Evaluating teachers: A call for change

Abstract

A standard model for evaluating teaching has been employed in our schools for decades (Boyce, 1915). In the vast majority of school districts, a nontenured teacher is observed twice a year, for a period of 20 to 30 minutes, by the building principal (Lower, 1987; Sweeney & Manatt, 1986). Tenured teachers are observed for approximately the same number of minutes, but less frequently. Sometimes a conference follows the observation where the principal's rote is to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the teacher's performance and offer suggestions for improvement (Haefcle, 1981). This dominant model of teacher evaluation is in trouble. Evaluation criteria lack validity. Evaluators are untrained. Evaluators consistently award lenient ratings to weak and incompetent teachers. These and other practices examined below clearly indicate that the current teacher evaluation model is seriously deficient (Haefele, 1992). Deeply entrenched in American schooling, any massive attempt to dump this model and start over appears unachievable. Inasmuch as school districts are unwilling to seek alternative procedures for evaluating teachers, the serious deficiencies should be identified and radically changed to improve the prevailing model. Areas where the most dramatic changes are essential are reviewed here.