ISM recently published a new teacher evaluation model for private-independent schools. In that same vein, today’s lead article summarizes the key elements of teacher evaluation from ISM’s view.
In many schools (and most other organizations, as well), performance evaluations are considered a waste-of-time or a meaningless bureaucratic exercise. What if evaluations could be used to actually increase performance—to help average teachers become excellent, and excellent teachers become even more outstanding? This can be achieved if the right things are being evaluated—and if the evaluation is communicated to the teacher in a way that helps them grow and develop.
What Gets Evaluated
If the school identifies Characteristics of Professional Excellence that describe how its mission is delivered with excellence, then it can evaluate each teacher based on whether or not they demonstrate these characteristics on a regular basis. For example: If establishing and enforcing consistent standards of student behavior in the classroom is one of the required characteristics of good teaching in your school, then teachers can be evaluated against this measure.
When a teacher falls short of this mark and receives clear feedback from the supervisor on how he/she can improve this skill, the teacher is likely to demonstrate this characteristic more fully in the future. In doing so, the school is helping teachers—by communicating expectations in a predictable and supportive manner. The school is also helping students—by guiding teachers to establish a predictable and supportive environment for students (one of the hallmarks of student performance, satisfaction and enthusiasm).
It’s Not (Really) About the Written Evaluation
For a variety of legal and performance reasons, we recommend that the Division Head provides formal, written feedback on the teacher’s performance on an annual basis. However, the written evaluation is the least important part of the process—brief, regular “coaching conversations” are where the value of the process resides. It is through the frequent verbal feedback that the teacher is able to grow and develop his/her teaching practices. The written evaluation serves only as an official summary of all of the performance discussions that have taken place between the teacher and the Division Head throughout the year.
Ongoing Conversation
While written evaluation need only occur once per year, verbal “evaluation”—in the form of conversation and feedback—should occur on a regular, on-going basis. For example, if a Division Head has 15 teachers in her division, she should be in each of their classrooms on a regular basis throughout the academic year. After each classroom visit (which might last 5-15 minutes), the Division Head should meet (formally or informally) with the teacher to share her impressions of the visit—offering praise, pointers, guidance, and feedback, as warranted. The two-way dialogue will enable the teacher to learn and grow, helping to improve his/her future performance—which will ultimately help improve their students’ performance, as well.
Additional ISM resources of interest
ISM Monthly Update for Business Managers Vol. 10 No. 5 Why Business Managers Need to Care About Teacher Evaluation
Private School News Vol.11 No. 1 Evaluation Reforms Are Changing Schools Nationwide—Public and Private Alike
ISM Monthly Update for Division Heads Vol. 9 No. 6 Can Evaluation Really Drive Faculty (and Student) Performance?
Additional ISM resources for Consortium Gold Members
I&P Vol. 37 No. 2 A 21st Century Teacher Evaluation Model
I&P Vol. 37 No. 2 Aegis Academy Faculty Evaluation Sample
