Several states are considering publishing the results of teacher evaluations for public view. This is already occurring in California and New York where specific evaluation ratings are published in select school districts. As a result of this recent trend the credibility of the evaluation process is diminished and teacher morale is declining. Revealing the quantitative scores of teacher evaluations is ill conceived and has many unintended consequences detrimental to the very nature of personnel evaluation. Publishing evaluation results erodes the trust that serves as a basis between educational professionals if evaluation is to serve its purpose as a constructive and useful tool.
The evaluation of employees in any organization is necessary to ensure that corporate goals and objectives are being met by both the organization and the individual employee. It serves as a basis for continuous improvement and employee retention. In many areas of private industry evaluation tools are correlated with salaries or bonuses. The key to employee productivity and satisfaction is directly correlated to performance reviews and relevant feedback. At the basis for all evaluation practices is the need for the individual to reflect upon his or her performance and measure it against the role they must play in the success of the organization as a whole. This is basically the same philosophy that serves the educational profession except that the measurements are more difficult to quantify due to educational outcomes associated with the complexities of measuring human growth and development in our profession.
There is a natural tension regarding the purpose for evaluation as it applies to decisions about professionalism, performance, advancement, accountability, tenure, and employee satisfaction in the complex arena of the delivery of educational services. If the true nature of evaluation is to assist the professional improve performance and demonstrate progress along a path that parallels organizational goals, then the relationship between the individual assigned the responsibility for evaluation and the person being evaluated is critical to the validity of the evaluation. In other words, if criticism or analysis of performance is designed to achieve a positive and progressive set of outcomes a unique and confidential relationship between participants must serve as a foundation for improvement.
The intimate nature of assessment and the collaborative relationship of the parties engaged in the evaluation process must be preserved in order to ensure that the commitment toward reaching both organizational and individual goals is maintained. This requires that all parties respect the process of evaluation and are committed to a non-defensive posture when it comes to formulating an honest discussion concerning the strengths and weaknesses of educators being evaluated. The ratings assigned to various areas of evaluation must not serve as roadblocks to conversations about how to improve performance.
Evaluation research indicates that the relationship between the parties engaged in evaluation will change dramatically if each time the person being observed is not assigned a rating. Here is where formative assessment is so critical to the evaluation process and why summary judgments about the summative assessment (rating) should be reserved until the end of a complete performance cycle. The separation of formative evaluation practices from ratings is the key to the productive relationship between all parties. In a collaborative process both parties are able to view the totality of variables not as threats but opportunities for constructive discussions and actionable items. Improvement occurs over a broad period of time when both parties agree to a dialogue about performance that sets a roadmap for continuous improvement on agreed upon goals and objectives.
In New Jersey public schools for example, many of the evaluation tools are heavily tipped with summative ratings all along the evaluation continuum. Every time a teacher is observed for example, a rating is anticipated and serves as a basis for that particular evaluation event. This does not serve the entire process very well. Why not use the observation as an opportunity to reflect on performance rather than rate performance?
A classroom visit by an evaluator serves at best only as a snapshot of performance: what is needed is an entire motion picture of overall effectiveness. This is what is fundamentally flawed with the entire process for current evaluation as it leaves little motivation for a constructive dialogue about the evaluation event and circumstances surrounding the act of teaching. Thus, the relationship between the evaluator (as manager) and teacher (as employee) often becomes contentious and laden with subjective overtones as overreliance on one or two “snapshots” become the fundamental basis for judging performance. If standardized test scores enter the picture the results cloud the evaluation picture even further. What ultimately compounds this process and deepens the divide between the employee and observer is the idea that these ratings will be published for view and public judgment.
Until educators establish a truly valid, reliable, and consistently credible process for teacher evaluation inclusive of multiple indicators and an extended time for observation, reflection, correction, improvement, and professional development to be embedded in the overall process, summative ratings must remain confidential. Absent any definitive rubrics for performance indicators and overall assessment the evaluation process will remain entirely a subjective process and less than perfect science.
To expose ratings of teachers to the general public given the lack of valid and reliable evaluation tools creates even more doubt about the worth and value of public education in American society. Not to mention the contribution to low morale and potential damage to the profession as a whole. Let us not contribute to the dialogue about what’s lacking in performance but instead give our educational professionals a chance to improve by maintaining a confidential and intimate relationship between the teacher and administrator in the evaluation process. And let us work collaboratively to shape new evaluation practices that provide more reliable results in the first place.
