Teacher Evahluation andTeacher ProfessionalismARTHUR E. WISE AND LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND

Evaluation systems arecredible only whereteachers are considereda professional resourcerather than the objectof bureaucraticscrutiny.

T he evaluation of teachers bsprincipals and other supervisorshas been a long-standing prac

rice in American schools. Teachers an-ticipate that annual brief visit from theprincipal who, according to the stereotype, stands stone-faced at the hack ofthe classroom filling out a form Andprincipals rush to squeeze in theirvisits to teachers admidst their mxriadother duties

In man' school districts, teachertvaluation is a perfunctory, routine,bureaucratic requirement that yieldsno help to teachers and no decisionoriented information to the schooldistrict The process does nothing for

Arthur E Wise isSe7,ior. Scial ieitlltl alnd

Linda Iarhnlig-llamnlond is Social Scienv-ti, borth u ih the Rand Corporiation, Wcish-ington. 1) (

28Lii (AIi()N'J t T XTI R"IiiF

28 Elo (,NTIO\,M I.1.II\-1RSIII'

teachers except contribute to theirweariness and reinfoirce their skepti-cism of bureaucratic routine. Isolatedfrom decision making and planning, itdoes little for administrators exceptadd to their workload. It does notprovide a mechanism for the schoo)lsystem to communicate its expecta-tions concerning teaching, except thatteaching is a hit subject for bureaucrati-zation

Very rarelh does this ritual haveother outcomes such as the specialrecognition of a teacher or the termi-nation of his or her employment, theimprovement of curriculum or pro-gram activities. or the deployment ofstaff development resources to meetteachers' specihe instructional needs.The ritual exists to satisfy the bureau-cratic imperative that ever- teacher beobserved hv an administrator everyvear Indeed. it is ftshioned to pre-clude any\ other outcome The time ofthe evaluator is toI short, the span ofcontrol too wide. and the expertise

too limited to produce reliable andvalid insights that might lead to signifi-cant action. Actions predicated on theritual prove difficult to institute be-cause the data base is too sparse andunstable to withstand the scrutiny thataccompanies any important change inteacher status or teaching practice.

Over the past year. concerns aboutthe quality of teachers and teaching inAmerican schools have surfaced in aproliferation of proposals for perform-ance-based pay and promotion Meritpay, master teacher, and career ladderplans are variouslh seen as means forrewarding good teachers. providingcareer advancement opportunities, en-forcing more accountability in teaching. and upgrading the overall qualityof the teaching force. Though differentfrom each other in important respects.these proposals all assume that differ-ential rewards and sanctions vwill im-prove individual teaching and en-hance the profession as a xwhole The-further assume the existence of teach-

er evaluation methods that can fairlyand effectivelI differentiate amongteachers. Our recent study of teacherevaluation practices shows that neitherof these assumptions is necessarilycorrect. '

The utility of performance-based re-wards depends on the value that teach-ers attach to the rewards themselvesand on the credibility of the evaluationprocess upon which the rewards arebased Valued rewards and credibleevaluation are more likelv to emergefrom a professional approach to teach-er evaluation than from the more tra-ditional. bureaucratic approach. Sub-stantial changes in typical evaluationpractices w-ill have to occur if perform-ance rewards are to be both defensi-ble and effective in improving teach-ing.

Teachers as Bureaucrats andProfessionalsIn organizing the delivery of instruc-tion to students. schooxl systems treatteachers as both bureaucrats and pro-fessionals. In the attempt to ensureuniformiri and equal treatment of stu-dents. schoo)l districts relate to teach-ers as bureaucratic employees whoare expected to implement the dis-trict's curriculum in their classroo(msand to follow scho(ol and district pro-cedures devised hb administrators Inthe actual deliver! of instruction. how-ever. schoo(l districts may relate toteachers as professional emploveeswho are expected to make expert in-structional decisions that affect themSome schoo)l districts operate mosthlin one mode. but most districts oper-ate in var ing proportions of Ibothmodes

