Staff Performance Evaluations

Evaluations generally take two different forms: formative evaluation or summative evaluation. Many policy-makers and researchers call for evaluation not only to hold teachers and administrators responsible for teaching students, but also to provide professional development opportunities, increase leadership capabilities, and improve teacher quality. Performance evaluations may include the following procedures: observation, portfolio assessment, and assessment centers. Successful evaluation procedures can have a large impact on improving schools, as well as addressing issues such as teacher retention and professional isolation.

Keywords Assessment; Assessment Centers; Formative Evaluation; Observation; Portfolio; Professional Development; Reliability; Summative Evaluation; Teacher Quality

Overview

Teachers and administrators are faced with the task of educating individuals to aptly prepare them to thrive in today's economy. Staff performance evaluations have been instituted in a large majority of schools across the country to assess school staff in this undertaking, from teachers to administrators. Evaluating staff in a school is often a daunting process, as there are many people to assess, as well as a variety of methods to from which to choose. Schools are also often highly stressful environments, with teachers and administrators having minimal amounts of time. Furthermore, working in schools is often an isolated profession, in which supervision can be met with suspicion or nervousness.

The methods and policies for staff performance evaluations vary widely from school to school. Aspects of the school that influence performance evaluations include the school district, the size of the school, and the school culture. In the past teachers were often evaluated and supervised solely to ensure that they met standards, rather than to facilitate their growth as professionals (Sullivan & Glanz, 2004). However, today educational experts largely call for evaluation procedures for school staff to focus on constructive criticism and improving the skills of educators and school administrators, in addition to holding them accountable for student learning (Nolin, Rowand, & Farris, 1994).

Evaluation Goals

Evaluation must be reliable, effective, and efficient in order to achieve its goals. Reliable results are consistent - similar tests give similar results. A survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (Nolin, Rowand, & Farris, 1994) found that the majority of educational administrators and teachers agree that evaluations can help them improve educational excellence. However, evaluations must be conducted carefully to meet these goals. The survey also found that performance evaluation processes are firmly established in schools across the country, that most teachers are evaluated by their principal, and the chief method of teacher evaluation is through classroom observation. Survey results report that teachers are supportive of evaluations when they aim to improve teaching skills rather than using the results to fire teachers or determine pay scales (Nolin, Rowand, & Farris, 1994).

Staff performance evaluations face complicated questions regarding various elements. They include: what the staff should be evaluated for, who should evaluate them, and what the outcome of the evaluation should be. Researchers largely agree that the goals of evaluation today are two fold: accountability and professional development (Anderson, 1989). However, these goals are often difficult to reach due to various factors in schools.

Who & What is Evaluated?

The fundamental question for staff evaluation is what schools need to evaluate to ensure they are gathering enough information to judge a teacher or supervisor (Darling-Hammond, 1983). The broad range of possible evaluation aspects include subtle areas such as a teacher's rapport with students and the social responsibility displayed by an individual, as well as concrete features including test scores, lesson plans, and teaching methods. Experts largely recognize that there are two types of evaluations that differ in their goals: formative evaluations are used to improve skills, while summative evaluations are used to make decisions regarding school personnel. Many evaluation methods used by schools and districts are characterized by both forms of evaluation.

Historically, teachers were supervised largely by local authorities, and schools functioned as individual entities over which the teacher had a large amount of autonomy. As schools and districts became more organized in the face of a changing economy and world-wide competition, teachers were supervised by superintendents and then supervisors in schools, usually by the administration. While the initial focus on performance evaluation centered on teachers, recently there has been considerable attention on administrators as well. Research on principal evaluations is still scarce; however, the research on school organization suggests that the quality of leadership in schools has a significant impact on student learning and success, leading to educational experts calling for performance evaluations for principals (Connecticut Principals' Academy, 1990).

