Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching and Learning?

1
Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching and
Learning?

• Lynn Bradshaw, Randy Joyner, Susan Colby
• East Carolina University

2
Trends in Teacher Evaluation

• Concerns about the limited impact of a focus on
  minimal competency
• Potential for growth-oriented, goal setting
  models
• Interest in more collegial approaches
• Need to track student progress and provide
  qualitative feedback to teachers

3
Teacher Evaluation in NC

• History of local control
• Required to support tenure decisions (1971)
• State criteria and procedures (1979)
• NC TPAS (1983)
• New systems aligned with State Board priorities
  (1996)

4
Teacher Evaluation in NC (cont.)

• In order to respond to the Excellent Schools Act
  in a meaningful way, it was essential to obtain
  information about the state of teacher evaluation
  in NC after 14 years with the NCTPAS.
• Modified Teacher Evaluation Profile
• Interviews and Focus Groups
• Document Review

5
Teacher Evaluation in the Region

• More support from administrators than teachers
• Inflated performance ratings
• Moderate to low perceptions of system quality
• Inconsistent evaluator training
• Little use of student achievement data
• Inconsistent use of classroom observations

6
Comparison studies

• Teachers and administrators in districts using
  local alternatives were more likely to recognize
  links between teacher evaluation and State Board
  priorities than those in NC TPAS districts.
• Questionable practical significance

7
Locally Developed Alternatives

• Peer Coaching
• Quality Appraisal System
• Management by Objectives

8
The Peer Coaching Model

• High perceptions of the quality of the model and
  its impact on teaching strategies
• Low perceptions of the impact on student
  achievement and other State Board priorities
• Teacher empowerment to set goals, take risks

9
Quality Appraisal System

• Inconsistent implementation and training quality
• Low use of student achievement data and other
  data sources specified in the model
• Low teacher perceptions of the impact of the
  evaluation system on State Board priorities.

10
Management by Objectives

• Opportunity to address negative image
• Strong impact on State Board priorities
• Use of student achievement data
• Teachers less positive than administrators
  regarding quality of evaluation system
• Interest in pretests, new data sources, and
  improved data management

11
Discussion

• Inconsistent or unsupported implementation limits
  positive impact of evaluation systems.
• Purposes and roles must be clear.
• Generally, efforts to improve technical quality
  of evaluation systems did not distinguish among
  higher levels of teaching performance or improve
  student performance

12
Discussion (cont.)

• The context of accountability requires an
  examination of student performance data.
• Teachers appreciated alignment with the National
  Board Certification requirements.

13
Lingering Questions

• To what extent are accountability policies
  aligned with what we know about teacher
  development and student learning?
• How has increasing accountability affected the
  already tenuous balance between formative and
  summative teacher evaluation?

14
Lingering Questions (cont.)

• How important is it for teachers or
  administrators to like the teacher evaluation
  system?
• To what degree is (or should be) the National
  Board Certification process consistent with
  current expectations of teachers and procedures
  for evaluating their performance? What is the
  impact of National Board Certification on
  accountability goals?

15
Contact Information

• Lynn Bradshaw
• Randy Joyner
• Susan Colby

• bradshawl_at_mail.edu.edu
• joynerr_at_mail.ecu.edu
• colbys_at_mail.ecu.edu