There are some obvious tensionsbetween the bureaucratic and profes-sional treatment of teachers The stan-dardization inherent in bureaucraticorganization of instruction tugs againstthe flexibility demanded by- profes-sional decision making Bureaucraticlines of accountahilirv direct the teach-er's attention to ulniforim administra-tive requirements. wxhile protfessionalaccountahilir- directs the teacher's at-tention to the var ing needs of individ-ual students

The hureluci-latic conceptioll im-plies that curriculum planning is donebv administrators and specialists.teachers are to implement a curricu-

DI)FcI-\IIIR 198- IJ ,\\I OH 1 985 2')

Study of Teacher Evaluaion Practices Shows thatCommitment and Resomres From the TopOutweigh Other FactorsArthur Wise, Linda Darling-Hammond, and their associates have re-cently completed a major study of teacher evaluation practices. Fund-ed by the National Institute of Edueatlon, the study included a surveyof 32 school districts with highly developed evaluation procedures.The researchers also looked at four districts with particularly effectivepractices: Salt Lake City, Utah; Lake Washington,: Washington; Green-wich, Connecticut; and Toledo, Ohio. Among the study's conclusions:

1. A successful teacher evaluation system must suit the educationalgoals, management style, conception of teaching, and communityvalues of the school district.

2. Philosophical commitment to and resources for evaluation pro-duce more useful information than do checklists and procedures.

3. The school district should decide the main purpose of its teacherevaluation system and then match the process to the purpose.

4. To sustain resource commitments and political support, teacherevaluation must be seen to have utility, which in turn depends on theefficient use of resources to achieve reliability and cost-effectiveness.

5. Teacher involvement and. responsibility improve the quality ofteacher evaluation.Teacher Evaluation: A Study of Effective Practices (R-3139-NIE), byArthur E. Wise, Linda Darling-Hammond, Milbrey W. McLaughlin, andHarriet T. Bernstein, is available for $7.50 from the PublicationsDepartment, The Rand Corporation, 1700 Main Street, Santa Monica,CA 90406. Also available (for $15) is a volume detailing teacherevaluation practices in the four school districts: Case Studies forTeacher Evaluation (N-2133-NIE).

lum planned for them. Supervision ofteachers' work is conducted by superi-ors whose job it is to make sure thatthe teacher is implementing the cur-riculum and procedures of the district.In the pure bureaucratic conception,teachers do not plan or inspect theirwork; they merely perform it.

In the professional conception.teachers plan, conduct, and evaluatetheir own work. Teachers analhze theneeds of their students, assess avail-able resources, take cognizance of theschool district's goals, and decide ontheir instructional strategies. As theyconduct instruction the. modify theirstrategies to make sure that their in-struction meets the needs of theirstudents. And through a variet- ofmeans, they assess whether their stu-dents have learned Supervision ofteachers is conducted largely to en-sure that proper standards of practiceare being employed.

These differing conceptions ofteaching affect how districts approachteacher evaluation. In the bureaucraticconception, the district (1) relies pri-marilv on administrators to design andoperate a uniform teacher evaluationprocess, (2) bases evaluation on gen-eralized criteria like generic teachingskills or other context-free teachingbehaviors, (3) recognizes a fixed set oflearning outcomes, and (4) treats allteachers alike. Bureaucratic evaluationis highly standardized. It is procedur-ally oriented and organized by check-list. It is designed to monitor confor-mance with routines.

In the professional conception, thedistrict (1) involves teachers in thedevelopment and operation of theteacher evaluation process, (2) basesevaluation on professional standardsof practice that are client-oriented, (3)recognizes multiple teaching strate-gies and learning outcomes, and (4)treats teachers differently according totheir teaching assignments, stages ofdevelopment, and classroom goals.Professional evaluation is clinical,practice-oriented, and analytic It isdesigned to assess the appropriatenessof strategies and decisions

Bureaucratic evaluation mav be suf-ficient for monitoring whether theteacher is performing in a minimallyadequate fashion, but it typically can-not assess higher levels of competenceor deliver valued rewards or advice tomost teachers

30

"PTrofessional! evaluation

... requires morethan two 20-minute visitsfrom a generalistobserver wieldinga standardizedchecklist."

