Teacher Evaluation Policies and Practices

A summary of a thesis by Rick Sawa (1995) SSTA Research Centre Report #95-04: 68 pages, $14.
Introduction PART I: Toward An Effective Teacher Evaluation Policy - A Review of the Literature What is Teacher Evaluation? Why Should Teacher Evaluation be Conducted? How to Deal with Incompetent Teachers How Could Teacher Evaluation be Performed? The Development and Revision of a Teacher Evaluation Policy PART II: Where Are We Now? - An Analysis of 47 Saskatchewan Rural School Divisions PART III: Looking Ahead Implications for Administrative and Board Action The Common Problems

Teacher evaluation systems are deemed by most school administrators and teachers to be extremely stressful, of little or no value, and a barrier to high staff morale. This report provides a review of the literature with a list of criteria and recommendations for an effective teacher evaluation process.

The Goal and Focus Problem The Problem of Differential Evaluation Ideologies The Expertize Problem The Problem of Hierarchy and Control

Critical Attributes of Effective Teacher Evaluation Programs Criteria for Effective Teacher

Evaluation Policy Recommendations for Further Research Recommendations for Practice Concluding Remarks
The SSTA Research Centre grants permission to reproduce up to three copies of each report for personal use. Each copy must acknowledge the author and the SSTA Research Centre as the source. A complete and authorized copy of each report is available from the SSTA Research Centre. The opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author and may not be in agreement with SSTA officers or trustees, but are offered as being worthy of consideration by those responsible for making decisions.

INTRODUCTION
Ineffective teacher evaluation systems are more costly than effective ones. Shoddy teacher evaluation programs, 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 to obtain (Stanley & Popham, 1988). Conventional teacher evaluation, warns Barth (1990), often resembles a meaningless ritual. "Or even worse, it becomes a recurring occasion to heighten anxiety and distance between teacher and administrator, and competition between teacher and teacher" (p. 56). In short, it minimizes dialogue, reinforces institutional hierarchies, and risks poisoning otherwise productive working relationships among school professionals. The appraisal of teaching performance is as old as the education profession (Rehore, 1991). Few issues in education have the potential to generate as much heat for educators as the evaluation of teachers (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989). These points bring into clear perspective the need for effective teacher evaluation policy, and the need for boards and administrators to examine policies with a

view to improving learning opportunities in their various classrooms. This document provides a summary of the research literature associated with teacher evaluation. It also reports a study (Saw, 1994) in which teacher evaluation policies of 47 rural Saskatchewan school divisions were analyzed on the basis of 17 criteria for effective teacher evaluation policy generated from a variety of literature sources. The effectiveness of these policies is discussed and implications for administrative and board action are presented. This document concludes with a teacher evaluation policy assessment categorization instrument (Appendix B) that a Board of Education could utilize to assess the effectiveness of its policy on evaluating teachers or to refer to if the Board was interested in developing one. Also, included in the appendices, are other practical applications for teacher evaluation.

TOWARD AN EFFECTIVE TEACHER EVALUATION POLICY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

What is Teacher Evaluation?

Teacher evaluation is a complex process. It is 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 standards should be developed by their peers and their evaluation should focus on the degree to which they solve professional problems competently (Soar, Medley, dk Coker, 1983). The emphasis of their evaluation should be on their teaching and not on them as individuals (Findley & Estabrook, 1991) and take into consideration the involvement and responsiveness of others involved in the education process (Weade & Evertson, 1991).

The evaluation process usually involves preparation, observation, data collection, reporting, and follow-up. Data collection normally entails a formal observation which is preceded by a pre-conference and followed by a postconference. The utilization of formal observations does not mean informal observations are ignored. Many unannounced visits usually prove to be more effective than a few announced visits. However. there are limitations to classroom observations as an assessment method. DarlinB-Hammond, in Mitchell, Wise, & Plake (1990), warns: They reveal little about the coherence of the curriculum, the depth and breadth of content covered, the range of teaching techniques used, the quality and variety of materials employed, the types and frequency of students ' assi gnments, the quality of instruments used for student assessment, the kinds of feedback students receive an their work, or the appropriateness of any of these things for individual students and for the classroom context as a whole. (p. 158) Teacher evaluation should be a small but significant part of the larger strategy for school improvement (Mitchell et al., 1990) which would see staff development take place prior to evaluations (Wood & Lease, 1987). Teacher evaluations should be dialogical rather than hierarchical (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989). The division of labour between those who determine what is to be taught and when and how it is to be taught and those who teach must be addressed, because teacher-proofing curriculum and instructional strategies is in direct opposition to treating teachers as professionals. 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, any effort to define standards for teaching and to operationalize them in an evaluation must reach beyond the judgment of academic experts. Therefore, we need a form of evaluation that will reflect a more enlightened view of teaching, that will inspire teacher educators to aim higher in creating their curricula and designing their pro grams, and that will, in the very process of being implemented through supervised residencies in the schools, introduce new forms of mentoring, collaboration, and collegiality. (Shulman, 1987, p.44)

Why Should Teacher Evaluation Be Conducted?

