The Principals’ Corner:

Watching a teacher teach is often seen as the way to evaluate a teacher’s performance – and there is no doubt that observation and feedback on the observation are integral parts of the process of supervision.  There are, however, other areas that should be part of teacher evaluation – program design and assessment of student achievement.  While these can be seen sometimes indirectly in the observation, they really must be examined in other ways.

Here’s a suggestion for doing both at the same time.  Schedule an interview with the teacher and indicate in advance that the interview will take the form of responses to questions and a review of artifacts or documents pertaining to these areas.  In terms of program design, discussion should be focused on how the teacher plans, what resources are used for the planning, and what accommodations are made for exceptional students and students whose first language is not English. In addition, the teacher should be required to have with him or her samples of planning – unit and lesson plans, for instance, which show evidence of such elements as clear learning objectives and scope and sequence of learning over the course of a year.  The presence of these artifacts in the interview allows both the principal and the teachers to explore firsthand the quality of the planning.

Similarly, the interview should include questions on the assessment of student learning – how the teacher sees it in the learning process (i.e. not the end of learning), the use of varied assessment techniques and, again, the ways in which individualization in assessment occurs as needed.  Sample tests and assignments and completed student work are again very fertile data sources for drawing conclusions on the whole gamut of teaching – planning, instruction and evaluation.

There is no question that these interviews are stressful for the teacher but in most cases, principals will likely be impressed – and if they aren’t, here’s the best place to start talking to the teacher about effective practices.  It’s a supervision and coaching session all rolled into one.  It’s also another opportunity to embed further the work that has gone on in developing with staff an instructional model.  It keeps the discussion on the most important element of a school’s responsibility – enhancing quality teaching.

So, let’s go back to the beginning.  We attempted to clarify the basis for teacher evaluation by developing a flexible instructional model.

1. Staff was trained on the model so “the rules of the game” are clear to everyone.
2. Department heads became partners in the supervision process and, as such, helped their teachers with a “dry run” before the principal and vice principal began the more formal evaluation process.
3. Each teacher was visited three times by two observers to enhance objectivity with a debriefing following each visit.
4. Finally, a teacher was given an opportunity to answer questions and display work in planning and student evaluation.

I think you’ll agree that this is a rich data source for a report on teacher performance.

Is it time consuming?  Absolutely!  Is it a daunting challenge for both the teacher and the administrator?  Undeniably! Is it worth it?  I’ll answer that with another question.  Can you tell me what is more important for a principal to spend his/her time on?

Dr. Dan

Check out our webinar for beginning and experienced teachers on “The Art of Teaching Creatively”.  This series includes eBooks to accompany each of the 3 webinars:  (1) Contract Learning (2) Establishing a Classroom-Based Student Achievement Protocol (3) Teaching Listening Skills.