The Limits of BureaucraticEvaluationBureaucratic evaluation relies on ad-ministrators (chiefly principals) to as-sess teachers in a standard mannerusing general criteria. These attri-butes, intended to ensure reliabilityr,limit the relevance and utility of evalu-ation for most teachers and many pur-poses.

Bureaucracies, especially public bu-reaucracies, are compelled to at leastappear to be treating all employeesand clients alike. If some teachers areto be evaluated each vear, then allteachers must be evaluated. Oftenteacher associations want to preventschool administrators from singlingout individual teachers for punitiveevaluation. Hence, thev insist, throughthe collective bargaining process, thatall teachers be evaluated annually.which dilutes evaluation resources(that is, the principal's time) to meetthe formal requirement. The result isnot a thorough and relevant assess-ment of all teachers but a perfunctoryone. And because many educators donot believe that the formal require-ment will affect decisions, schooxl svs-tems do not invest sufficiently in theprocess. Hence, the circular and ironicresult is pro forma evaluation-pro-ducing results that are not sufficientlyreliable and valid to be used for per-sonnel decisions.

Bureaucratic evaluation demands acommon scale on which all teacherscan theoretically be compared: butoperationally, however, this reducesto a list of teaching behaviors thatnearly all teachers except the incom-petent will exhibit In practice, then,judgments typically rest on assessmentof generic teaching skills, which

means that the evaluator need nothave in-depth knowledge of the sub-ject matter and grade-level pedagogi-cal demands. This turns out to hebureaucratically convenient for thegeneralist-principal, who can evaluateall teachers under his or her jurisdic-tion.

However, there are obvious prob-lems inherent in assigning the teacherevaluation function solely to princi-pals. Principals have little time forevaluation and a wide span of control;and they often experience "role con-flict" as they trv to balance their dutiesas school leaders, supervisors, andbuilders of esprit de corps. Most im-portantly, principals do not have spe-cialized knowledge of all teaching ar-eas in which they are expected toevaluate. The limits on their time andexpertise and on the tools available tothem mean that principals can, at best.assess whether the teachers in theircharge are minimally competent.

Evaluation of minimal competence,based on periodic observations ofclassroom performance, attends to thepresence of certain teaching behaviors(for example, activities related to plan-ning, setting objectives, teaching a les-son to the objectives, evaluatingwhether the objectives have been at-tained) and of effective student con-trols This type of evaluation does notattend to matters of pedagogicalknowledge or judgment, such as theappropriateness of teaching objectivesfor meeting certain goals or for differ-ent types of students; the relative effec-tiveness of alternative strategies forpresenting particular types of content;the relationship among lessons taughtthroughout the course of a week, amonth, or a semester; the variability ofteaching techniques; the theoreticalsoundness of content and strategydecisions; or the depth of the teacher'ssubject matter knowledge that is im-parted to the student

Evaluation for minimal competencedoes not attend to elements of creativ-irt or innovation in teaching; to as-pects of student motivation beyondthe ability to induce compliance withwork requirements; or to the multiple,long-term consequences for studentsof the overall classroom experience,such as continued enthusiasm forlearning, broadening of learningstyles, abilities to apply concepts ordeveloped skills to diverse situations

El)l (;\ I¢ )\t 1 i .'x )F. R.I 11'

later on, or increased self-confidence.In short, evaluation for monitoringminimal competence attends to theform rather than the substance ofteaching, and to its immediate ratherthan long-term effects.