The general purpose of teacher evaluation is to safeguard and improve the quality of instruction received by students (Kremer, 1988) so boards must provide a process that allows and encourages supervisors and teachers to work together to improve and enhance classroom instructional practices. According to the literature there are six main purposes of teacher evaluation. l. It should strive to improve instruction by fostering self-development (Rebore, 1991) and peer assistance. 2. Staff development activities can be rated and identified (Stanley

dk Popham, 1988). 3. The selection process can be validated (McGreal, 1983). 4. A well-designed, properly functioning teacher evaluation process provides a major communication link between the school system and teachers (Walsh, 1987). 5. Personnel decisions such as retention, transfer, tenure, promotion, demotion, and dismissal can be enhanced through an effective evaluation process (Kremer, 1988). 6. Teacher evaluation is capable of protecting students from incompetent teachers by bringing structured assistance to marginal teachers (Stanley 2 Popham, 1988). Since there are no clear-cut standards for judging incompetence, multiple indicators must be utilized to identify marginal teachers (Bridges, 1986). When found, marginal teachers should be required to enter an intensive assistance program as found in Appendix A.)

How To Deal With Incompetent Teachers

Although incompetent teachers may constitute only 2-3% (Fullan dk

Hargreaves, 1991) of the teaching force, they tarnish the reputation of the entire profession, shortchange many students, and engender parental dissatisfaction with the public schools (Bridges, 1986). However, the diKculties which incompetent teachers experience in the classroom often stem from multiple causes: 1. the personal shortcomings of the teacher, 2. non-job related influences, and 3. the limitations or failings of supervisors (Bridges, 1986, p.16). Administrators are obligated to confront poor teacher performance (Dennis, 1990). Poor performance is marked by excess 1. excessive lack of preparation; 2. excessive deficiencies of teaching skills; 3. excessive problems of student control; 4. excessive manifestations of poor judgment; and 5. excessive absence from school (p.15). Bridges (1986) further states that there are four different means to identify incompetent teachers: Incompetent teachers tarnish the reputation of the entire profession, short-change many students, and engender parental dissatisfaction with the public schools. 1. supervisory observations, 2. complaints from parents or students, (Bridges, 1986)

3. complaints from other teachers, and 4. student test results. Given the limitations of each indicator, the reliance on multiple measures appears to represent a sound practice. Cangelosi (1991) describes a marginal teacher as an experienced teacher whose instruction is deemed by a supervisor to constitute malpractice and, consequently, whose dismissal from his or her position should be considered. Dennis (1990) further claims that confrontation is a process rather than a single event. It requires thought, preparation, and planning and should not be rushed. The following twelve steps are recommended (Dennis, 1990): 1. Gather information 2. Talk to others 3. Organize your information 4. Wait for a specific incident 5. Schedule a meeting with the teacher 6. Meet with the teacher 7. Write the meeting up - letter to teacher summarizing the meeting 8. Monitor the situation 9. Develop a file 10. Help the teacher to improve 11. Demonstrate your on-going concern 12. Work with your teacher union If a teacher does not meet minimal accountability standards, he or she should enter an intensive assistance program (Dagley & Orso, 1991). An

agreement between the teacher and supervisor, in which the teacher agrees to improve and the supervisor agrees to provide resources to help the teacher improve, should be the first step of the intensive assistance program. Conley (1987) states that the dismissal mode is reached only after effort has first been made to remediate the individual's performance because unemployment detrimentally affects the welfare of an employee and his/her dependents (Rebore, 1991). Cangelosi (1991) best sums up the serious consequences of the practice of retaining incompetent teachers: Teaching malpractice continues to victimize students by wasting their opportunities to learn, society by failing to provide a service for which it paid, teachers by perpetuating their failures, and the teaching profession by diluting quality, contaminating its ranks, and tarnishing its image, thus causing it to lose its political power. (p.188)

How Could Teacher Evaluation be Performed?