In the early 1970s, very few states across the country required evaluation for principals, or had a set procedure. Nearly twenty years later, that number had grown to include most states (Peters, 1988, cited by Anderson, 1989). While teacher evaluations have a fairly long history, performance evaluations for administrators only became popular during the school reform movement in the 1980s (Connecticut Principals' Academy, 1990). By the late 1980s, when research validated that principals have a key impact on the performance of teachers and students, as well as the culture of a school, school districts began to mandate, research, and implement formal performance evaluation procedures for principals (Anderson, 1989). Peterson (1991) believes that evaluation for administrators, especially principals, is important for a number of reasons. Evaluation procedures can help open lines of communication, facilitates the process of goal setting, and encourages principals to improve their leadership skills.

Applications

Evaluation Phases

Too often districts and schools do not plan well enough for effective evaluation procedures that meet the diverse needs of a school. Schools need to be held accountable for their teaching and outcomes, while concurrently providing opportunities for staff members to improve their professional skills (Anderson, 1989). In order to achieve these goals, evaluation plans should have three phases:

• Planning for the evaluation,

• Collecting the information necessary, and

• Using the information collected (Bolton, 1980).

Planning, allows schools and districts to address important aspects of the environment, school mission, and philosophy that will shape how and why a school or district will evaluate its staff members. It is important that this first phase involves a wide breadth of people - from the top district officials to the teachers in the individual schools, and everyone in between - for input. During this phase, the expectations and goals and objectives of the evaluation procedures will be set (Anderson, 1989).

Collecting data is the second phase of effective evaluation procedures. The methods of data collection are varied, and may include strategies such as observation, assessments, or other evidence such as collecting test scores of the students in the school. A school may engage in only one method of collecting data, or they may decide to use a variety of methods in their evaluation process (Anderson, 1989).

In the final phase of evaluation, supervisors analyze the data and make decisions based on the information. Depending on the type of data available, as well as the goals of the evaluation, the third phase may include resolutions such as awarding merit pay, firing or hiring of employees, or giving certain feedback to the evaluated individuals (Anderson, 1989).

Types of Evaluation

Formative Evaluation

Formative evaluation helps staff members evaluate and improve their teaching or leadership skills, improving their work performance. This type of evaluation requires that the relationship between evaluator and evaluatee is ongoing. In this type of assessment, the role of the evaluator is closer to that of a counselor, guiding the staff member and consistently providing feedback and assistance. The process can be extensive, even lasting many years, depending on the goals of the evaluation (Barrett, 1986; Anderson, 1989).

The goal of formative evaluation is to improve skills in some aspect of the job and provide the guidance, support, and feedback that will help the individual succeed. The larger focus is to improve the school and the education system, rather than singularly judge the performance of an individual.

Summative Evaluation

Summative evaluations are used primarily to judge a staff member - the teacher or administrator - and come to some sort of conclusion. The process is familiar, resulting in a decision based on the competencies of the individual. Unlike formative evaluation, summative evaluation may not require any sort of relationship between the staff member and the evaluator, and the evaluation process is often brief and focused (Barrett, 1986; Anderson, 1989).

Summative evaluations are used to make various decisions such as promotion or demotion, pay raises or bonuses, and other decisions important to the school. The process of summative evaluation is focused on how the individual performs in his or her daily tasks, rather than improving performance; there is an end result to the evaluation procedure.

Evaluating the Teacher

Teacher quality is one of the foremost indicators of student success (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Thus, the most basic reason for evaluating teachers is to ensure that students are learning and that a school is successfully meeting its goals. Today, more than ever before, teachers are being charged with the responsibility of educating tomorrow's workforce, and the public demands accountability from their educators. Teacher performance evaluations are seen as a critical element in school accountability and improvement today (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2004; Patty, 2007).

Early on in American education, teachers were supervised and evaluated because the profession was seen as needing close inspection. Today, the focus has shifted: the literature and research largely focuses on using evaluation in order to help teachers develop their professional skills, enabling them to improve their methods and reach their instructional goals (Sullivan & Glanz, 2004). Today, teachers are most often evaluated by their principals or other administrators in the school, and methods can vary widely from the familiar classroom observation to walk-throughs or action research.

