Evaluating Teachers One Observation at a Time

PATRICIA MOORE SHAFFER, Vice President, Educational Policy Institute

We all know teacher quality matters. With copious evidence suggesting that the quality of a teacher trumps all other school-related factors in influencing student performance, numerous policy initiatives have been launched north and south of the border to improve teacher quality. Over the past few years, the Government of Ontario implemented a series of initiatives designed to improve teacher quality, including a new teacher induction program and a teacher performance appraisal system. South of the border, state- and federal-level initiatives to recruit, train, and retain highly qualified teachers complement efforts by private philanthropies to improve teacher quality. Just last week, for instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced $335 million in grants supporting the improvement of teacher quality—its largest expenditure on education reform in about a decade.

When the Province of Ontario initiated its new Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) system three years ago, it was with the intent that the teacher evaluation process would foster teacher development and improve teacher quality. At the heart of the evaluation process is a classroom observation to assess the teacher’s skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Pre- and post-observation meetings bracket the observation with the intent of promoting opportunities for collaboration and professional dialogue between the principal and the teacher. Annual learning plans developed by teachers in consultation with principals are intended to support professional growth and teacher quality.

Done right, teacher evaluation can be a powerful tool to support improvement in teacher quality. The problem is that teacher evaluation is too often done poorly. Charlotte Danielson, a popular consultant on teacher evaluation, once described evaluation as an “activity that is done to teachers.” Most of my teacher friends would agree. They cringe when their principal sits down in the back of their classroom to observe their teaching—an annual ritual in some schools—followed by a short interview and completion of an evaluation form that is placed in their personnel file. Can a teacher’s competency truly be assessed by a single annual observation, they ask? What value could this activity have in improving teacher quality, anyways?

A study conducted by Marianne Larsen, published last month in the Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, found that teachers have been less than enthusiastic about Ontario’s Teacher Performance Appraisal system. Her findings are hardly surprising. Basing a personnel evaluation on a single classroom observation conducted infrequently is inherently flawed. Good evaluations, whether of personnel or programs, use multiple data sources to assess performance. Instead of relying solely on the evidence of a single observation, administrators should engage in multiple observations. Other forms of evidence, including client surveys, portfolios that include lesson plans and student work products, and student achievement, should also be part of the evidence base for teacher evaluation.

Certainly, Ontario has done a lot of things right. The Province rightfully recognizes that teacher evaluation is an integrated component of a comprehensive strategy to improve overall teaching quality. And since the time of Larsen’s data collection in 2006-07, the Province has implemented changes in the TPA system, including a stronger emphasis on the annual learning plan. But the single observation remains at the heart of this evaluation system. The Ontario Ministry of Education recently issued a Request for Proposals for a qualitative study of TPA. We should all pay close attention to the results of this study, which will document perceptions of teachers, principals, and vice-principals about this teacher evaluation process.