Is there a policy disconnect surrounding teacher evaluation? In a commentary published in Education Week, Stephen Fink, executive director of the University of Washington Center for Educational Leadership, argues that how we use the new evaluation tools will determine whether we simply create the aura of accountability or actually help our teachers grow and improve their practice.
In a discussion with an unnamed school leader, Fink described how this leader felt so favorable about the new teacher evaluation systems that he or she was convinced that they would automatically improve teacher performance. Fink is quite skeptical of this claim, for two primary reasons:
Any effort to focus on teachers’ growth must ensure that our school leaders have the knowledge necessary to evaluate their teachers with fidelity. Further, leaders must engage teachers in collaborative cycles of reflective inquiry that use the evaluation criteria in an ongoing improvement process. It’s really a two-part equation. First, develop a deep and shared knowledge of high-quality instruction, and, second, seize on that knowledge to develop greater expertise in leading for instructional improvement.
In other words, the first part of the equation is to ensure that those conducting teacher evaluations actually have the background and expertise necessary to make accurate judgments. According to a study conducted by the University of Washington and the Center for Educational Leadership, school and district leaders are not adequately prepared. The study “found that the prevailing level of instructional expertise among school and district leaders nationwide was approximately 1.80 on a 4-point scale running from novice to expert (with a novice rating falling at 1.0, and an expert at 4.0).”
Second, Fink argues that it is essential to “equip leaders with the knowledge and skills necessary to grow teachers’ practice.” Some key examples of this include:
• How to provide real-time, useful feedback to teachers.
• How to engage in difficult/challenging conversations.
• How to create a culture of collaboration and reflective practice.
• How to develop cycles of inquiry that result in teachers’ taking on the responsibility for their own (and others’) growth and learning.
In conclusion, Fink reminds his readers that true accountability means an ongoing commitment to improving teaching through teacher evaluations. This means making changes to the system based on needs that arise during the process of conducting teacher evaluations in the coming years.
For more information, please visit: http://tinyurl.com/lez8fsx