Various models of teacher evaluation have been offered. McGreal (1983) categorizes them into four main models: Common Law, Goal Setting, Product, and Artistic or Naturalistic. Gitlin dk Smyth (1989) neatly package them into two main categories: educative and dominant, with Walsh (1987) calling them participative and controlling. Gitlin and Smyth (1989) would classify McGreal's Common Law, Goal Setting, and Product models as dominant and Walsh (1987) would classify them as controlling because they are individually focused,

judgmental, and hierarchical. Processes of evaluation like those promoted by people like Madeline Hunter, that make lavish claims to being scientific and research-based, are really nothing more than ways of "bolstering corporate, institutional, and bureaucratic interests" (Smyth, 1991, p. 70). "I tried to follow the letter and spirit of 'The Hunter Model' as we trudged through each part of our teacher evaluation system, hut it just wasn't working" (Rooney, 1993, p. 43). By concentrating exclusively on the technical aspects of good teaching, they divert attention away from "an analysis of the economic, social, and political hierarchies that maintain and perpetuate inequality and injustice" (Smyth, 1991, p. 70). Critlin & Smyth (1989) and Walsh (1987) would also catalogue McGreal's Artistic or Naturalistic model as a transitional stage Bergen the dominant, controlling models and their educative, participative model which they claim is collectively focused, developmental, and cooperative. Unless methods of teacher evaluation explicitly challenge the authoritarian, commodified view of teaching, teachers will continue to be "blamed for problems that more accurately reflect the priorities and failings of oar economic system" (Gitlin dk Smyth, 1989, p. 25). Moving involvement in teacher evaluation beyond individual teachers means that the evaluation of teachers can be shifted from one of blaming the teacher for educational problems to a circumstance in which the wider community begins to accept its legitimate responsibility and role in setting, debating, and monitoring the agenda, norms, and goals of schools. The educative and participative model, if used wisely, could reduce the need for dominant, accountability forms of teacher evaluation (Gitlin &

Smyth, 1989; Walsh, 1987). However, the educative, participative model cannot be mandated from above. It is no longer acceptable to judge teaching ability according to a set of predetermined criteria. Twenty-first century conceptions of school reform and the professionalization of teaching cannot co-exist with early twentieth-century models of evaluation, especially when these afford unacceptably simplistic notions of teaching (Shulman, 1988). The true test of approaches to evaluation will be whether or not they contribute to the needed reforms of teaching and teacher education. If evaluation does not become part of the solution, then it surely will become part of the problem (Shulman, 1987).

The Development or Revision of a Teacher Evaluation Policy

In an examination of the literature relating to teacher evaluation, Saw (1994) identified 17 criteria, illustrated in Figure 1, against which existing policies could be assessed. A convenient policy assessment categorization instrument, devised for this purpose, can be found in Appendix B. As mentioned previously it is advisable to include all stockholders in the process of developing or reviewing a policy.

Where Are We Now?: An Analysis of 47 Rural Saskatchewan School Divisions

The Saw (1994) study subjected the teacher evaluation policies of 47 rural Saskatchewan school divisions to assessment via the criteria in Figure 1, in order to determine the degree to which aspects of effective teacher evaluation policy were reflected in specific system contexts. The ratings, simply based upon

a reading as to whether or not the policy met each criteria, are summarized in Table 1. From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that 98 per cent of the responding divisions provided clear identification of who was responsible for teacher evaluation; 85 per cent distinguished between tenured and non-tenured teachers; 83 per cent stated the purpose(s) of teacher evaluation; while 79 per cent of the policies provided a statement of teacher standards and 70 per cent articulated the philosophy of the board regarding teacher evaluation. However, several characteristics were not addressed by significant numbers of policies. For example, only 9 per cent of the policies had provision for evaluator training; 11 per cent provided training for evaluates; 11 per cent specifically earmarked financial support for teacher evaluations; and 17 per cent addressed a grievance process for evaluates. In addition, the alignment of the evaluation process with staff development was clearly enunciated in only 34 percent of the policies. When it came to such provisions as assistance for marginal teachers (404/%), emphasis on self-development (57%), and allowance for written responses for evaluates (60%), policies were fairly evenly split. The extent to which the policies met the established criteria for effective teacher evaluation policy is reflected in Table 2. As illustrated in this table, only 30 per cent of the policies met 11 or more of the 17 criteria. Further, 25 percent of the policies failed to meet more than seven criteria. No policies scored perfectly, but one policy met 16 of the 17 established criteria. Another revealing categorization is shown in Table 3 according to the broad areas of teacher evaluation into which the seventeen criteria ware grouped,

