Teacher evaluation may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills development. Danielson and McGreal (2000) concluded in their research, Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice, that teacher evaluation is not only important but a necessity, and that evaluation systems designed to support teacher growth and development through an emphasis on formative evaluation techniques produced higher levels of satisfaction and more thoughtful and reflective practice while still being able to satisfy accountability demands.
Evaluation, like learning, should be a continuous process. It should lead to further learning and better performance on the job, whether teaching or support duties. Evaluation, if properly carried out, helps to improve performance in the present job. It also helps in the consideration of staff for promotion, since it uncovers the particular talents of individuals, and helps in discovering areas of weaknesses that might need further improvement. Thus evaluation ensures that every individual is clearly aware of what his or her standards and the expectations of the educational institution are; and it can be used to build into the job some of the factors which contribute to high performance, while at the same time making the individual's job more satisfying and rewarding.
Teacher evaluation is a complex process. It is considered by many as a series of activities and actions that are interconnected and relate to a specific purpose. Since teachers deal with complex problems, they should be evaluated as professionals, which means that their peers should develop their standards and their evaluation should focus on the degree to which they solve professional problems competently. In the school environment these "problems" would be the entire teaching and learning situation.
Teacher evaluation should be dialogical rather than hierarchical. "Evaluators should know the subject matter, pedagogy, and classroom characteristics of the teacher being evaluated (McGeachy, 1992), as well as take into consideration the fact that experienced and excellent teachers are capable of pedagogical performances that educational theory and research can neither explain nor predict (Shulman, 1987). These risk-takers and innovators must be encouraged not stifled. Consequently, an effort to define standards for teaching and operating them in an evaluation must reach beyond the judgment of academic experts" (Sawa, 1995). What is therefore needed is a form of evaluation that helps the teacher in his/her aim for higher creativity and excellence.
In February 2006, the Bahamian Teachers Union mounted a demonstration on Bay Street, one of the city's major thoroughfares. They had received the government's proposal for the new contractual agreement and were very disgruntled, to say the least. One of the major points of discontent was the suggestion of teachers receiving increments by performance. This is not a new phenomenon - pay by performance seems to be the desired way forward in many countries and has been the point of much debate and has oftencome up against serious opposition. But, the researcher believes, it can only be a by-product of a proper and effective teacher evaluation system.
Who will know who has or is performing? What will be the standard to judge such performance? How will the "judging" be carried out? Who will determine the set of performance standards for teachers to be judged against? How will the "judge" be trained to carry out the evaluation process at this level?
As new ideas and concept are introduced to foster national development and new systems and processes are sought to build and sustain our educational system, then naturally more accountability will be required and in many cases that accountability will come have to come form those who are responsible for the day-to-day governance of the schools - our teachers. Therefore the evaluation of these very important persons will be paramount to the proper assessment of any program or system that seeks to enhance educational development, teacher professionalism and student achievement.
For years we have gotten away with sloppy, incomplete, subjective teacher evaluation systems, but take note, if teachers' increments, promotion, retention, etc. will depend upon the results of the teacher evaluation process, then such a process needs to be clear, concise, comprehensible, attainable, standardized, nationalized and properly supervised.
In 2004, the researcher was in his third year of employment with the Anglican Central Education Authority, working at St Johns College, where he had seen the evaluation instrument being revised each year to gain more acceptance by teachers and to be considered an accurate measurement tool for teacher evaluation.
The instrument in itself may prove not to be a bad tool, but the evaluation process needs attention in order for the use of the instrument to be considered a true measurement. Teacher evaluation is dealt with differently in the Bahamas and in particular in the Anglican Central Education Authority (A.C.E.A.) compareed with the researcher's past experiences in Jamaica, where he taught in three separate schools (1992-2000) and was never given a formal, formative, progressive or summative evaluation.
Many teachers do not know the importance of teacher evaluation and the personal and professional benefits one can achieve from being properly evaluated. The researcher feels that teacher evaluation needs not only be carried out with greater accuracy, and a better instrument, but that teachers should be educated on the role, purpose and importance of evaluation as a part of their regular professional life. Many teachers shun the evaluation process and detest being evaluated, as it is clear that many do not know the real purpose of the evaluation process, do not understand the procedure and are not aware of the benefits it yields for professional development and school-wide achievement, if done properly.
Evaluator competence is probably the most difficult aspect of the evaluative process. Questions are sometimes raised about the extent to which the observer's account is an adequate match for what usually occurs in a classroom. Some administrators make evaluations after only 20 minutes of observation. Further, when a class is being observed, the teacher and students at times take on a superficial role that they think is suited for the session.
The present evaluation processes used in the Anglican Private Schools are two fold. New teachers are evaluated within the first two-months of employment. This evaluation should be done in levels by the Grade Coordinator/Head of Department, the Vice-Principal and/or Senior Mistress, the Principal and then an outside evaluation done by the Director and Deputy Director of Education for the Education Authority. This is where the researcher thinks the problem begins, where everyone at each level does not necessarily do a formal written evaluation, using a preliminary sheet specially designed for this purpose to give effective and useful feedback.
Therefore often times the mistake that is made during the first evaluation process is carried over to the other evaluation sessions. Many times these "mistakes" are not serious matters of professional capabilities, though they do and can impact on the school and individual student performance, but they are simply errors that have to do with cultural differences in expectation and outcomes (it must be noted that many schools in the Bahamas, and especially that of the private schools, have a great percentage of their teachers coming from many different countries).
