More Concerns About the Measures of Effective Teaching Project

(Originally titled “Fine-Tuning Teacher Evaluation”)

In this Educational Leadership article, Kim Marshall says the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project’s three-part plan for teacher evaluation makes sense, but suggests ways that each area could be implemented more effectively:

• Classroom observations – The MET team hasn’t dealt adequately with the built-in design flaws of conventional teacher evaluation, says Marshall. Teachers aren’t visited frequently enough and visits are still announced in advance. “Day-to-day teaching practices are what drive student achievement,” he argues. “If administrators don’t see those practices, their evaluations are inaccurate, dishonest in terms of quality assurance, and not helpful for improving mediocre and ineffective teaching practices.” In addition, detailed feedback after full-lesson observations is a “weak lever” for improving teaching.

Marshall describes an alternative being pioneered in some schools: ten brief, unannounced classroom visits (10-15 minutes each), each followed promptly by a face-to-face coaching conversation and then a short write-up. “If this approach, accompanied by good training and supervision of administrators, replaced the traditional dog-and-pony show,” he says, “classroom observations would be more accurate and make far better contributions to instructional improvement.”

• Student achievement – Citing the overwhelming consensus of assessment experts, Marshall says, “The conclusion is inescapable: It’s highly problematic to use standardized test scores to evaluate teachers. The idea sounds appealing, but it will inevitably hit a brick wall.”

So can student learning be part of evaluation? Absolutely, if teacher teams use valid, locally available assessment tools to measure their students’ gains each year, with each teacher getting the team’s value-added score as part of his or her individual evaluation. This approach puts student learning at the heart of the evaluation process without the disadvantages of using standardized test scores.

• Student input – The MET project makes a convincing case for using student surveys as a third factor in teacher evaluation, but it’s easy to see how this could lead to unintended consequences. “Students sometimes don’t appreciate tough, demanding teachers until years later,” says Marshall. “Could high-stakes student surveys lead teachers to lower their standards?” The alternative? Teachers survey their students each year using high-quality questions, and then principals ask each teacher three questions: What pleased you? What surprised you? What are two changes you’ll make in your classroom next year? Teachers are then evaluated on their openness to putting students’ suggestions to work in their classrooms. 

“Fine-Tuning Teacher Evaluation” by Kim Marshall in Educational Leadership, November 2012 (Vol. 70, #3, p. 50-53), www.ascd.org; Marshall is at kim.marshall8@verizon.net.