A high percentage of teachers are committed, successful, and student focused educators, who seek and benefit from helpful feedback, collegial dialogue, and high-quality professional learning. Supervision and evaluation can be important contributors to the quality of their teaching â especially within collaborative school environments in which school leaders respond to their varying needs, aspirations, and challenges with differentiated approaches that promote and support career growth. Consequently, the premise of this book is that student learning and quality teaching are best served through government and district policies that enable opportunities for school leaders to differentiate teacher supervision, evaluation, and professional learning.
This introductory chapter provides the rationale for this premise. As co-editors we situate three of the bookâs themes within the current research literature: (a) the widening global focus on teaching quality, teacher evaluation, and continuous professional development; (b) differentiated teacher supervision and evaluation practices; and (c) school leadership approaches conducive to differentiation. We then provide a brief overview of each the bookâs chapters.
A major OECD study of teacher evaluation, Teachers for the 21st Century: Using Evaluation to Improve Teaching, reported that a large majority (83.2%) of teachers from across the world who participated in the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) and who had received appraisal and feedback considered them to be fair assessments of their work, and most of them (78.6%) found that these evaluations were helpful in developing their work as teachers (OECD 2013, p. 9). Although our review of the teacher evaluation literature identified a number of differences in the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of evaluation, in how effective evaluations should be carried out, and in the sources of evidence used for evaluation; agreement on the following six points was evident in a number of reputable sources (Brandon et al. 2018a; Danielson 2012; Darling-Hammond 2013, Derrington and Campbell 2015; Glickman et al. 2017; Marzano 2012; OECD 2013; Zepeda 2017).
- 1.Professional approaches to teacher evaluation can both support teacher growth through formative evaluation and ensure quality teaching through summative evaluation.
- 2.Evaluation must be founded on a clear and coherent conception of exemplary teaching practice based on current research. Effective evaluation models reference clearly articulated standards.
- 3.Effective evaluation requires transparent, clearly understood processes conducted in a constructive, professional, and sensitive manner within recognized ethical, legal, and contractual guidelines.
- 4.Evaluation evidence must be gathered from multiple sources and should consider contextual variances in the teaching environment (subject, grade level, class composition)
- 5.Evaluators must be competent professionals who have been well trained in evaluation practice.
- 6.A culture of continuous learning and improvement is nurtured when differentiated approaches to supervision and evaluation are used to respond to the varying needs, aspirations, and challenges of teachers at all career and developmental stages.
A number of aspects of differentiation include, but are not limited to, length of teaching experience from pre-service to veteran, the policy impact that supports or fails to support differentiation, and school administrator practices as they supervise and evaluate staff with differing teaching experiences and content expertise. Glickmanâs (1985) developmental supervision is based on matching initial supervisory approaches with the teacherâs or the groupâs developmental levels, expertise and commitment (Glickman et al. 2017).
Zepedaâs (2017) instructional supervision model indicates that teachers should be given opportunities to transfer information and to construct deeper understanding of their own practices within a capacity-building learning community. Such supervision is a reciprocal process that respects the differing developmental learning needs of novices and veterans.
In Danielson and McGrealâs (2000) conception, differentiated teacher evaluation should provide a variety of options or tracks that target the specific requirements of four groups: (a) beginning teachers, (b) experienced teachers, (c) teachers whose practice is marginal and requires assistance, and (d) teachers whose practice is unacceptable due to incompetence or unsatisfactory commitment. The first two tracks acknowledge that a very high percentage of teachers are committed and successful professionals. The third and fourth tracks recognize the need to address problematic teaching practice in two stages. Track three provides a combination of further evaluation and support for those identified as requiring more structured assistance. The fourth part of this multi-track approach is a termination track.
Applying research informed supervision and evaluation practices in the real and complex worlds of contemporary schooling pose myriad challenges to school leadership practitioners. Flores and Derrington (2017) found that principals are concerned about how evaluation affects professional relationships and teachersâ motivation to learn. They frequently feel âcaught between the seemingly immovable rock of policy and the hard place of leading school changeâ (Derrington 2013, p. 26). As Young, Range, Hvidston, and Mette (2015) warned, âadministrators must ensure they possess a high level of instructional leadership regardless of a prescribed evaluation model if quality instruction is to occurâ (p. 171). To this end, Le Fevre and Robinson (2014) determined that, âIf increased instructional leadership is to make a difference to student outcomes, leadersâ practices need to be informed by defensible and evidence-based understandings of how to improve teaching and learningâ (p. 60).
Welcoming and learning enriched school communities are vital to ongoing professional learning for both novice and veteran educators. Similarly, informed instructional support and growth focused teacher evaluation can be significant contributors to teacher learning through all career stages (Brandon et al. 2018b).