The next level is the annual evaluation or the summative evaluation. All teachers including the new ones are then given this summative evaluation at the end of the year and this final paper carries the weight. This is done using a compilation of the previous observations done by supervisors during the school year. The Principal has the final say on what goes on this form, although she often consults with other persons in administration to gain a broader view. A copy of this form is sent to the head office, one is kept on the teacher's file. The teachers are given an opportunity to view the form, read it contents and sign. The signing is not to say you agree but to say you have seen the evaluation. If teachers have concerns, the principal will make time to discuss any such concerns regarding the summative evaluation. Teachers should note that the comments and marks received from the principal are a reflection of how they are viewed in the eyes of the principal - a process that leaves much room for subjectivity and personal interpretation.
The researcher therefore thought if teacher evaluation does play such an important and determining role in the personal and professional development of teachers, then more attention should be given to details, formality, accuracy, methodology and due process in order to foster individual teacher development and whole school effectiveness. He set out to examine the reactions and perceptions of teachers in four Anglican Private Schools in the Bahamas on the present teacher evaluation practices. The schools are St John's College and St Anne's School, located on the island of New Providence; Freeport Anglican High and Discovery Primary School (which is was renamed Bishop Michael Eldon School in 2005), located on the island of Grand Bahama.
Table 1. Anglican Schools Teacher-Student Population (2002-2003)
| SCHOOL | GRADE LEVELS | STUDENT POPULATION | TEACHER POPULATION |
| St John's College | K-12 | 847 | 72 |
| St Anne's School | K-12 | 791 | 60 |
| Freeport Anglican High | 7-12 | 450 | 40 |
| Discovery Primary School | K-6 | 235 | 25 |
| Total | 4 | 2323 | 197 |
The Researcher found through observation and dialogue that a number of the Grade Coordinators/Heads of Department frequently refused to do a formal evaluation. This is because they see themselves as mere peers with the evaluatee or they don't think they have the necessary knowledge to evaluate or that they don't want to be the one to play judge. A number of them are not aware of the proper procedures for performing formative and summative evaluations.
A combination of such factors as limited evaluator expertise, disagreement as to what is good teaching, and low level of trust between teacher and H.O.Ds/Grade Coordinators can lead to a culture of passivity, protection, and resistance. Teachers will tend to be dishonest about difficulties they are facing if they think that this will be reflected as deficiencies. This then is not a safe atmosphere for teacher development and effective teacher evaluation. Some teachers may not also respect the evaluator's expertise and will thus benefit little or nothing from his/her feedback.
Teacher evaluation among other things should lead to teacher effectiveness and make the classroom teacher better in his/her everyday teaching-learning environment. The primary goal is to recognize effective performance and to help teachers improve their effectiveness. Other goals include:
The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured teacher evaluation system, there is little chance of ensuring that judgments made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate. It is therefore easy to have employees being hurt and terminated, without proper due cause when there is the absence of proper and effective teacher evaluation processes and procedures. On the other hand, when the school uses an efficient tool to measure performance in a well-trained and honest environment, the process is a welcome and effective one for the school's growth.
The A.C.E.A. has established a teacher evaluation system, which is presently being used in all the Anglican private schools in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. It is centered on formative evaluation for newly hired teachers, continuous evaluation for teachers who are experiencing challenges in reaching or maintaining the school's established standards, and summative evaluation for all teachers. The summative evaluation document is a fairly good one since its usefulness and effectiveness in covering the relevant areas of evaluation has been assessed and revised twice within the last three years. However, the evaluation process and procedures used to gather data is what many teachers have perceived as inadequate, ineffective, unstructured, lacking adequate and purposeful feedback and as having no room for staff development for the teachers who are under-performing.
During the school year when there is formative evaluation and especially at the end of the school year when the official summative teacher evaluation is done, there are a number of opinions expressed by dissatisfied teachers and decisions taken that may not in the best interest of the institution, these include:
Evaluation should be ongoing and systematic where teachers meet with supervisors to discuss evaluation, be evaluated, receive documented feedback and the process repeats itself, all in a bid to ensure not only teacher accountability and development but also whole school effectiveness and student learning, which is the ultimate aim of educational institutions. Evaluation processes and procedures need to take the same format that situational leadership takes in schools, where the style used with subordinates is determined by their individual motivational level and ability. For sure the teachers are at different levels on the continuum of pedagogy and teacher development. Among these are new teachers, master teachers, retired teachers (serving in private schools), pre-trained teachers, pre-trained graduate and specialists.
Most other professions build in periods of apprenticeship. No one expects the prospective surgeon, straight from medical school, to perform the same as the resident surgeon on a complex operation. But, in the teaching profession, the job of novice teacher is identical to that of a master teacher (sometimes even harder, depending on the school and environment) and the procedures used to evaluate their work are identical. This in itself poses a problem in the evaluation process, as dynamism, experience and fairness are necessary with the different categories/levels of teachers being evaluated. This therefore gives rise to three other areas of concern within the teacher evaluation process - observation, capabilities of evaluators, and feedback.
Observation is at the heart of the instructional level of the complete teacher evaluation process. Classroom teaching is a complex enterprise and because of this the observation is highly challenged. The Evaluator will have to be careful not to fall into the trap of dealing with vague generalities, like 'nice lesson'. Observation has to be systematic and purposeful, trying to capture the essence of the lesson and the classroom climate, while not intruding on the teaching and learning process.
