lllCreativity in Action!
Using Creativity in
Developing the
Entrepreneurial Spirit
Learning in Action!
A Cross-disciplinary Problem-Based
Learning Environment for Entrepreneurship
Teacher Performance Evaluation:
A Proposal for Privatization
Test Version 1.0
(A Work in Progress)
R. Wilburn Clouse, PhD
Vanderbilt University
Teacher Performance Evaluation:
A Proposal for Privatization
Storyline by Jason Walton
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to propose a privatization alternative to conventional teacher
performance evaluation. First, I will explain the current board policy on teacher
evaluation in my school district. Then, I will discuss this policy based on my own
professional observations. Finally, I will describe and make the case for my desired
privatization proposal and offer some concluding comments. As per the syllabus
instructions for this assignment, what follows will contain personal observations and
commentary as well as light textual analysis. Therefore, the first and third person will be
used interchangeably.
Summary of Board Policy on Teacher Performance Evaluation
The current DeSoto County School System board policy on teacher performance
evaluation is found under descriptor code CBI and was written in July of 1982. The
policy was last updated in July of 1988. It states that the purpose of the policy is
improvement of instruction. The policy states that the superintendent, district office
personnel, the principal, and any other personnel the superintendent deems necessary can
carry out the observation and evaluation of certified teachers. According to the policy,
each teacher will be observed and evaluated twice yearly. The first performance
evaluation should work with teachers formatively to improve teacher performance on the
district’s standards of instruction, with the ultimate goal being improved student
performance on the district’s curriculum standards. The second performance evaluation
should work with the teachers summatively to assess teacher performance as measured
against the district’s articulated standards for curriculum and instruction.
In addition to delineating the purpose of evaluations, who may carry them out, and how
often they should be done, the policy speaks to what measures should be taken if teacher
performance is deemed unacceptable. If a teacher’s performance is objectionable, that
teacher shall be placed under what the policy refers to as “intensive supervision”. During
this time the teacher will have a conference with the principal and/or observer(s) and may
expect frequent observations from the principal and/or central office staff. When, in the
opinion of the principal, necessary adjustments have been made and teacher performance
has become acceptable, “intensive supervision” will be terminated. In the event that
performance does not improve to an acceptable level, the principal may take necessary
action to recommend to the superintendent non-renewal of contract.
My Professional Experience Under This Policy
I would like to note that what follows is meant solely to illustrate the differences
in the rhetoric and the reality relative to board policy on teacher performance evaluation.
The subsequent discussion’s main purpose is not to parade the inadequacies of the current
policy or those in the school system charged with executing it. The point of this
discussion is simply to convey how the written policy on teacher evaluation not only
2
misses its targeted objective of improving instruction but also creates problems for those
whom it was written to help.
It is my belief that evaluations are significant emotional events for teachers. One’s
teaching style is highly personal. One administrator I interned under distilled this
perfectly when he told me that recommending an instructional change to a teacher is akin
to recommending a new arrangement for the furniture in that teacher’s living room.
Whether real or perceived, the threat of evaluation consequences is reality and can make
for an emotionally charged situation.
I have been in the teachers’ lounge and heard the disdain with which faculty criticize the
instructional recommendations of administrators who have never taught in their subject
area. I have heard teachers openly speculate whether or not the principal possesses the
capability of being totally objective with his or her evaluation. I have also seen how
teachers who received a poor evaluation seldom avoid second-guessing or undermining
the evaluating administrator in some way.
As an administrative intern, I heard principals bemoan the time-consuming process.
They complained of the amount of time that goes into the process to satisfy a policy that
has negligible impact on instruction. Most administrators will privately admit that if the
policy’s manifest function is to improve instruction, the latent function is to establish
“just cause” for terminating poorly performing teachers. The sad truth is that many times
this policy for teacher performance evaluation is not even effective in establishing “just
cause” to terminate a poorly performing teacher. I have seen some principals who have
been completely consumed by the process, becoming ineffective in all other aspects of
their job until evaluations are complete and neatly tucked away in their respective files. I
have also witnessed administrators carry out this paper-ridden policy of double and triple
carbon documents with the speed and dexterity of a medical records clerk. Whether the
evaluating administrator handles the paperwork well or not, most would probably agree
that the policy is not accomplishing its stated purpose of improving instruction. In fact,
there is not a scintilla of evidence that there is any improvement occurring under this
policy at all.