Bureaucratic evaluation at its bestcan identify teachers who lack mini-mal teaching skills But the characteris-tics associated with effective bureau-cratic evaluation make it irrelevant tothe professional growth needs of thevast majoritv of teachers For them it isa ritual

The Demands of ProfessionalEvaluationWhereas bureaucratic evaluation pro-cesses are designed to meet organiza-tional needs for monitoring the ade-quacv of teaching work, professionalevaluation is designed to meet teach-ers' needs for guidance in addressingspecific problems of classroom prac-tice. The most highly valued rewardsin teaching are the intrinsic satisfac-tions that derive from teachers' senseof efficac'- the sense that they arecontributing to student growth anddevelopment This sense of efficacy ishighly dependent on a teacher's stageof development. personal goals, andclassroom context. Thus. a credibleevaluation process for assessing teach-ers' relative competence and for im-proving teaching must attend to theparticular teaching conditions and de-mands that teachers face in their work.Professional evaluation for perform-ance-based rewards or for real teach-ing improvement requires more thantwo 20-minute visits from a generalist-observer wielding a standardizedchecklist

There are three basic reasons whybureaucratic evaluation processes de-signed to make decisions about mini-mal competence have limited validityfor assessing relative competence andlittle utility for providing sound teach-ing advice. These have to do with theexpertise of the evalultor, the formatof evaluation. and the application ofevaluation criteria

Lack of eal/lator e.xp-el-tcse Teach-ing competence mav be conceivedalong a continuum from lack of com-petence to excellence The absoluteminimum recquiremlent for acceptableteaching is the abhility to run a nondis-ruptive classroom Beyond acceptable

t Professionalevaluation

is clinical,practice-oriented,and analytical."

classr(x)m management. minimalcompetence demands mastery of sub-ject matter and a repertoire of teach-ing techniques.

Beyond minimal competence lie in-creasing degrees of competence. Ateacher must not only have masteredsubject matter and the repertoire oftechniques but also must make appro-priate judgments about when thosetechniques should be applied. It is thisquality of teaching work that makesteaching a profession. A professionalteacher is one who has sufficientknowledge of subject matter and tech-niques to make appropriate decisionsabout instructional content and deliv-enr for different students and classesIn other words, professional teachersare able to ascertain their clients'needs and determine how to meetthem.

Beyond the ability to make appro-priate teaching decisions are the abili-ties to diagnose unusuallv difficultlearning problems. to deliver an un-usuallv wide varietn of instruction, andto inspire unusuallv creative or analhti-cal thinking by students. This quality isexcellence in teaching which, like ex-cellence in all fields of human endeavor, is rare

Along this continuum the demandsof evaluation differ Low-inference var-iahles are sufficient (and, in somewa-s. preferable) for judging minimalcompetence; that is, does the teacherplan? Teach to the objectives? Establishand enforce rules for student behav-ior? A modestly skilled obsenrver canascertain the answers to these ques-tions in a few visits. tHigh-inferencevariables are necessary for judging rel-

ative competence; that is, bow we/ldoes the teacher plan, within andacross lessons, to impart the structureof knowledge in the discipline, to ac-count for the students' levels of devel-opment and prior learning, and toachieve the immediate and long-rangegoals of instruction? How well do theteacher's strategies and techniquesmeet the changing needs of studentsover time, integrate different objec-tives, and foster the development, ap-plications, and transference of studentskills and abilities? A highly expertobserver, skilled in subject area andpedagogical matters and familiar withthe classroom context, is necessars toascertain the answers to these ques-tions.

7The huncatedformat of eti luarion.Assessment cannot be made solely- onthe basis of a few discrete classroomobservations. The Tormat of evaluationmust reach beyond observed teachingbehaviors on a given day or days. Theongoing quality of classroom activitiesis a function of how what happenstodav relates to what happened yester-day and last week, as well as what is tooccur tomorrow and thereafter. Un-derstanding the internal coherenceand integrity of teaching acts requiresa more holistic set of data about teach-ing activities than can be gleaned fromteacher performance during a fewclassroom observation visits. A longi-tudinal assessment of teacher plans.classroom activities. and student per-formances and products is needed tojudge relative competence beyondwhat might be deemed as minimallyadequate.