Evaluators are essential to the completed evaluation process and should be trained in the art of evaluation, observation, data gathering and analysis. It is therefore important for the school to provide opportunities for the administrators and supervisors that will be responsible for the evaluation process, to be given some form of training in the right way to conduct formal evaluation and classroom observation. Alan Evans and John Tomlinson in their book, Teacher Appraisal: a Nationwide Approach, stated that no one without proper training should act as an appraiser. The technical and professional demands of appraising a teacher's work will need a high level of interviewing and observational skills. Many teachers prefer to be evaluated by senior administrators, than by peers. Many of these teachers are also more expert regarding their work than the administrators who "supervise" them.
Feedback and support from evaluators and supervisors is very important. It helps the new or under-performing teacher's instructional skills. During this feedback the supervisors will work with the teacher to identify strengths and weaknesses and through modeling and other institutional development methodology, will try and change or enhance the teacher's practices.
A proper system of the evaluation process must be established and used throughout the schools. It should involve:
Teacher evaluation should result in the development of both the skills and career prospects of the individual teacher and lead to improvement in school at the mirco, macro and the meso levels of institutional bureaucracy. In short the aim of teacher evaluation should not be control but improvement of teaching and learning. A process with that much power must have a procedure that is standard and must be used in accordance with some established practices. In this way the evaluation of teachers for professional development could substantially augment the professionalism of teachers in the decade ahead. In return the centre of the system can expect to see a cargo of reforms and educational changes delivered. The evaluation of teachers should allow them to be constantly growing and establishing themselves as true nation builders that will aid in the understanding of the complexities of our society and changing world. It will maintain the strong teachers and help to establish the under-performing ones.
Teacher evaluation is one of the most controversial topics in many schools and a number of educational institutions either perform evaluation to satisfy official school record keeping practices and necessary paper work, or view the process as going through the motions. A number of teachers and school administrators have confessed to either not seeing the benefit or purpose of evaluation or just not having the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the task of evaluation. "The appraisal of teaching performance is as old as the education profession" (Rebore, 1991). Few issues in education have the potential to generate as much heat for educators as the evaluation of teachers. "An ineffective teacher evaluation system is more costly than effective one. Shoddy teacher evaluation programmers, because they neither improve teachers' instructional skills nor permit the dismissal of incompetent teachers rob children of the achievements, when well taught, they have the potential. Conventional teacher evaluation. .... often resembles a meaningless ritual. It becomes a recurring occasion to heighten anxiety and distance between the teacher and the administrator, and competition between teacher and teacher" (Sawa 1995).
It has come to the time when evaluation should be more than just merely placing a check mark beside a set of predetermined standards. Principals and teachers are becoming frustrated with conventional evaluation practices used to determine teacher effectiveness and thus, tenure and promotion (Brandt, 1996). These evaluation practices stress accountability and frequently are based upon teacher-directed models of learning such as lecture, demonstration, recitation, and modeling designed primarily to transmit knowledge and cognitive skills to students. These evaluation procedures risk becoming meaningless exercises for the majority of teachers who are already performing at or beyond the minimal level (Weiss & Weiss, 1998).
Teachers are evaluated for many reasons, the most important of which is to improve their effectiveness in promoting learning. Identifying the effective teacher is not a simple task. Evaluations of teachers assist in providing a review of what has been accomplished and what has to be done in the future. If teachers do not have the skills, attitudes and knowledge essential for the accomplishment of goals, the schools will not be successful. Teachers' evaluations are indispensable to the planning and operation of a good school.
Performance appraisal is one of the main instruments used by organizations for making administrative decisions, for example, salary administration in terms of pay rises; promotions; retentions; terminations; layoffs; incentive rewards; recognition of individual performance; and identification of poor performance. It is critical to schools and organizations that they recognize and fulfill the purpose of an effective performance management system, as this is central to gaining a competitive advantage throughout the management of human resources.
Almost eighty percent (80%) of teachers in the Bahamas are caught up in the annual cycle of teacher evaluation, an activity which for the most part consists of completing a standard form about teachers, placing a checkmark or grade beside what is sometimes an exhaustive list of possible desired outcomes and benchmark objectives. The views, responses, ideas, ritual and concepts about evaluation within the islands are varied. People respond to the process from their own experience, religious belief system, organizational affiliation, and training. Some can view evaluation as a matter of pride, others as an empty time-stealing ritual, and some as an institutionalized insult.
Teacher evaluation history and present processes in the Bahamas is not hard to trace since the Educational system is largely divided into six major stakeholders who have their own systems of teacher evaluation and have borrowed from a number of other international systems to customize their own which is presently being used. These stakeholders are:
In order to get a closer insight into the many teacher evaluation practices carried out in the Bahamas, persons, whose direct job it is to create, oversee or manage the teacher evaluation process within their educational system, were interviewed. Some of these persons include:
The following questions were asked and the responses were summarized to give the researcher a proper, accurate and current view of the tone of Teacher Evaluation in the Bahamas.
Mr H. Newbold, Superintendent in the Ministry of Education, noted that evaluation has always been a part of the educational system from 1952. The Public Service Commission with a standard form used for all public servants did this evaluation. He noted however, that since 1999, the Ministry of Education has been using a separate or new forms specifically designed to evaluate just teaching staff. He also informed the researcher that a new form is also being designed especially for school administrators.
All new teachers in the Ministry are observed during their first year, as this is the probate year and a detailed form is then submitted to the Public Service Commission for continued employment and increment. All other teachers receive the annual evaluation, which also influences their annual increment. Supervisors in school have to compile their portfolio, which is used as a part of the evaluation. This is a collection of all the work and projects that they have been involved with in regard to school improvement and professional development.
