Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching and Learning?

1. Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching and Learning? Lynn Bradshaw, Randy Joyner, & Susan Colby East Carolina University

2. Trends in Teacher Evaluation • Concerns about the limited impact of a focus on minimal competency • Potential for growth-oriented, goal setting models • Interest in more collegial approaches • Need to track student progress and provide qualitative feedback to teachers

3. Teacher Evaluation in NC • History of local control • Required to support tenure decisions (1971) • State criteria and procedures (1979) • NC TPAS (1983) • New systems aligned with State Board priorities (1996)

4. Teacher Evaluation in NC (cont.) • In order to respond to the Excellent Schools Act in a meaningful way, it was essential to obtain information about the state of teacher evaluation in NC after 14 years with the NCTPAS. • Modified Teacher Evaluation Profile • Interviews and Focus Groups • Document Review

5. Teacher Evaluation in the Region • More support from administrators than teachers • Inflated performance ratings • Moderate to low perceptions of system quality • Inconsistent evaluator training • Little use of student achievement data • Inconsistent use of classroom observations

6. Comparison studies • Teachers and administrators in districts using local alternatives were more likely to recognize links between teacher evaluation and State Board priorities than those in NC TPAS districts. • Questionable practical significance

7. Locally Developed Alternatives • Peer Coaching • Quality Appraisal System • Management by Objectives

8. The Peer Coaching Model • High perceptions of the quality of the model and its impact on teaching strategies • Low perceptions of the impact on student achievement and other State Board priorities • Teacher empowerment to set goals, take risks

9. Quality Appraisal System • Inconsistent implementation and training quality • Low use of student achievement data and other data sources specified in the model • Low teacher perceptions of the impact of the evaluation system on State Board priorities.

10. Management by Objectives • Opportunity to address negative image • Strong impact on State Board priorities • Use of student achievement data • Teachers less positive than administrators regarding quality of evaluation system • Interest in pretests, new data sources, and improved data management

11. Discussion • Inconsistent or unsupported implementation limits positive impact of evaluation systems. • Purposes and roles must be clear. • Generally, efforts to improve technical quality of evaluation systems did not distinguish among higher levels of teaching performance or improve student performance

12. Discussion (cont.) • The context of accountability requires an examination of student performance data. • Teachers appreciated alignment with the National Board Certification requirements.

13. Lingering Questions To what extent are accountability policies aligned with what we know about teacher development and student learning? How has increasing accountability affected the already tenuous balance between formative and summative teacher evaluation?

14. Lingering Questions (cont.) How important is it for teachers or administrators to like the teacher evaluation system? To what degree is (or should be) the National Board Certification process consistent with current expectations of teachers and procedures for evaluating their performance? What is the impact of National Board Certification on accountability goals?

15. Lynn Bradshaw Randy Joyner Susan Colby bradshawl@mail.edu.edu joynerr@mail.ecu.edu colbys@mail.ecu.edu Contact Information