Part I: Differentiated Teacher Evaluation in Practice
The book is organized into two parts. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 comprise the first section, Differentiated Teacher Evaluation in Practice. The four chapters in the second section â Differentiated Teacher Evaluation: The Interplay of Policy and Practice â look more closely at ways that key legislative and policy elements shape teacher supervision, evaluation and professional learning in American, Belgian, and Canadian contexts.
In Chap. 2âs discussion of the two broad categories of teacher evaluation â summative and formative â Gordon and McGhee make a compelling case for the primacy of differentiated formative teacher evaluation. The Power of Formative Evaluation of Teaching argues that both formative and summative approaches are essential, should be kept separate, and should be focused on quality teaching and learning. While summative systems hold teachers accountable for these ends, successful formative evaluation helps teachers meet the expectations of fair, valid, and reliable summative evaluation systems. The authors begin with a brief review of the main attributes of summative and formative approaches and then describe the benefits of and necessary conditions for responsive, ongoing, and differentiated formative assessment. After detailing seven formative evaluation formats, they shift to a series of four scenarios to illustrate ways through which teachers can be given choices to take ownership of their own improvement efforts: (a) clinical supervision, (b) student feedback on classroom practices, (c) collegial support group, and (d) collaborative learning walks. Each scenario describes professional learning activities matched to the teacherâs characteristics and performance needs, and a rationale for the selected approach to teacher learning. This chapter focuses on formative evaluation with implications for summative evaluation in that improvement in one of these critical performance areas increases the likelihood of doing well on a future summative evaluation. Through this beginning chapter, readers have an opportunity to consider differentiated concepts in practice as the scenarios draw upon examples and application of concepts presented elsewhere in the book.
Chapter 3, Providing Teachers with a Choice in Evaluation: A Case Study of Veteran Teachersâ Views, explores a California districtâs approach to evaluation, in which tenured teachers were offered three choices of evaluation: administrator (a principal or assistant principal), partner (or peer teacher), or portfolio. The purpose of this approach was to make teacher evaluation systems more responsive to teachersâ needs and goals. Conley, Mainz, and Wellington describe how veteran teachers, who have experienced different approaches over their careers, viewed having more choice in their evaluations. The authors draw on two levels of evaluation, the individual and the organizational, as well as two purposes, improvement and accountability.
Qualitative interviewing included a purposive sample of teachers and administrators from a high school and a K-8 school. Teachers were identified as proactive on their campus and experienced, with all having at least 10 years of experience. School and district documents were also examined to understand the schools and the system of evaluation in place. Results describe the evaluation options teachers chose, their perceptions of the evaluations, and the process of choosing within the choice-based system. Implications relate to ways evaluation systems might be improved, thus promoting reform efforts. A change in evaluation offering choice reveals complexities and tensions. Given that other factors may also limit choice as systems are implemented, designers of teacher evaluation may want to consider how much choice should be offered at the outset.
Tensions between supporting new teacher growth through formative processes and ensuring new teacher quality through high stakes summative evaluation are revealed in Prizes and Imperfections: Examining Teacher Evaluation Within an Induction Program in Western QuĂ©bec. In Chap. 4, Hollweck, Curry, Smith, Dubeau and Kharyati examine a 2-year mandatory Teacher Induction Program (TIP) based on three pillars: (a) professional development, (b) a Coaching and Mentoring Fellowship, and (c) summative teacher evaluation. Their qualitative case study used questionnaire, interview and focus group data collected from administrators, district consultants, TIP consultants, Mentor-Coaches, Teaching Fellows, and union executive members to inform policy and protocols that support teachers new to the district while providing targeted professional learning and establishing a common understanding of high-quality teaching. This chapter adds to the empirical understanding and discussion around teacher evaluation, specifically as it relates to teacher induction. Since there are currently no provincially mandated teacher evaluation policies in Quebec, this studyâs findings may also be useful to develop and refine more powerful evaluation practices in countries and regions with autonomy to design teacher evaluation systems.
Lochmiller reports the results of an exploratory qualitative case study conducted in five geographically dispersed public high schools located in the western United States in Chap. 5. Credibility in Instructional Supervision: A Catalyst for Differentiated Supervision explores how high school principals establish credibility and support teacher growth through evaluation. He draws upon qualitative data collected as part of a multi-site study exploring how high school administrators and classroom teachers define credibility within the context of supervisory practice. An iterative analysis of the data produced two findings. First, administrators and teachers defined credibility differently. Teachers tend to define credibility as a fixed attribute of their supervisor and thus a reflection of their experience in the cla...