He noted feedback is very systematic and includes post-conference memo, team teaching and modelling for weak teachers. He said no teacher is "awestruck", at the end of the school year as all cases are handled with due process. He noted that there is a system in place where a teacher cannot be reprimanded without an attempt to correct. Evaluators within the school system are provided with professional training in respect to teacher evaluation. There is a Training Officer in the ministry and he/she presents topics in evaluation with a team approach for all administrators. He concluded by saying that the ministry's teacher evaluation system works and it measures what it is supposed to measure and the aim of teacher evaluation is for professional development.
Miss Maria Roach, Director of Education for the Anglican Central Educational Authority, noted that teacher evaluation within the Anglican system has always been present. There has always been teacher evaluation from the inception of each school. She noted that the evaluation process from as far back as 1995 has always been a cycle of pre-conference, observation and post-conference follow-up. Further feedback is given if there are areas of concerns and then another possible observation and conference is done.
It was the intention of the A.C.E.A. to conduct teacher evaluation from the Authority level for each teacher at least once per contract period. She noted that there have been limitations to the effectiveness of the process due to lack of personnel from the Educational board to conduct observations at that level, so they are limited to observing only new teachers, and this is done once per year. She noted that the Authority, therefore, relies on the individual schools to ensure teacher evaluation at their level and make a report to the Authority on the results.
Mrs C. Rolle of the Catholic Education Board noted that informal evaluation has been in their education system from its inception, 113 years ago. However formal evaluation was introduced 30 years ago. The system is revised and upgraded every three years in order to keep in line with the changing global picture and also with international Catholic standards. She noted that evaluation is an ever-changing process. She added that their present system has been really effective, especially in the area of professional development and instruction/curriculum planning.
The evaluation process takes a number of forms depending on the grouping of teachers. It is the practice that school administrators formally evaluate all regular teachers three times a year. New teachers are evaluated by both principals and vice principals, three times for the school year. Teachers classified as master teachers are given one formal evaluation for the year. Teachers who are considered marginal during the regular evaluation process, will be given cross evaluation and will also be evaluated by administrators from sister schools in order to get a proper picture. However, these teachers are given a lot of feedback to improve themselves. Mrs Rolle noted that the Board provides these teachers with "sources and resources to help them improve." Other teachers receive their feedback in the form of a post-conference and a personal copy of each formal evaluation.
The lack of adequate personnel to perform evaluation was noted as the main limitation to the process. However it was good to note that the Board provides training for administrators in evaluation and this is also done in collaboration with the College of the Bahamas.
Mrs Sylvia Beneby, Vice-Principal of Queens College, one of the Methodist schools in the Bahamas, which is also a member of the International Association of Methodist Schools, Colleges and University (IAMSCU), was interviewed. She said that informal evaluation has been in the system for over twenty (20) years but they have had formal evaluation with an instrument just for the last six (6) years. All persons in the school system are evaluated.
New teachers on their first contract would be given two major formal evaluations for the year, and this system has a pre- and post-conference. They are also given one unannounced classroom observation. Teachers who were found to be under-performing would be given additional observation. Teachers classified within their system as master teachers and/or outstanding teachers were not given a classroom observation but would be evaluated on the basis that they have done professional development. School administrators were involved in goal setting and self-evaluation.
Feedback is provided through conference, training, mentoring, peer teaching, model teaching, lesson planning and curriculum developmental sessions and providing extra materials. She noted that the limitation to their evaluation is time constraint. She noted that the workload of Administrators and Heads of Departments is so much that the evaluation process does not get sufficient time to be circular.
Dr Ruth Sumner, of the College of the Bahamas, noted that Teacher Evaluation has been in the college system from its inception. Years ago the college used the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) at the end of the year as is still being used by the Ministry of Education, but this was done away with a few years ago as the College lecturers' Union sought new and more effective ways of evaluation. There is no instrument at present as this is still in the developmental stage with the union.
She noted that this was also a 'bone of contention', within many faculties in the College. It was described as a tedious task as heads of department were also in charge of doing this at the college level, while carrying a full teaching load. Therefore time was a major factor and limitation within the college system for the evaluation of teachers. All personnel in the college including the President, Vice-President, Deans and Lecturers were evaluated. She informed the researcher that all new lecturers are observed and evaluated for two years (which is the initial term of contract) after that they pretty much engaged in self-evaluation.
The present evaluation process is current and fast becoming one of the most popular ones, which many schools are using. This is the Goal Setting and Self-Evaluation. At the beginning of the school year, lecturers all set their goals, in collaboration with the College's goals and then at the end of the year they conduct a self-evaluation. This process is quite intensive and they meet with their heads to discuss the extent to which goals were met and any other issues they may have had concerning their annual progress and production.
Dr Sumner noted that it is right for teachers to be accountable and there must indeed be a measurement in place to determine the extent to which teachers have been keeping up with the expected standards. "Everyone should be evaluated and many college lecturers think that they don't need to be evaluated but this has proven to be necessary since there may be lecturers who don't perform." She is a believer in "increment on merits", which is the system being presently used by the College of the Bahamas.
Contact with the Baptist Education Convention office revealed that there was no official teacher evaluation system from the Convention that governs all the Baptist schools in the Bahamas. Mrs J. Cox, Administrator at Jordan Prince Williams Baptist School, revealed that there is an instrument that is presently being used by two Baptist schools in the Bahamas. This instrument was development by the pioneer educator, Rev. Charles W. Saunders, in 1989. It was borrowed from the Ministry of Education and adjusted to suit the needs of a Christian school.
All teachers are given informal observation during the first and second term of the school year. In the third term all teachers are given a formal evaluation. She noted that evaluation is a priority in the Baptist schools and so time and personnel was allocated to perform this important administrative duty. Feedback is given to teachers in the form of post-conferences. Teachers who have questionable teaching skills were given professional development and attended the Ministry of Education Saturday teacher development workshops.