Tev rgidiOn of eraluation crteria.The criteria for making judgments ofminimal competence must be stan-dardized. generalizable. and uniform-ly applied Finer distinctions amonggood. better, and outst nding teachersrequire nonstandardized applicationsof differential criteria. Teaching re-search has demonstrated that effectiveteaching behaviors var- for differentgrade levels. subject areas, rtpes ofstudents. and instructional goals. Thus.assessments of relative teacher compe-tence cannot be made on the basis ofhighly specified. uniform criteria. Asingle set of broad criteria may beadopted, but the criteria must becomedifferentiated for specific applications.This, again, requires the insight of ahighly exper evaluator

)DECEMBER 1984IA\ ^ ',AR 1985

0

AEdualionl Personnel Evluation

M. DONALD THOMAS

TIhe Salt Lake City personnel evalua-ton progranm is a cooperative efort

eween the board of education anddistrict employees. It has worked wellfor over ten years because there is amstrng comnitent by. all invoved

The system is built on two impor-tant values:

1. Every employee is entitled to thesaegurds of due process, and everyemanployee is guaranteed due process

,on.2 Incompetent employees will be

ggressivey terminated from theschool district

Due process protection is estab-lished by identifying unsatisfactoryperformance, by providing extensiveassistance, and by involving peers inming employment decisions Dueprocess is further protected by a seriesof appeals 'that any employee mayinitiate.

So far, over 100 employees havereceived remedhion assistance. One,half are still with us, and the othershave found employment elsewhere.Employees who annot provide sats-

ctory service or cannot learn theskills to do so will be terminated

The principa plays a key role in ourevaluaion process If an employee'sperformare is usatisfacory, theprincip atempts informal remedia-M Doa/wd 7bTahw a Dqputy SW*ien-p Pz5bt& AJombf"y, Sate De

pf*imO CE*dWd Cohmifat Sou*Cvibw At hme lne dtba Idce winus -W& be am S$V&*uteWm cfScaoWA Saftarg City Sblo Sdwa Late Ciy

Utab.

tion for 20 school days. If this ap-proach fails, the principal requests for-mal remediation assistance from thesuperintendent.

At this stage, the superintendent as-signs a learning specialist-a persongasede in teacher evaluation, remrnedi-atlon, and termination-who forms anassistance team, composed of the spe-cialist, the princpal, and two peers(selected from a list provided by theassociation and approved by the su-perintendent). The team works closelywith the employee to correct perform-ance deficiencies. At the end of fivemonths, a report is sent to the superin-tendent. Together, the superintendentand the assistance tear conclude thatremediatlon has been achieved, or thesuperintendent writes a letter of termi-nation to the employee. Of the manycases in which termination has oc-curred, only two have gone to court.The district has yet to lose a case.

.Our evaluation progra"m is not imag-ic. Sensitive and difficult issues areinvolved. It is hard for principals toinitite the process. Principals needextensive training. It is not feasible forall districts to hav learning specialistsThey are expensive. It is extremelydiicult to involve peers. Most associa-tions do't want to touch that one.

What we have in Salt Lake City is thefortume combination of strong prin-cipals,abte learning specialists, secureand confident teachers, and a strongand rmture association. That's whythings work so well in Salt Lake City.Under similar conditions, our pro-gran can work in other districts.

In sum, the validitr' of judgments olrelative competence and the utility ofteaching advice based on these assess-ments rest on the specialized expertise of the evaluator, the openness ofthe evaluation format to a wide rangeof indicators, and the use of criteriathat relv on high-inference variablessusceptible to individualized appllications. These are features of a pirofes-sional evaluation system

Our study of effective teacher cValuation practices found that districtswhich are able t() use evaluation f()rteacher improvement and foir person-nel decisions have adopted m()re pro)-fessionally oriented evaluatiion strategies They have increased the ke-resources for evaluation-time andexpertise-bhr resisting tile bureau-cratic impulse toJ treat all teachersalike and bh involving expert teachersin the evaluation process The districtshave addressedl the dual funIcti( rIsevalution-monitoring general teach-ing qualirt· and impro(ving speciflcteaching perfoirmance-- -h dis-iclingevaluation respionsibilities hetweenprincipals and expert teachers