My Recommendation for Teacher Performance Evaluation: Privatization
Robinson and Stern state that one of the tangible results of creativity in the
workplace is improvement, or changes to what is already done (1997). Based on my
experience with teacher performance evaluation, and given than many districts use
similar policies, I believe a company should be started for the purpose of teacher
observation and evaluation. Student assessment is privatized. In fact, multi-million
dollar contracts are awarded to companies by states and individual districts for evaluating
student performance. My question is this: Why is it not correct to think a school district
could contract with a company to evaluate teacher performance as well as it could
contract with a company to evaluate student performance? I believe a school district
could contract out the observation and evaluation of teachers to a company, which could
perform this task more efficiently, more objectively, and more effectively than any
principal.
3
The beauty of this idea is that the company could customize evaluation and observation
solutions for a district. The company could tailor evaluation offerings just as textbook
companies customize the arrangement of textbooks to sequence and align their content
with state or district curriculum frameworks. As long as the district’s evaluation purpose
did not exceed its purse, the company could offer any number of evaluation and
observation solutions.
The company would contract with teachers in surrounding districts from all content
knowledge areas. Using teachers from outside the district would be vital in that it would
alleviate the kind of “devil’s bargain” collegiality among teachers of the same district that
would render the process useless. These teachers could be newly retired, those who are
nationally board certified, those who have earned recognition in their field, or those who
are simply distinguished teaching veterans. I consider a company contracting with a
teacher to serve as an evaluator comparable to a teacher receiving money for serving as
an administrator for a standardized test like the ACT or SAT. They would get paid a fair
price for their assistance in the evaluation of teachers in their same subject area. Just as
with administering standardized tests, they would be required to devote a given amount
of time to perform highly specific duties.
Once this cadre of teachers was assembled, they would need to be familiarized with the
district’s evaluation instrument. It is important to note that there are as many different
evaluation instruments as there are districts, and that this training would be necessary to
align evaluators with a district’s standards. Organized properly, these trained evaluators
could descend on a school and evaluate an entire faculty in a few days and offer a master
report of findings to the principal shortly thereafter.
Just as with student assessment, the company could offer districts an entire menu of
statistical analysis and reports. Principals could use this data for everything from
individualizing action plans for poorly performing teachers to identifying faculty-wide
trends that could be addressed through professional development.
The benefit of this solution is that it recognizes the time consuming nature of the
proforma tasks thrust upon an administrator by ineffective and inefficient evaluation
policies. In addition to purchasing an observation and evaluation service, a district would
also, in effect, be buying back the immense amount of administrative time lost under the
former less efficient policy. In my opinion the principal could come closer to authentic
instructional improvement through careful use of this regained time than was ever
possible under a conventional evaluation policy
This proposal’s intention is not to remove the principal from the evaluation and
observation process. It does, however, significantly redefine the principal’s role. Under
this proposal, I see the principal in an instructional coaching role, similar to that which
was recently discussed in the November 22, 2000 Lessons column of the New York
Times. This column explored the emerging role of instructional coaches across the
nation. According to the column, theses coaches are instructional specialists with no
4
classroom assignment who observe and guide teachers. These coaches even model
demonstration lessons for teachers. I believe the time regained through the contracted
evaluations could free principals to fill a role similar to this in their schools.
It is important to note that the principal would retain plenary authority relative to
recommendation for non-renewal. The principal would also serve as a sort of appeals
officer for the process. If a teacher felt he or she was inaccurately assessed, the principal
could observe the teacher for the purpose of either contradicting or reinforcing the
findings. I believe this would lessen the adversarial relationship that is brought about by
conventional evaluation. Second-guessing of administrative evaluation findings would
be silenced. Rather than being stonewalled by a teacher’s hurt feelings or animosity after
a poor evaluation, the principal could work for authentic instructional improvement as a
teacher’s ally rather than his or her adversary.
Conclusion
A number of companies already exist that specialize in clinical supervision of
teachers. These companies typically promote a trademarked system like Madeline
Hunter’s model of evaluation. These professional development companies make money
from training administrators and teachers on their process. As of yet, I have been unable
to locate any company, which even comes remotely close to the described proposal for
privatized evaluation of teachers as advanced in this paper. First, this proposal would
call for an operational change. The manner in which the process of observation and
evaluation is carried out under conventional policies in a school or district would be
altered considerably. Second, this proposal would create a transactional shift. Although
principals would still retain the authority to evaluate and non-renew teachers, observation
would be peer and subject based and presumably more equitable. Third, the role of the
principal in a contracted evaluation setting would be redefined. He or she would be
liberated from the portion of conventional evaluation processes that have no impact on
instruction and empowered to truly be an instructional leader.
One of the many student assessment companies would seem to be a natural candidate for
expanding its services to offer teacher assessment through observation and evaluation.
These companies would already have the financial resources and infrastructure necessary
to market such an idea.
References
Lessons: For Teaching’s Real Pros, Coaches on the Sidelines. (2000, November 22).
The New York Times.
Robinson and Stern. (1997). Corporate Creativity. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler
Publishing, Inc.
5