Training for evaluators has been done using a retired education officer from the ministry. Administrators have also traveled to the United States to receive training in these areas of school administration.
In all these interviews there were some common threads of standard evaluation being carried out in these schools, which formed a good ninety percent (90%) of the education system in the Bahamas. Many had systems, which were connected to the old way of evaluation, and teacher feedback, though given, was not always focused on teacher development for academic achievement and school-wide effectiveness.
Evaluation plays a particularly critical role in any occupation that claims to be a profession. In a profession there ought to be a process in place to determine the extent to which members are adhering to set, observable standards and organizational goals. There is a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is working with, as well as about oneself. In many schools teacher evaluation has become a bureaucratic requirement that is done at the end of the school year, filed away in a teacher's permanent record and becomes history.
Teachers anticipate a brief annual visit from the principal, who, according to the stereotype, stands stone, faced at the back of the classroom filling in a form. And principals rush to squeeze in their visits to teachers amid their myriad other duties. Hurried conferences are held and forms are filled and signed. The exercise does little for teachers except contribute to their weariness and reinforce their skepticism of bureaucratic routine (Evans and Tomlinson, 1989).
Regardless of many persons' negative view of teacher evaluation, it is an essential process and must be carried out. After employee selection, performance appraisal is arguably the most important management tool in a school. It can help to fine tune and reward the performance of teachers. It will set measure and evaluate organizational goals, ensure student achievement and aid the teacher in his or her professional development. It is a vehicle to validate and refine school decisions such as selection and training. It will assist in long term planning for the school, worker development and establishing discipline or discharge procedures. People within any organization need to know where they are going and how fast they are getting there. "People need positive feedback and validation on a regular basis. Once an employee has been selected, few management actions can have as positive an effect on worker performance as encouraging affirmation" (Encino, 2000).
Teacher evaluation will serve also as the main tool/measure to identify the competent teacher. Many people with little or no experience with the process and its uses consider it to be a "weeding out" tool, or the systematic way to identify the incompetent teacher. "But the distinction is quite clear; appraisal assumes that the teacher is competent. The aim of the appraisal process is to recognize and report that competence and to identify and provide support to help and further develop teachers' skills" (Evans and Tomlinson, 1989).
In all the new researches and focuses on teacher evaluation, teacher development/staff development/professional development of the teacher is being sold as the main focus of the teacher evaluation practice. This, in fact, should have been quite obvious years ago, as the better a teacher becomes, this development will in turn influence the teaching and learning process, student achievement and whole school effectiveness.
There are two major umbrella classifications of teacher evaluation types. Summative and Formative evaluation serve different purposes but are indirectly tied to each other. In the true sense, formative and summative evaluation cannot be separated, because they each contain aspects of the other. Periodic or formative evaluation should ultimately become part of the summative phase. At this level it is very important for formative evaluation at this phase to be not only for the collection of data, but also for teacher reflection and development.
The formative phase continues and is primarily concerned with teaching observation and the collection of data. It is during this formative assessment phase that supervisors supply information and feedback, which can be written or oral. They also assist in integrating these new aspects into teachers' routines of planning, respond to questions, provide guidance as teachers assimilate these new ideas into their repertoire, and focus on changes that will enhance the teachers' instructional effectiveness.
At the end of the school year, the summative phase is then conducted and this provides the opportunity to examine all the data previously collected during the formative observations and feedback sessions held. The data are then interpreted and a judgment is made about the teachers' overall performance. Many times teachers are given a final grade, point or place on a predetermined scale.
Organizations currently use several methods of teacher evaluation. For the sake of simplicity, we can group them into three categories: the judgmental approach, the absolute standards approach, and the results-oriented approach. In the judgmental approach, a school administrator is asked to compare the employee with other employees and rate them on a number of traits or behavioral dimensions. The four widely used judgmental approaches are graphic rating scales, ranking, parried comparison, and forced distribution (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 1999).
Absolute standards are based on job analysis. This type of analysis provides a detailed description of what the actual necessary behavior is for effective performance. Each employee is compared to a set standard instead of each other. They are rated to what degree their performance meets the standard set. The most common types in this group are checklists, essays, critical incidents, and behaviorally anchored rating scales.
In later times the result-oriented approach has been used as the alternative to the judgmental and absolute standards approaches. As the name implies the emphasis is on results, both quantitative and qualitative. In a nut-shell the emphasis is on what the worker is supposed to accomplish on the job rather than a consideration of the worker's traits and on the job behaviours.
Other places around the globe are employing teacher evaluation practices that will foster school effectiveness and ensure teacher development and excellence.
Today as the wheels of technology still turn and the creative minds of the organizations are still creating there are many more approaches that are being used in many organizations and institutions. Through reading, the researcher realized that the evaluation methods and practices that give rise to formative measures are the ones most liked and have been yielding much fruit. These are the kinds of practices that foster teacher development and effectiveness. A number of these are:
One writer reminds us that we cannot know how well we are doing if there is not a means of measurement or feedback. Accountability has been one of the biggest issues being raised in many school situations, especially in those that are attempting to raise educational standards or increase school-wide effectiveness. The teacher is still the single most important factor in the teaching and learning situation. Therefore an assessment of his progress, methodologies and general contribution to the school is most vital in our educational context.
The general purpose of teacher evaluation is to safeguard and improve the quality of instruction received by students, therefore it is vital that a process is provided that allows and encourages supervisors and teachers to work together to improve and enhance classroom instructional practices.
