Accountable Teacher Evaluation: Toward Highly Qualified and Competent Teachers

Citation

Volante, L. (2007), "Accountable Teacher Evaluation: Toward Highly Qualified and Competent Teachers", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 348-350. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230710747884

Imagine two children, Jane and Susan, who both attended the same school from kindergarten to grade 12. Both students have similar abilities, came from the same neighbourhood, and have similar socio‐economic backgrounds and ethnicity. Given these similarities, one would naturally assume that their scholastic achievement would be roughly equivalent. Yet, Jane's progress seems to have been thwarted by approximately four years because she consistently received poor instruction from ineffective teachers. It is from this backdrop that Hans Andrews (2004) builds his case for “Accountable Teacher Evaluation: Toward Highly Qualified and Competent Teachers”. Organized around three sections with 17 chapters, Andrews bases much of the rationale for the book on the fact that teachers do have a measured impact on student learning and achievement. This impact, either negative or positive, provides the impetus for finding defensible ways of “rewarding” or “weeding” out poor teachers from the school system. For Andrews, the stakes are too high, and he sets the reader on a journey to consider a more effective system for evaluating teachers at the K‐12 and community college level.

With 35 years experience as a “leader in the field of faculty evaluation as both a practitioner and a researcher in community colleges and secondary schools” (p. xix), Andrews' depiction of a broken teacher evaluation system and proposed remedy for improvement is compelling. He is careful to back up many of his own personal claims by referencing other experts and empirical studies in the field. For example, in the first section of the book, “Justification for Accountable Evaluation Systems”, he argues that the national consensus, even from leaders of teachers unions and federations (i.e. Albert Shanker – President of the American Federation of Teachers), is that the system of evaluation and tenure has been, and continues to be, poorly conducted by many administrators and government boards across the country. Citing several large‐scale surveys, he notes a desire among both administrators and faculty to shift the evaluation process from one that is primarily summative in nature, to one that is able to offer formative feedback for faculty improvement and development. In citing such work, Andrews (2004) makes it abundantly clear that teacher evaluation is not about punishing poor instructors. Rather, effective teacher evaluation ultimately leads to “improvement of instruction” for the betterment of the entire school and college system. He is careful to stress, that it is only in exceptional circumstances, when a teacher has not responded to repeated attempts at remediation from a qualified evaluator, that termination procedures should be considered.

One of the most interesting, and perhaps controversial points made within the first section of the book, is that the customary practice of using student evaluations at the college level, is largely useless for improving instruction. He draws the reader's attention to numerous studies which highlight various defects in the utilization of student evaluation ratings. Chief among them are that students are often unqualified to judge the knowledge level a teacher has in their specialized field, inflexible in their ability to accommodate a variety of teaching methods and approaches, rate elective courses or those in a major area more highly than courses taken to fulfill a college requirement, and rate instructors with easy grading procedures higher than those who are tougher. Essentially, he argues that student evaluations are often invalid and should be confined to those areas that legitimately lend themselves to student assessment (i.e. judgments about communication skills and professional/ethical behavior). Andrews also dismisses peer evaluation as a potential substitute for student evaluation since research has also consistently shown low reliability for such ratings. Ultimately, the reader is led to the logical conclusion that only highly trained evaluators can ensure a concomitant increase in the number of highly qualified teachers.

The second section of the book, “Establishing Teaching and Evaluation Standards”, outlines the characteristics that define effective evaluators and evaluation procedures. For example, in order to successfully motivate teacher change and growth, evaluators should possess credibility, a helper relationship with teachers, trustworthiness, nonthreatening interpersonal manner, patience, flexibility, strong knowledge of the technical aspects of teaching, capacity to model suggestions, familiarity with teacher's classroom students, teaching experience, ability to offer useful suggestions, and persuasiveness of rationale for improvement. This list suggests a fundamental shift in the role of an administrator from one who is primarily a manager to one who is an instructional leader. Although I whole‐heartedly concur with the need for this shift, it is not entire clear how this can be reasonably managed within current school systems and colleges. For example, how a can a high school principal or vice‐principal with a student population of 3,000+ students, have sufficient familiarity with each of their students? In the same vein, is it reasonable for a Dean or Chair of a college department to know all their instructor's students? Many instructors struggle to accomplish such a feat. Similarly, the evaluation model offered suggests numerous follow‐up visits, by different evaluators, are required before one could reasonably move to terminate employment. Although Andrews (2004) makes a passionate case for the necessary shifts required, relatively little attention is devoted to the broader institutional and financial constraints that adversely impact these characteristics and procedures.

The last section of the book, “Implementing Accountable Outcomes”, covers a wide variety of key issues such as remediation, post‐tenure evaluation, role of governing boards, tenure termination procedures, and the need for part‐time faculty evaluation. Principles and guidelines are offered in each of the remaining eight chapters of this section. For example, in implementing a remediation plan, the administrator must ensure that the teacher:

• •

  Understands what their teaching problems are;

• •

  Hears the same message from different evaluators;

• •

  Receives a written plan for remediation; and

• •

  Knows failure to improve may lead to termination (p. 210).

Andrews (2004) also offers a set of questions that must be answered conclusively before a termination procedure can be considered legally defensible. Andrews (2004) even discusses various court cases to support many of the procedures outlined in this section. It is here where an administrator would find much of the nuts and bolts about conducting effective teacher evaluations.

Overall, “Accountable Teacher Evaluation: Toward Highly Qualified and Competent Teachers” is a comprehensive overview of the field of teacher evaluation. Andrews skilfully weaves narratives and practical applications with broader research to create an invaluable resource book for school administrators at all levels – school, district, and community colleges – who are interested in exploring sound evaluation procedures that are supported by research and case law. The scope of the analysis, which is one of the book's main strengths, is perhaps its greatest weakness. Namely, by jointly tackling the K‐12 and college systems, Andrew's analysis may be too ambitious. Although he takes great care to distinguish between these two settings, the switch from system to system within chapters is difficult to follow at times. Despite this limitation, the book is a must read for any administrator who his interested in improving the quality of instruction within their school or college. Teachers will also benefit from the thorough discussion of the various characteristics that define effective instruction at different levels – elementary, middle school, high school, and community college.