Observation

The most basic form of evaluation is classroom observation, in which a teacher prepares a lesson, and their supervisor sits in to view them. Observation can have various facets, and can be a tool for formative or summative evaluation. Many individuals will likely associate observation with discomfort and feelings of having to prove themselves - receiving a "grade" as a teacher (Marshall, 2005; Dudney, 2002). There are methods of observation, however, that can be a used for formative evaluations as well. For example, when a teacher and supervisor engage in pre- and post-observation discussions regarding the teacher's goals, strengths, and weaknesses, the process is less about a decision on a score or ranking and more about the goal of improvement. This latter procedure of observation, in which teachers are heavily involved in the process, is based on a clinical supervision model, developed in the 1960s under the idea that teachers should employ the practice of goal-setting (Aseltine, Faryniarz, & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2006; Sullivan & Glanz, 2004).

Action Research

Many schools also employ evaluation tactics such as action research. Here, colleagues in a school work together to study conditions within their school and make improvements in teaching based on their research (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2004).

Walk-Throughs

In walk-throughs, groups of teachers visit other teachers' classrooms to gain an idea of their teaching methods and theories on learning (Sullivan & Glanz, 2004). Schools may further engage in tactics such as teacher mentoring programs or coaching programs in which more experienced teachers help less experienced teachers improve their instructional methods and reach their goals.

Evaluating teachers can be a complex process. A school must think about balancing development opportunities for teachers with ensuring that teachers are performing up to standards. Schools may choose to employ various types of evaluation, depending on needs and goals. Many types of evaluation used today allow teachers to be supervised by individuals other than their principals. This helps principals empower other teachers as leaders, as well as to foster group development and teamwork in a traditionally isolated profession.

Evaluating the Principal

The abilities of a principal in a school have a large impact on the success of that school in fostering student learning and improving student outcomes (Peterson, 1991). In an era in which research has confirmed lasting inequities in education, especially among minority and/or low income families, the competencies of leaders is especially important to student learning and the success of a school. While principal evaluation has a shorter history than evaluating teachers, recent research points to the importance of evaluating principals. However, the research is still sparse. Much of the evaluation procedures for principals is based on leadership research in other organizations, rather than on actual educational leaders (Green, 2004).

Just as a variety of people can be involved in the evaluation of teachers, different groups can also be involved in principal or other administrator evaluation. Principals may be evaluated by the district their school resides in or the teachers of the school they lead. For example, confidential staff surveys in which the school's teachers rate the principal on various aspects of the job (such as leadership capabilities or relationship building skills) may be used to give school districts information on their principals, and provide feedback to the principal based on the survey results (Anderson, 1989). Today, the two most common forms of principal evaluation are

• Rating scales, and

• Management by objectives (Green, 2004).

Rating Scale

A rating scale evaluation involves a form that a school district creates based on its needs. The form lists a variety of objectives, the principal is made aware of the expectations, and the form will be completed by the principal's supervisor. The results are discussed between the two after the evaluation. The items on the list may vary from district to district. While the rating scale process is easy to manage and implement, many principals do not report that it actually helps to improve their performance as leaders of a school (Green 2004).

Management by Objectives

Management by objectives, the second most common form of principal evaluation, involves setting goals, establishing incentives, and then discussing the progress on these goals with a supervisor after the proper time period has passed. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. While it involves principals in the process of evaluation, and helps them improve their skills, it also has the potential to lead to an increased focus on reaching short-term goals rather than the bigger picture (Green, 2004).

Other Methods

Other evaluation practices for principals include

• 360 degree evaluation,

• Assessment centers, and

• Portfolios.