"Although formative and summative evaluations are the most common reasons for conducting performances evaluations, other purposes are served as well" (Seyfarth, 2002, 143). Performance reviews help supervisors feel more honest in their relationships with their subordinates and feel better about themselves in their supervisor roles. Teachers should have a clear understanding of what is expected from them. They can identify their own personal strengths and areas for development and also have a solid sense of what their relationship is with their supervisor. Avoiding teacher evaluation issues will ultimately decrease morale, decreases credibility of management, decreases the organization's overall effectiveness and decreases more of management's time. The many other uses of performance appraisal include:
Personal decisions such as retention, transfer, tenure, promotion, demotion and dismissal can be enhanced through an effective evaluation process (Kremer, 1988).
The schools pretty much use the same process or procedures to perform their evaluation. There is no official document of the process to be used so there is somewhat of an understanding among the schools as to what has "worked". At present in one school - St John's College, Head of Department and Grade Coordinators are required to do two minor formative evaluations at the end of the first and last term. Why is the second term not evaluated? They are here encouraged to use a standard simple form, though this is not a must. This form is used to identify the teachers' effectiveness as it relates to the actual teaching and learning process, strategies and methodologies, classroom climate, and the use of instructional technology and materials. It should be noted at this point that this is done with or without a formal classroom observation. The result of this evaluation is then shown to the teacher for his/her signature and submitted to the office to be filed. This will also be used along with other administrators' own evaluation, to complete the annual summative evaluation in June at the end of the school year.
The June summative evaluation simply reports the Head of Department's and Grade Coordinator's perception of the teacher's instructional performance. Feedback is limited and many times the supervisor either don't have the time and resources to enhance the teacher's development or aid in remedial/corrective feedback process to help those who are falling below the expected level. Some don't have the ability to mentor or coach such a teacher or in other cases they don't see it as their responsibility or job description to further 'train' a qualified teacher who has been through the rigors of the A.C.E.A.'s recruitment and induction process. The evaluation system is characterized by top-down communication, in which the only evidence of teacher performance is that collected by an administrator during classroom observation or other means of formal or informal communication. The teacher's role is essentially passive, and depending on the relationship between the school, and his/her evaluator, the climate can be negative, with a perception on the part of the teacher that the real purpose of the exercise is one of "gotcha".
The summative evaluation done at the end of the year depends on a scale rating which includes "outstanding", "above standard", "standard", and needs improvement. Though offering a promise of greater objectivity and specificity than a simple checklist of whether certain behaviors were observed or not, it does fall short of its potential, as there is little agreement as to what constitutes an "outstanding" or "standard". What if one person's "outstanding" is another person's "standard"? In other words, we don't have "the equivalent of the anchor papers or benchmarks used in evaluating student work against rubrics" (Danielson and McCreal, 2000).
It seems at one point that the evaluation is simply a case of formality to satisfy the Anglican's system paper-work expectation and required paper-work. The process takes on a real importance in June, since it becomes a part of the teacher's file and is used in such instance as writing references, recommendations, and the result is used to make three main decisions - retention, promotion or termination.
Some of the concerns and complaints that have been expressed by the teachers in the Anglican system include:
Ineffective teacher evaluation systems and practices in short will minimize dialogue, reinforce institutional hierarchies, and risk poisoning otherwise productive working relationships among school professionals. "The conception of learning and hence good teaching has gradually shifted from a behaviorist to a more constructive view. Several factors prevent the full use of a rating scale to evaluate teaching. First in the culture of many schools, most teachers expect to get an outstanding. Limited administrator expertise, little shared understanding of what constitutes good teaching, low levels of trust between teachers and administrators lead to a culture of passivity and protection. By law or regulation, all schools have some formal procedure for evaluating teachers. The traditional approach, however, is no longer adequate" (Danielson and McGreal, 2000).
When administrators fail to conduct a fair, constructive and effective appraisal, it can be more harmful than good. We can then see why there seems to be talk in many circles of termination when the discussion of teacher evaluation comes up. This is due to the lack of effective standards. To make evaluation work, teachers must be given regular feedback about their performance and receive suggestions about how to overcome the weaknesses and improve on the strengths. Administrators must work together with teachers to set performance goals, training needs and career opportunities. That is why it is so important in the induction process of any organization that employees are made to know the organization's goals and know exactly what is expected of them in any particular job area or task.
The best teacher evaluation systems let administrators and teachers communicate - share ideas, opinions, and information. Unfortunately most traditional reviews/appraisals put administrators into the position of uncomfortable judges, ostensibly telling teachers how their work either fits the bill - or didn't. This is one of the many reasons why teachers see the performance appraisal system as so threatening. It is not an instrument designed and constructed to make the process of termination official. Possibly because of this, most traditional appraisals are no better than the administrator's off-the-cuff judgments and some can be illegal. "Having teachers without sufficient time, training, or expertise running around with the same old checklist, squeezing in observations of other teachers will not enhance the quality of teacher supervision or improve opportunities for professional development" (Evans and Tomlinson, 1989).
Because of these problems, new types of appraisal are coming into play. Most require that evaluation be done not for raise and bonus, as just a thing we must do at the end of the year or for the infamous staff termination determination form, but for growth, development and communication between the employee and other people. Organizations and institutions benefit from better communication and management. A good teacher evaluation system would help to improve communication, while aiding people to increase their own effectiveness and to clarify their own jobs and responsibilities. Also an innovative system could not only improve the performance of the workers but also help them to work together, with common goals and few obstacles. It is also important to remember to include the employees in the process.
