Keys to Effective Teacher Development and Evaluation

In this Principal Leadership article, author/consultant Tim Westerberg reflects on his days as a principal and says, “I was sometimes guilty of overwhelming teachers with a list of every performance indicator or teacher behavior from the evaluation instrument on which the teacher could possibly make improvements. The result was often a form of cognitive paralysis that produced little or no growth of any kind.” 

What’s a better approach? Focusing on teacher development rather than measurement, Westerberg says. He drew on current research and expert opinion to design a survey of school and district leaders’ beliefs (responses are on a 5-4-3-2-1 agree/disagree scale):

• An evaluation system that relies on announced visits is inaccurate, dishonest, and ineffective.
• The core driver of teacher development is not accurate scoring but skillful coaching.
• A basic principle of effective feedback is that it should provide teachers with clear direction.
• The focus of feedback to teachers should be on evidence, not interpretation.
• An analysis of student work is an essential source of information for feedback to teachers.

Teacher expertise is a function of how strategies are used, not how many strategies are used.

• Mastering a new teaching strategy takes dozens of hours of focused, informed, and deliberate practice.
• Professional learning requires the learner to be an active participant in the process.
• Teachers should be the central users of the teacher evaluation system.
• If all teachers in a building receive the same rating on classroom performance from their principal in a teacher evaluation system that bases teachers’ final ratings equally (50/50) on the principal’s assessment of classroom performance and student growth, student growth will determine 100% of the variation in teachers’ final summative ratings.
• Ten 5- to 10-minute observations in a year are necessary and adequate to make a judgment about a teacher’s effectiveness.
• Ten 5- to10-minute observations per year per teacher is a realistic expectation in my school.

Westerberg says there is widespread agreement among experts on all these statements.

The implications for principals and assistant principals are clear: They should develop a shared “language of instruction” in the district (probably a rubric); make frequent, short, unannounced classroom visits; based on these observations, decide on a limited number of long-term improvement targets for each teacher; give specific, concise, constructive feedback on no more than 1-3 items; draw on specific teacher and student evidence and tie feedback to words and phrases in the teacher evaluation instrument; and involve teachers as partners in the evaluation/development process. 

“Care must be taken to avoid a checklist-and-bean-counter mentality,” says Westerberg. Evidence is crucial – for example, rather than saying students were disengaged, point out that four students were asleep and at least a half-dozen others were texting on their cell phones. “That information allows the teacher to be a partner in the interpretation process,” he says. Feedback must be given as part of a two-way conversation that encourages self-reflection on both sides. Teachers must be given a clear sense of where they stand on a developmental continuum, empowered to create their own options, and encouraged to practice important skills and measure progress over time.

“Feedback for Teachers: Focused, Specific, and Constructive” by Tim Westerberg in Principal Leadership, March 2013 (Vol. 13, #7, p. 30-33), www.nassp.org; Westerberg can be reached at Westerberg_1@msn.com. 

From the Marshall memo #477