In the first principals are evaluated by a number of those who work with them. For example, evaluators may include teachers, other principals, and the district supervisors. Assessment centers use simulations to "test" principals on certain matters associated with their work. Portfolios may contain self reflections, plans for professional development, and evidence of leadership collected by the principal (Green, 2004).

While the research on principal evaluation is scarce, we do know that principals prefer to be involved in the evaluation processes, in development and participation. Studies show that principals often prefer hybrids of various methods, rather than a single assessment tool (Green, 2004).

Research on principal evaluation is not as abundant or transparent. However, it is apparent that effective principals are crucial to student learning. It is further evident that today's principals are tasked with an incredible undertaking: running the day to day operations of a school, supporting a large number of teachers, answering to parents and the community, as well as their supervisors - the school district.

Viewpoints

Working and teaching in a school is traditionally a highly stressful occupation, associated with elevated levels of isolation and depersonalization, often leading to burnout (Hastings & Bham, 2003). Education professionals who leave their school or the profession often cite that their school had a clear hierarchy, they felt underappreciated from their superiors, or expectations were not clear (Bryne, 1998; Friedman, 1991). Research has found that while strategies such as salary increases may help promote teaching as a profession, the most effective tool to combat high attrition levels in education is to implement strategies that improve the conditions in which teachers work - the culture of the school, and giving individuals input on various decisions (Friedman & Farber, 1992).

Education is one of the best predictors of success that we have. Today's economy relies on a well-educated work force. Individuals who receive an education not only earn more over a lifetime, but also live longer, have better health, rely on social and welfare programs at a lower rate, and are less likely to end up in jail (Geske & Cohn, 1998). The inequities that are largely present in education can be addressed by employing proficient professionals in our schools. Teacher quality is the foremost indicator of how much students learn, and whether they will have positive experiences in school. School leadership is also crucial to improving educational outcomes for students.

Evaluation of the staff in schools is one method by which to address these issues. While school professionals must certainly be held accountable for whether students are learning, the other aspect of evaluation, professional development, is one that often goes overlooked. One of the foremost questions regarding performance evaluations in schools is whether the two branches - formative and summative - are complementary. Many researchers argue that it is important that districts and schools use both approaches in order to improve schools and hold them accountable. Summative evaluations are essential for providing meaningful evidence that schools are doing what they are supposed to do. On the other hand, formative evaluations enhance the experience of teaching and ensure that schools and districts are putting their resources into improvement, guiding teachers and administrators rather than letting them flounder (Anderson, 1989).

Effective evaluation takes time and effort. Evaluation not only reveals the skills and leadership capabilities of school professionals; it can promote their expertise, develop leadership, and further career goals. The research on evaluating teachers shows that principals are the central individuals in establishing effective evaluation processes based on a culture of mutual respect and collaboration for teachers in schools (Glanz, Shulman, & Sullivan, 2007). However, evaluation is no easy task for principals. Many are too busy with other areas of running the school to effectively evaluate teachers over the course of a school year. Formative evaluation especially takes a large amount of time and effort, over the course of a longer period. If the teachers in the school are inexperienced, the task falls even more heavily on school administration rather than other teachers to provide feedback and professional development opportunities to teachers.

Green (2004) reasons that it is important that school evaluations are clear and involve the parties they are supervising. For example, principals should know what the expectations for their job entail, and how they will be evaluated on them. They should also be involved in planning the evaluation - setting goals and discussing how to reach them. The same should be true for teachers. Teachers need to have a voice in how evaluations take place, and their role in them. Evaluation should also address local needs, and requires a commitment of time and resources from a number of parties. Once committed, these resources should be used efficiently (Barrett, 1986). In the most effective schools, evaluations can help improve teaching methods, leadership skills, the school culture, and in turn positively impact student learning. Often effective evaluation procedures will help address other issues such as isolation and a lack of understanding of expectations that battle the attrition issue for teachers and principals. Evaluation is not an easy task; organizations struggle with it constantly. However, evaluation is a valuable investment for schools, and results in exceptional returns for school professionals and their students.