Performance appraisal can be a good way for organizations to boost employees' motivation and hone their competitive edge. But creating useful performance appraisals and making sure they are used effectively throughout an organization is not easy. It is common knowledge that most managers and employees find participating in formal performance appraisals as appealing as having a root canal. It is however also true, for better or worse - formal appraisals are an inescapable part of organizational life (Longneneck and Fink).
There are some points to bear in mind when thinking about teacher evaluations:
"The next generation of evaluation systems will further integrate teacher accountability with professional growth. Eisner (1992) conceives of evaluation as inherently part of teachers' everyday work life. Evaluation needs to be participatory and reflective in order to be meaningful for teachers. Reform of teacher evaluation systems is already supporting the success of broader school reform efforts, which include the requirements of teachers' evolving roles-the goal of these changes being meaningful learning experiences for our children" (Weiss and Weiss, 1998).
The actual collection and analysis of data was carried out during the period January - April of 2004. Therefore some of the data has changed and a number of personnel listed in the literature have changed institutions and positions. The results, finding and recommendations however are still applicable to our everyday teacher evaluation process as the majority of our institutions have yet a long way to go in this area of teacher evaluation.
The study was confined to only four private schools, located on two islands of the Bahamas' over seventeen populated islands. It therefore involved only a small percentage of the total teaching population of the country. The study also focused on the perceptions of the teachers. The perceptions of the Head Administrators and the Directors who are directly in charge of Teacher Evaluation should have been involved.
It is hoped that the findings of this project will assist in enhancing and redirecting the evaluation process used presently in the A.C.E.A. schools. Effective, systematic and organized evaluation processes and procedure will lead to a positive evaluation product where high performing teachers are maintained and encouraged, new teachers are mentored and coached to produce at a high level and express best work practices effectively, and under-performing teachers are supervised to come up to the level of expectation established by the A.C.E.A. It is hoped that any new teacher evaluation process will:
The following research questions were used to guide the research:
The process of evaluation introduces a number of ways to determine teacher development, professional growth, student's achievement and school-wide progress. Evaluators and teachers have choices about how the classroom instruction and their total performance is viewed and analysed. Time invested in teacher evaluation improvement is time well spent as teachers engage in developmental strategies and make better choices about their teaching and learning situation.
The research set out to examine the perceptions of the teachers on the evaluation process. This was the focus as at the end of the school year when it was time to sign the annual summative contract, many teachers were not only surprised on many comments and grade received but would openly refute what was documented. In a number of instances, there was nothing standard and it seemed that the teachers' grading was left to the total discretion of the supervisor/evaluator. In many instances there were no pre-conference, classroom observation was either not done or done in a very informal manner with the information gathering process and the reporting process being left also to the style or manner chosen by the particular evaluator. This called for standardisation, formalisation and uniformity of many aspects of the total evaluation process. It was established early that there was nothing wrong with the instrument used by the Anglican Central Education Authority, but the process and procedures used were in question.
The literature review covered a number of areas of teacher evaluation. It examined the present process being used in the Anglican schools and compared it to many other styles presently being used in the Bahamas and all over the world. It further explained and differentiated between the many types of evaluation, their specific usage and timing in terms of the school calendar year.
It also sought to get a feel of the total evaluation process used in the Bahamas. Therefore, the researcher interviewed a number of the major stakeholders in education to get a basic feel of the style, system and present process used in their system. It gave the researcher a better view (though in number and percentage, still a bird's eye view) of what was presently being done in other schools in the Bahamas and also in particular the government system.
The methodology of the study was that of a descriptive survey. The sampling of teachers was done randomly from each of the four schools and questionnaires distributed to them to get their opinions on/about many areas of the teacher evaluation process. The items covered demographic information. The use of the Likert Scale was employed to collect and streamline their answers to many areas of evaluation and a number of other questions focused on getting their suggestions for further development of the evaluation process.
Evaluation, in its early stage, will guide the teacher in the path that the school will take, give advice on what is to be done and what is considered the acceptable standard. It ensures that teachers are supervised and feedback given to promote innovation on the part of the teacher. Necessary changes would be made and feedback given in an effort to lead to better teaching practices. At the end of the school year, the final stage of evaluation is done, summative. This is where the teacher is observed and given a "grade" for what he/she has done for the school year. This is the popular stage, since it is mainly from this process that major decisions on tenure, promotion, advancement, professional development, financial benefits and termination are made.
Evaluation should lead to better teaching. In our Caribbean situation and in particular the Bahamas, we see where many schools have fallen into the popular old trap, where evaluation has become a paper work and bureaucratic process within the organisation and teachers have not been given the chance to contribute to it for its greater good - professional advancement, students achievement and school-wide effectiveness.
Evaluation takes many shapes and forms and it differs from one school to the next. This is based on the school's administration, the maturity and professional level of the staff and the experiential background of the established teacher evaluation system. However, for this process to be effective it must have some basic ingredients. These would include pre-observation conferences, systematic or formal observation, feedback and post-observation conferences, all administered and conducted by trained evaluators who are not only knowledgeable about evaluation but equipped with necessary skills to make the teacher evaluation process one of substance.
The following are the major findings of the study:
Evaluation should be a cycle and indeed a clinical, supervisory ongoing process. It should not be another paper work completed as a part of a school administrators' job description, but seen as the vehicle to take the school, its teachers and, its students to higher levels of performance. Since one main administration and policymaking body governs all the Anglican schools, the task of standardising the process and procedures for evaluation should not be that hard to implement. It would also be smooth sailing in getting all supervisors into a conclave to train them for effective and meaningful evaluation practices.