namely, technical effectiveness, teacher improvement, account-ability, and teacher rights. Twenty (43 % ) policies had six of 10 criteria for technical effectiveness, 30 (64/o) policies had six or more of the criteria, and one policy was considered to have met all of the desired criteria. Of the teacher improvement area, 27 (57%) policies addressed less than two of the three criteria. Only five (11%) policies made reference to all three criteria necessity to foster teacher improvement, compared to 29 (62%) policies which clearly possessed both criteria for accountability. When it came to teacher rights provisions in policies, 17 (36/o) policies made no mention of it, 24 (5 1 % ) stated one of the criteria, and six (13%) supported both criteria. The success rate for meeting criteria was, for accountability 72.3 per cent, for technical effectiveness 53.6 per cent, for teacher improvement 45.6 per cent, and for teacher rights 38.2 per cent. Policy emphasis on self-development was compared with the emphasis placed on accountability. These results are illustrated in Table 4. Only 22 (47%) policies clearly dealt with both self-development and accountability and 10 (21%) of them made no reference to either. Of the 15 policies that dealt with only one aspect, six policies made reference to self-development without mentioning accountability. Further investigation revealed a relationship between provision for assistance for marginal teachers and provision for placement in growth or remediation tracks. Of the 30 policies that distinguished between growth and remediation tracks, 19 (63%) did so only after a teacher was found to be experiencing serious problems, or considered to be marginal or

incompetent. The other 11 (37%) stated that evaluators pointed out problems for evaluates, made recommendations for improvement, and provided them with a certain length of time to improve, but, according to policy, did not offer assistance. Other elements of teacher evaluation policies such as dates for adoption and revision(s) of policy; who, according to policy, was involved in determining policy; and whether or not policies were gender friendly were also looked at. Table 5 shows the degree to which these elements were addressed in policy. Three (6%) policies stated that a collaborative effort was responsible for the existing policy. Thirty-eight (38) policies were gender friendly. Thirty-six of the 47 policies submitted indicated the year in which the policy was adopted and/or revised. Through interviews conducted with evaluators and evaluates as part of the Saw (1994) study, it was discovered that congruency in terms of intent, implementation, and experience was elusive when it came to the policy and practices of one rural school division. Although the existing policy was considered by the administrators and teachers to be a worthy beginning, it was concluded by all that it could he improved in several respects. For example, it was agreed that more resources, such as time, were necessary if evaluations were to effectively aid teachers to improve and to be held accountable. Teachers showed a strong preference for becoming more involved with policy revision, and with assisting one another. Encouraging and supporting self-development was another area considered to be in need of improvement, as well as distinguishing the difference between those on formative and summative evaluation tracks.

Looking Ahead: Implications for Administrative and Board Action

The Common Problems Educators at all levels and members of the public would probably agree that teacher evaluation is fraught with numerous, serious problems which pose an ever present threat to the well-being of professional relationships and, in turn, to the effectiveness of the educational system as a whole. It is noteworthy that the same problems have recurred in research findings and in literature related to teacher evaluation for many years. They seem to cluster around four "problem types".

1. The Goal and Focus Problem

There is a temptation to attempt to reduce evaluation to a numerical basis for ease of making some quantitative assessment (Findley & Estabrook, 1991) in spite of the fact that these results reveal little about the qualitative aspects of what teachers actually say during instruction (Herrmann, 1987). Most accountability-oriented evaluation systems are not accounting for the right things. Consequently, they are less effective than planners hoped in bringing meaningful oversight to the schools (McLaughlin dfc Pfeifer, 1988). Some of the most widely adopted forms of teacher evaluation in current use rely on behavioural indicators to assess teaching, without reference to the appropriateness or effects of the teaching behaviours being measured. Teacher evaluation systems based on whether teachers exhibit behaviours consonant with research-supported instructional principles are conceptually flawed because they presume that research-derived principles, adhered to by a specific teacher, will

invariably lead to successful results. What tends to be ~e for large groups of teachers and students, however, may not be true in the case of individual teachers. "Teacher evaluation is a profoundly particular undertaking" (Stanley & Popham, 1988, p. 63). Furthermore, Duke (1993) states that "policies that mandate that all teachers must grow according to a fixed schedule and in similar ways are mindless" (p.711). Simply itemizing what a teacher possesses or demonstrates, argue Weade R Evertson (1991), can add up to a description with limited utility. Worse yet, they continue: It can suggest that isolated behaviours make a difference in and of themselves, independent of the context in which they occur. By default, the roles played by students and materials get left out of the picture. (p. 41) Reductionist teacher evaluations actively ignore the overwhelming importance that teachers' personal and pro fessional histories play in the construction o f meaning about classroom events (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989). These authors claim that the alleged supremacy of technique within evaluation should be seen for what it is - "a means of portraying a false consensus about the ends of teaching, and a denial of the debate that should ensue about what the nature of these desired goals might be" (p. 163). If the intent of evaluation is to help teachers improve their instructional practices, the categories and descriptors may become "obstacles to seeing, rather than aids to better vision" (Wood, 1992, p. 55).

