A perspective on the major purposes and basic procedures for teacher evaluation

Abstract

Teacher evaluation is considered here to have two major purposes - selection and assistance. Procedures for teacher evaluation should vary accordingly. Specifically, it is proposed that detached procedures are appropriate for teacher selection, and collaborative procedures are appropriate for teacher assistance. The term “detached” is used here to mean methods of evaluation in which objectivity is paramount and in which the evaluator is expected to be able to recount the evaluation procedures with precision sufficient for replication. The term “collaborative” is used here for procedures that allow the evaluator to place concern for improvement of an individual teacher’s performance ahead of concern for objective standards. “Collaborative” procedures allow the evaluator to follow up on hunches that are not based on replicable observation or testing procedures but which may be the basis of fruitful discussions with teachers. The term “selection,” as used here, means initial hiring decisions, retention decisions, and reviews for merit awards or career ladder advancement. We may expect evaluation for selection to become increasingly important in schools. Systems for rewarding or advancing effective teachers, based on some type of evaluation, are major components in recent reports on school reform. Evaluation systems that make reliable and valid selections of particularly effective teachers may make a significant contribution to teacher improvement by providing incentives for improved teaching. A second purpose of teacher evaluation is direct assistance to teachers. This assistance takes place in a variety of situations. It may be formal ‘“coaching” such as proposed by Joyce and Showers (1982). It may be the informal help and advice of a mentor teacher at the top of the ladder assigned to assist new teachers. It may be the assistance of a building principal acting in the role of “instructional leader.” While teacher selection provides an incentive system, assistance provides direct help. Both are likely to contribute to teacher improvement, and both are based on teacher evaluation. Yet the procedures of evaluation appropriate for one are inappropriate for the other. This article will attempt to explain why this is so.