Holding pre- and post-conferences is a very integral and crucial step in the development of proper teacher evaluation system. Teacher evaluation is about dialogue, people need to know at the first instance, what is expected of them. Many people work in institutions for many years and don't really know what their expectations are. Teacher evaluation should be a conversation rather than a downward dialogue. Many times the supervisors and evaluators have the pedagogical experiences and should share this with the persons whom they are evaluating.
Classroom observation is another area of great emphasis. Teacher observation needs to be systematic. The very way the evaluator enters the classroom should not be to distract the students and disrupt the initial flow of the class on entering. A checklist of desired outcomes that the evaluator would like to be expressed in the lesson and general classroom behaviours and expectation should also accompany classroom observation. It is also good to remind ourselves that students are aware when their teachers are being evaluated and will indeed behave in a "superficial" way to accommodate the evaluation process and "make their teacher proud." Teachers also can get into the whole "acting" role when the evaluation times come along. It should be noted that one can know when it is the evaluation season - extra charts being made, models being made (not a common apparatus used in many school), students getting extra projects to do. These behaviours indeed impact upon the process and therefore it is often advisable to also conduct an impromptu or unannounced classroom visit.
Feedback is considered by many proponents of teacher evaluation as the most significant element in the teacher evaluation process. This is where under-performing teachers are helped, weak and indignant teachers are terminated, transferred or given other forms of reference, and exceptional teachers are motivated to continue and move to even greater challenges.
The following is a list of the recommendations that the researcher would like to see in place in order to better enable the present evaluation process used by the A.C.E.A.:
Teacher evaluation can be very unimportant if we make it so. We can either make it a bureaucratic requirement that has little or no help for the teachers, that is, collection of information that cannot and is not used in school-wide decision-making and planning, or we can use it as a tool to build better teachers and in turn build better schools. The findings reported in this study seem to suggest that within the Anglican Central Educational Authority, there is still the traditional approach to evaluation used in the schools, based on the use of a rating form and brief classroom observations. This approach has been critized as it lacks the main elements of modern supervision, such as feedback, conferences and reporting and recording practices. It also relates too much to classroom procedures and school policies and gives little attention to student learning outcomes and achievement.
Many teachers have been uncomfortable with their evaluation process because the purposes of evaluation have not been clear and they have had little part in developing instruments or making an adequate input to the process. Administrators and supervisors have to secure the acceptance of the teachers and use a method of evaluation that will prove to be mutually helpful to both parties.
The primary purpose of evaluation is the improvement of teaching and learning. It is not to seek out the incompetent teacher. We enter the evaluation process thinking teachers are competent; it is therefore to recognise and record that competence and to provide support to help improve the teacher's skills. What you ask therefore is the major or single most important aim of this whole process: to make the teacher a better teacher, and improve students' learning.
Academic Search Premier. (1999) Support Staff Bring Expertise to Education. NEA Today, 17(8).
AllBusiness.com. Making Performance Appraisals Work. http://www.allbusiness.com/articles/content/15073.asp.
Archer North. Performance Appraisal. http://www.performance-appraisal.com/intro.htm.
Brandt, R. (1996). On a new direction for teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 30-33.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 328-376). New York: Macmillan.
Career in Teaching Joint Governing Panel. (1996). Career In Teaching. Part and Summative Appraisal Guidebook. Rochester: Rochester City School District.
Castette, W. B. & Young, I.P. (2000). The Human Resource Function in Educational Administration. 7th ed. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Cromwell, Sharon. (2003). Making Teacher Evaluation Work. Education World. http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin224.shtml.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching & America's Future.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T., (2000). Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Evans, Alan and Tomlinson, John (1989). Teacher Appraisal - A Nationwide Approach. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Eisner, E. W. (1992). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College Record, 93(4), 610-627.
Fink, L.S. and Longenecker, C.O. (1999). Industrial Management: Creating Effective Performance Appraisals. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
Gordon, Stephen P., Maxey, Susan (2000). How to help Beginning Teachers succeed. 2nd Ed. Associate of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Harrington, James. H. (1998). Performance Improvement: was W. Edwards Deming Wrong? TQM Magazine, 10(4) 230-237.
Huges, Larry, W., Ubben, Gerald, C., & Norris, Cynthia, J. (2001). The Principal - Creative leadership for Effective Schools. 4th ed. Pearson Educational Company.
Longenecker, C.O. (1997). Why Performance Appraisals Are Ineffective: Causes and Lessons. Career Development International.
Lunenburg, Fred C. and Ornstein, Allan C. (1999). Educational Administration: concepts and practices. CA. Wadsworth.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining teacher Evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation (pp. 403-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McNamara, Carter (1999). Basics of Conducting Performance Appraisals. Management Assistance Program for Nonprofits.
Rebore, R. (1991). Personnel administration in education: a management approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sawa, Rick (1995). Teacher Evaluation Policies and Practices. Thesis: http://www.ssta.sk.ca/research/instruction/95-04.htm.
Sclan, E.M. (1994). Performance Evaluation for Experienced Teachers: An Overview of State Policies. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Seyfarth, John. T. (2002). Human Resources Management for Effective Schools. 3rd edition. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.
The Evaluation Center. Teacher Evaluation Kit Glossary. Western Michigan University. http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/ess/glossary/glossary.htm.
Weiss, E. M., Weiss, S. G., (1998). New Directions in Teacher Evaluation. ERIC Digest.
© Andrew Bruce Campbell, 2006.
HTML last revised 26th July, 2006.
Return to Conference papers.