Terms & Concepts

Assessment Centers: Assessment centers use simulations to test principals on every day aspects of their job.

Formative Evaluation: Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation that is used to help teachers and administrators improve the skills important to their position.

Observation: Observation is a type of evaluation in which teachers are observed by supervisors. This type of observation can be formative or summative.

Portfolio: Portfolios are used in evaluations to help individuals self reflect, set goals, and provide proof of their accomplishments.

Professional Development: Professional development refers to activities that improve various skills or continue the education of an individual within a school. Opportunities may include classes, lectures, or trainings.

Reliability: Reliable results from evaluation are consistent - if similar tests are given to similar individuals, you get the same results each time.

Summative Evaluation: Summative evaluation is used to make a decision regarding school professionals.

Teacher Quality: Teacher quality is one of the best predictors of student achievement. Evaluation today is often aimed at improving teachers' skills.

Bibliography

Anderson, M.E. (1989). Evaluating principals: Strategies to assess and enhance their performance. OSSC Bulletin, 32 .

Aseltine, J.M., Faryniarz, J.O., & Rigazio-DiGilio, A.J. (2006). Supervision for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Barrett, J. (1986). The evaluation of teachers. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED278657). Retrieved October 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/34/97/22.pdf

Benedict, A.E., Thomas, R.A., Kimerling, J., & Leko, C. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 60-68. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=87105705&site=ehost-live

Bolton, D.L. (1980). Evaluating administrative personnel in school systems. New York: Teachers College Press.

Connecticut Principals' Academy. (1990). A Guide to the Process of Evaluating School Principals. Monograph No. 2. East Lyme, CT: Author (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319141). Retrieved October 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/20/52/2e.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Investing in quality teaching: State-level strategies 1999. Education Commission of the States.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., & Pease, S.R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53 , 285-328.

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 8-15. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73317375&site=ehost-live

Dudney, G.M. (2002). Facilitating teacher development through supervisory class observations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 469715). Retrieved October 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/7c/a5.pdf

Friedman, I.A., & Farber, B.A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journal of Education Research, 86 , 28-35.

Geske, T.G. and E. Cohn (1998). Why is a high school diploma no longer enough?: The economic and social benefits of higher education. In: R. Fossey & M. Bateman (Eds.), Condemning students to debt, College loans and public policy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2004). SuperVision and instructional leadership, brief edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

Green, J.E. (2004). Evaluating principals: Issues and practices. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Hastings, R.P., & Bham, M.S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24 , 115-127.

Mangiante, E. (2011). Teachers matter: Measures of teacher effectiveness in low-income minority schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 23, 41-63. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=57721639&site=ehost-live

Marshall, K. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 , 727-735. Retrieved October 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db= aph&AN=17188277&site=ehost-live

Nolin, M.J., Rowand, C., & Farris, E. (1994). Public elementary teachers' views on teacher performance evaluations. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Patty (2007). New study highlights role of principal. International Educator, 21 , 28-28. Retrieved October 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24359732&site=ehost-live

Paige, M. (2013). Applying the "paradox" theory: A law and policy analysis of collective bargaining rights and teacher evaluation reform from selected states. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, , 21-43. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86721425&site=ehost-live

Peters, S. (1988). State-mandated principal evaluation: A report on current practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleand, Louisiana.

Peterson, D. (1991). Evaluating principals. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 3300064). Retrieved October 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/22/d6/f5.pdf

Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2004). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Suggested Reading

Bell, C.R. (1996). Managers as mentors: Building partnerships for learning. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Brown, G., & Irby, B.J. (1997). The Principal Portfolio. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Pfeiffer. Millman, J. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Razik, T.A., & Swanson, A.D. Fundamental concepts of educational leadership and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Slaughter, C.H. (1989). Good principals, good schools: A guide to evaluating school leadership. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.

Viles, J. & Bondi, J. (2004) Supervision: A guide to practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall