district teacher evaluation. And the third part spells out the features of an ‘ideal’ teacher evaluation in the 21st century. Teacher Evaluation in the United States Teacher evaluation originated from the evaluative role of the school agencies of the 18th century. Evaluators were commonly school administrators, professionals, ministers, and other prominent people. In truth, administration as a role carried out by highly qualified experts was absent until after the Civil War (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 2). Standard procedures of administration emphasized rigid regulation and thorough evaluation of school facilities and capabilities. This evaluative framework continued to thrive until the 19th century, when the function of the highly qualified school administrator had been instituted (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 2-3). Administrators were assigned to the duties of supervising the curriculum, enhancing the effectiveness of instructional methods exercised by teachers, and assessing academic achievement and teacher performance. The efficiency theory of Frederick Taylor in the 20th century had a massive influence on the way administrators perceive their duties. This efficiency model, as implemented in schools by Franklin Bobbit, and colleagues, was regarded as one of the key factors that stimulated school administration processes in the early 20th century (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 3). Afterward, the number of teacher performance measures increased significantly during the mid-20th century, leading to a broad range of teacher performance tools, despite weak consensus regarding what comprised competent and effective teaching. In spite of a strong resistance from those who viewed performance measures as antithetical to intellect and democracy, the teacher performance measures were broadly implemented (Shinkfield & Stufflebeam, 1995, 9). The function of the administrator was simply teacher evaluation. The rest of the 20th century witnessed a struggle between the helping and inspectorial roles of the administrator that until now remains unresolved. In certain instances, the goal to witness innovations carried out encouraged school districts to build mechanisms of teacher evaluation that supervised implementation and reprimanded those who opposed secondary evaluation procedures (Shinkfield & Stufflebeam, 1995, 9-10). The 1980s and the 1990s witnessed the emergence of various approaches to teacher evaluation, such as ‘reflective’ evaluation and ‘developmental’ evaluation (Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 4). Such approaches govern the existing context of evaluative processes in the area of preservice teacher training. Recently, attempts have been initiated to build teacher evaluation systems that can be scrutinized objectively with a rubric form. This attempt has significantly progressed as states and districts look for strategies to satisfy the standards of teaching stated in federal policy No Child Left Behind. A particular district attempt to advance toward effective measurement of teacher competence is located in the Montgomery County Maryland Professional Growth System Handbook 2002-2003 (Ribas, 2005, 368). One of the earliest statewide program intended to devise rubric-based teacher evaluation systems was accomplished in Texas. According to Ribas (2005), this belongs to one of the several papers that make a step toward the precise numeric measurement of certain teacher competence in order to comprehensively assess teachers (p. 368). Teacher evaluation, in almost all school districts, is usually structured to be used as a employee act rather than as an instrument to enhance teacher effectiveness. Even though evaluation functions as a system for evaluating job performance, in reality it is “often cursory, subjective, based upon insufficient observation, and seldom results in the termination of truly poor teachers” (Lansman, 2006, 20). Danielson (2001) defined teacher evaluation as “an activity that is done to teachers” (as cited in Marsh, 2009, 191). A teacher association in Massachusetts has defined teacher evaluation as “a task that teachers endure and a task conducted by already overextended school administrators” (Lansman, 2006, 20). Within the existing landscape of district and state guidelines, school administrators have extensive leeway in structuring an evaluation procedure. Only a handful of educational scholars and professionals have developed an assessment of teachers. Inopportunely, as found out by Peterson (2000), ineffective teacher evaluation procedure is silently recognized by researchers, administrators, and teachers. School administrators could assess teachers every year, then simply monitors them every two to four years, granting permanent tenure to teachers, on the basis of assessments that could be remotely related to student outcomes and that do not appear to contribute to the improvement of teaching methods. With existing educational reforms, it seems that a growing number of policymakers are ‘eliminating’ a conventional model of teacher evaluation in order to promote performance-oriented teacher evaluations. Other scholars also argue that existing procedures of teacher evaluation are in serious need of reform. According to Scriven (1981), “Teacher evaluation is a disaster. The practices are shoddy, and the principles are unclear” (as cited in Peterson, 2000, 15). Wise and colleagues (1984) claimed that “principals lacked sufficient resolve and competence to evaluate accurately” (as cited in Peterson, 2000, 16). Johnson (1990) observed that “teachers regard the practice as an instituional obligation to be endured rather than an opportunity to be seized” (as cited in Lansman, 2006, 22). And McLaughlin (1990) described that “in most school districts, the norms and expectations that surround teacher evaluation preclude a meaningful activity” (as cited in Lansman, 2006, 22). Throughout the recent decades, education as performed in the United States has been mostly focused on (a) forming, recruiting, and evaluating competent teachers; and (b) having accurate knowledge of ties among competent teaching, teacher evaluation, and improved academic performance. An effective school leader or administrator must be committed to a substantial level of effort and time to teacher administration. In practice, almost all administrators invest a greater amount of their time on teacher evaluation, although many believe that the evaluation is deficient in reliability and trustworthiness. A great deal of the administration nowadays can be classified under summative evaluation (Marsh, 2009). School leaders generally view the tasks of both evaluation and administration as the same when, in truth, they are very different. Compare and Contrast Two Distinct District Teacher Evaluation In such context of accountability, possibly the most widespread evaluation practice nowadays is the standards-based model of teacher evaluation. Because educators are highly valuable to students’ academic progress, it is easily understandable to develop yardsticks that educators should satisfy to demonstrate competent performance in school. This is the fundamental emphasis of the standards-based reform agenda (Nolan & Hoover, 2010). Two very different districts that implement standards-based evaluation procedures are Midwest School District and South Central Texas School Districts. The teacher evaluation system of the Midwest School District adopted the instructional model created by Danielson (1996). This