Indeed. it is the molre pro(fessliolialrole of teachers in instructional designand deliverv that clistingulshes the dis-tricts' apprioaches to the ()rganizatio)nof teaching as well as to teacher evaluation The result is a more clinical,client-oriented assessment of teachingpractice as well as the development.for at least some teachers (of inclin iclualls relevant strategies foir instruetional improvement

Although we did not select )ulrstudv districts for their use iif masterteachers in evaluation, we fiouncid thatall of them have chosen t() inv(lvehighly expert teachers ini some aspectof the evaluation princess as well as inother professional development activi-ties We are convinced that the use otsuch highl- deelIopecl e-alcuaiti(in pri-cesses is ni accident The use ) f peerreview i(r peer assistance in Ihesedistricts greatl strengthens their (a;pacities fo)r effective teacher sulpelrlsion hby priovidling aiclitioiial tile ianlexpertise fior this fllicti( ll

In addition, teachers serving in various differentiated staff roles prov ideother trpes o(f leadership and assistance to their peers. therebx promotingthe development and dissemination ofprofessional standards of practice In

El[i sl .Ti ¢ .1 t J lI)l RiiIip

I

L

Bureaucratic evaluation may besufficient for monitoring whetherteaching effort is minimally adequate,but it cannot differentiate levels ofcompetence, nor can it produce valuedrewards or useful advice."

each district, expert teachers providecurricular advice. classroom assist-ance, and supervision both within andoutside the confines of the teacheretaluation process The role of teach-ers in these districts., individuallv andcollectively. is more nearls profession-al than it is in districts that superviseand direct the work of teachersthrough bureaucratic channesls

In our study districts., teacher orga-nizations ha ve played an importantrole in the design aind ongoing imple-mentation of the evaluation process.This paricilpation has taken variousforms such as involvement in jointoversight committees. union appoint-

ments of teachers who assist in theevaluation process, and consultationbetwxeen top administration officialsand union leaders .As a result. theevaluation processes have enough le-gitimact to produce usable results.Rather than focusing solels on con-straining administrators' abilits to ex-ercise their authorits through proce-dural requirements, organized teachershave begun. in varying degrees inthese districts. to participate in thedecisions that affect teachers beforethey result in grievances

The respectise roles of managementand organized teachers in evaluationare different in districts where teach-

ers participate in decision making thanthev are in districts that use traditionalevaluation practices. The traditionalmanagement role of enforcing ac-countability ts lspicallv seen as coun-terposing the traditional union role ofaffording protections. Teacher partici-pation in evaluation jostles these roleconceptions by obscuring the distinc-tions between management preroga-tives and teachers' rights. When teach-ers begin to define and enforceprofessional standards of practice, thetraditional roles of both managementand labor are significantly reshaped

The shift hfom an adversarial to aparticipator! approach enhancesteachers' rights but also their responsi-bilities. It forces administrators toshare power. but gives them morefreedom and legitimate authorit toimplement decisions once thie arejointlv made. This change accordsteachers power over a greater range ofeducational matters at the cost of abso-lute protections based on work rulesSome mav see this evolution towardprofessionalism as undermining thebasis of collective bargaining. It mavalso be viewed. though, as the matura-tion of educational labor relationsRather than focusing solel- on negoti-ating uniform procedures for adminis-trative direction of teaching work, oreven policies that define teaching con-ditions, teachers and managers maijointly define areas of responsibilitrfor assessing and improving instruction

This negotiated responsibilin"prov-ides the basis for a collective pro-fessionalism that is more potent thanthe individual professionalism that ex-ists shen unorganized teachers hav eonly permissive authorin- over thesubstance of their work The movetosward negotiated responsibilirt con-tains the seeds of collaborative controlover teacher qualir-: it creates a frame-.work within w-hich educators-teach-ers and administrators-can work to-gether to improv-e the qualit - of theircommon professiotlnal v-ork 7

.n.rthr E 'a ise and others. Teaoct'-Fitlalution A studh of Fffectn, t/rustic('ashinglon. DC cThe Rand CorporartionR-3]39-NIE, June I )1 )

DI I (NCIiiR 1t984 |JA \R., 198H

..

juneson I r.ang

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.