In a recent article, Education Week questions the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s donations in terms of the quantity, quality, and focus of allocated funds to K–12 education. At the forefront of their examination lies the foundation’s recent focus on teacher-related research and programs. One such applied-research experiment, their Measures of Effective Teaching or MET, focuses on a multifaceted approach to teacher evaluation geared toward public education. Its efficacy has yet to be fully vetted, though early analysis appears optimistic.
Some unions, teachers, and districts regard the process and the Gates Foundation itself with suspicion, according to Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (an organization that has received approximately $11 million from the Gates Foundation). Not only is the influence of an enormous private philanthropic organization regarded with mistrust, but “[it’s] hard to convince people that the foundation wants anything other than a ranking system of schools, students, and teachers”—all of which may result in job loss or massive reorganization of established systems.
But considering negative repercussions is the wrong focus altogether. The primary drive of evaluation and retention systems should focus on the engagement and development of the faculty involved—particularly as it improves the implementation of your school’s unique mission and characteristics of professional excellence (essentially the core values you look for and nurture in your faculty).
No one private school is the same as another. Thus, the one-size-fits-all approach of public education research and formulaic implementation proposed by MET will never work as intended in a private school setting. No school will be the “average” result, and no school—or teacher!—should try to be so.
In ISM’s approach to professional development in its guide Comprehensive Faculty Development, the goal of any faculty evaluation should be to improve the teacher’s performance, not to punish. In brief, we feel that a school’s professional development plan for its teachers should include:
- Collaborative short- and long-term professional development plans as the cornerstone of teacher evaluations, empowering them to take control of their professional growth while aligning with the school’s specific mission and providing a measurable scale against which to measure teacher progress;
- Frequent and often informal observations by academic administrators, eliminating the “dog and pony” show traditionally scheduled observation periods can engender and giving supervisors a truer picture of each teacher’s abilities;
- Thoughtful, timely conversations and feedback through peer and supervisor mentoring sessions, demonstrating dedication to the development process and fostering a congenial, team-oriented atmosphere; and
- Consistent, predictable reward structures for those who meet their personal goals, and thoughtful consideration of selective contract renewal for those who do not.
Sometimes the end of the road gets lost in the twists and bends of the journey, and the Gates Foundation has brought the goal back in focus by renewing the conversation, regardless of whether their methodology is deemed effective or not for private-independent schools. Staff and faculty alike can become caught up in the evaluation and process for its own sake (and the immediate impact on their own lives); they forget that, ultimately, the reason for these programs is to help their students.
Through ISM’s own research and others’, we believe that, when faculty are consistently supported in their professional development by their schools and supervisors, a new academic environment emerges in which student performance, satisfaction, and enthusiasm is greater than ever before.
And that is a place where everyone—student, teacher, administrator, and parent alike—wants to be.
Additional ISM articles of interest:
Effective Teacher Professional Development: What the Literature Says, published April 2012 by Hanover Research
ISM Monthly Update for School Heads Vol. 9 No. 7 Does Your Teacher Evaluation System Include Professional Development?
ISM Monthly Update for Division Heads Vol. 9 No. 5 The Teacher Evaluation Stalemate in New York
Additional ISM articles of interest for Gold Consortium members:
ISM Research Area: Research Outcomes: The ISM Student Experience Study 2010-11
I&P Vol. 37 No. 5 The Student Culture Profile II
I&P Vol. 33 No. 3 Faculty Recruitment: Teacher Quality vs. Quantity
I&P Vol. 32 No. 16 Building Your Faculty’s Characteristics of Professional Excellence
I&P Vol. 37 No. 2 Comparing and Contrasting Evaluation Approaches
I&P Vol. 30 No. 5 Pizza, Compensation, and Faculty Culture: Is It Time for Merit Pay?
I&P Vol. 31 No. 13 Faculty Evaluation, Student Performance, and School Leadership: An Update
I&P Vol. 34 No. 13 New Research: The Relationship Between Faculty Development and Student Performance