model is composed of four principles: (1) professionalism, (2) instructional methods, (3) building an environment highly conducive to learning, and (4) planning and implementation (as cited in Hacking, 2006, 35). Teachers were asked to give their opinions on the new system. In general, the teachers were sympathetic, with some hesitations. Teachers recognized the new program, with teachers in the elementary level being more open to the system than those in high school. There were issues about the ranking or measurement procedure. In addition, there were complaints about administrators. The belief was that this program could be highly valuable for evaluating performance of teachers and enhancing accountability only if the system was efficiently carried out by personnel and administrators. Inadequate training in the new program of evaluation and insufficient subject expertise created concerns for several teachers (Hacking, 2006, 35-36). The system’s evenhandedness was complimented because the new standards-based model clarified and organized every area. On the other hand, South Central Texas School District implemented the teacher evalution program called the Professional Development System for Teacher Appraisal (PDSTA) (Hacking, 2006, 37). The district’s teacher evaluation system comprises more aspects than that of Midwest School District. The district’s program involves eight sectors, such as dynamic, thriving student involvement, student-focused teaching, professional growth, and professional collaboration (Hacking, 2006, p. 37-38). The objective of the new system of evaluation is to facilitate continuous professional growth for all educators, enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning methods for every student, and improve academic performance for a wide-ranging studentry. Teachers were asked about their views of the new student-focused system of evaluation. The major favorable features for them were the commitment toward professional growth, such as joining up in certification courses, going to trainings and workshops, and attending seminars. Another complimented area was time; faculty members were provided with the needed time to talk with colleagues about teaching issues and other concerns, which resulted in enhanced student performance (Hacking, 2006, 37). These positive aspects of the district’s new evaluation system are absent in Midwest School District. Nevertheless, just like the new evaluation system of Midwest School District, the new evaluation program of South Central Texas School District has weaknesses as well. Teachers revealed their worries about the evaluation procedure not representing the actual and real competence of the educators. They were also worried that the program may be unduly biased. Even so, these two distinct evaluation systems have one major similarity. Both emphasize the importance of professional growth. Another similar aspect is the teacher-administrator relationship. Educators have argued that, for the program to be successful, administrators should be highly knowledgeable of standards-based assessment, respond promptly with appropriate feedback, and communicate and collaborate openly and efficiently with teachers. ‘Ideal’ Teacher Evaluation System for the 21st Century Teacher evaluation programs in the 21st century must be capable of determining competent teaching methods and competent teachers. Since the primary objective of the education institution is effective learning and improved academic performance for students, student-focused instructional strategies must be considered. An ideal teacher evaluation program therefore requires criteria of competent teaching and a professionally prepared inclusive evaluation system. Involvement of all stakeholders, particularly educators, in the development of the system is crucial to success (Peterson, 2000). The system of evaluation must comprise support and feedback mechanisms for all teachers in order to help them enhance their performance and effectiveness. Most significantly, the relationship between professional growth and the evaluation program has to be reasonable and definite. As suggested by Danielson (2007), three aspects should be integrated into the teacher evaluation program, namely, (1) professional and teaching obligations, (2) the classroom setting, and (3) planning (as cited in Nolan & Hoover, 2010, 60). The challenge of the 21s century is to develop an evaluation program that is objective, unbiased, trusworthy, transparent, and fair to educators. Thus, it is important to develop an evaluation program with a range of tools for assessing teacher performance or outcomes, alongside processes for validating information that examines educators from different points of view, facilitating the objective assessment of teachers’ performance. Several major tools are knowledge and skill exams, self-evaluation, student cases, and academic performance (Ribas, 2005). Classroom observation and school inspections contribute to the accurate cross-referencing and validation of outcomes from a variety of instruments. The availability of knowledgeable, professional, and qualified evaluators should be ensured. Competent evaluators must have as a minimum (1) self-determination with regard to the assessed teacher, (2) ability to perform required observations/inspections, and (3) accurate and full understanding of the jobs/tasks teachers perform. Conclusions The history, trends, effectiveness, and reforms in teacher evaluation embody a momentous transformation from a comparatively limited emphasis on individual accountability to a fusion of professional growth and individual accountability. Nevertheless, in the beginning, numerous of the reform efforts tried to enhance the procedural value or features of accountability-based teacher evaluation. Thorough training of evaluators was a major component of many statewide evaluation systems. Numerous of the attempts to enhance the procedural value of teacher evaluation, such as those carried out by the Midwest School District and South Central Texas School District, were unsuccessful in producing compelling proof of improved teaching outcomes or improved academic achievement. School districts have weak encouragement to bring about change in the system. In any case, nobody is being unfavorably affected by the established evaluation procedures. People conform to the system, conduct superficial evaluation, and stack the evaluation forms to gather dust in file cabinets. The practice is basically futile and worthless, with very little positive outcomes stemming from it. However, designing more efficient and effective evaluation programs remains a great possibility. References Hacking, D. (2006). The Impact of Teacher Evaluation on Teacher Effectiveness in Support of Student Achievement: A Case Study. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest. Lansman, R. (2006). A Case Study of Teacher Evaluation and Supervision at a High-Achieving Urban Elementary School. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest. Marsh, C. (2009). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. New York: Taylor & Francis. Nolan, J. & Hoover, L. (2010). Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ribas, W. (2005). Teacher Evaluation that Works!!: The Educational, Legal, Public Relations [political] & Social-emotional [E.L.P.S.] Standards & Processes of Effective Supervision & Evaluation. Westwood, MA: R & L Education. Shinkfield, A. & Stufflebeam, D. (1995). Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. New York: Springer. Read More