2. The Problem of Differential Evaluation Ideologies

Although agreement on a clear set of criteria on which a teacher's performance in class can be assessed has been elusive (Walsh, 1987; McNeal, 1987), most current evaluation methods seem to be characterized by an allegiance to a rational/technical or scientific approach to inquiry (Wood, 1992). In this approach, the observer's judgment of teaching behaviours takes precedence, while little or no consultation with the teacher or reflection on the teacher's and students' interpretations of their classroom experiences, is considered. This, claim Gitlin k Smyth (1989), amounts to a misplaced faith in the capacity of scientific forms of research on teaching to deliver definite knowledge about the nature of teaching. On the other hand, an educative approach, as espoused by Gitlin dk Smyth (1989), facilitates the breaking down of barriers that stand in the way of dialogical relations. One such barrier is the "artificial division of labour between those who are reported to hold educational theories and those who engage in teaching" (Gitlin & Smyth, 1989, p.56). While a technocratic view of schooling focuses attention solely on "how to" questions, an educative approach encourages a critical orientation linking what ought to be with how it will be. Additionally, it attempts to focus upon the school and its place in the community rather than upon the individual teacher.

3. The Expertise Problem

Evaluator competence is probably the most difficult aspect of the evaluative process (Mitchell et al., 1990). Administrators, whose background may

be in widely different fields, states McNeal (1987), are forced to rely on simplistic measures such as checklists. The degree to which administrators "slip into mindless activity by allowing the structure of the (evaluation) instrument to control their sight and awareness" (Wood, 1992, p. 56) exacerbates the problem of expertise. Questions are sometimes raised about the extent to which an observer's account is an adequate match for what usually occurs in a classroom (Weade & Evertson, 1991), especially when, as was documented in Miner's (1992) study, some principals make evaluations after only 20 minutes of observation. Further, when a class is being observed, the teacher and students take on "artificial roles that they believe to be appropriate to the occasion" (Weade Ee Evertson, 1991, p. 41). School executives often fail to observe and evaluate teachers, or they overrate the teachers they do evaluate (Langlois & Colarusso, 1988). In fact, Miner (1992) found that "some principals gave outstanding evaluations to teachers who dozed in class because the teacher was a friend" (p. 3). Often those responsible for evaluating teachers are not sure of the rules or the procedures for conducting the evaluation. This also drastically affects the soundness and fairness of the evaluation (Rieck, 19S9). Also, the level of objectivity of evaluations is lowered because administrators are either not cognizant of, or admit to, the manner in which their own attitudes and experiences may tend to slant what they see and hear (Wood, 1992). It is little wonder, therefore, that according to Medley 8c Coker (1987), studies have found no appreciable agreement between administrator judgments of teaching effectiveness and the amount students learn.

4. The Problem of Hierarchy and Control

While dominant forms of teacher evaluation might be designed with the very best of intentions to institute a necessary form of "quality control", what they end up doing is reinforcing the notion that teachers are not the experts, that educational hierarchies are necessary and just, and that teachers do not have to enter into educative dialogue with one another about their work (Gitlin dc Smyth, 1989, p. 164) This feeling is echoed by Walsh (1987) when he writes: "The notion of teachers as independent, autonomous professionals has been eroded, and the importance of management and hierarchical accountability emphasized" (p. 148). In dominant forms of teacher evaluation, where the teacher's intentions are not considered, the teacher is effectively silenced Teachers, therefore, become technicians concerned with implementing the ideas of others, rather than intellectuals involved in questioning and interrogating their own teaching and the context in which it occurs (Smyth, 1991). Teachers are disgruntled by the number of administrators not directly concerned about, or involved with, improving instruction (Wareiag, 1990). For many experienced and tenured teachers, yearly evaluations have been more a matter of pride than of job security (McNeal, 1987) which causes evaluation to become an empty, time-stealing ritual. According to Duke (1993): To conduct yearly evaluations of competent teachers for purposes of accountability conveys distrust - hardly the

stuff of which professional cultures are built. (p.704) and If there is a less meaningful ritual for The vast majority of experienced teachers, it would be hard to find. The idea of evaluating all competent teachers every year according to a common set of performance standards that, at best, represent minimum or basic expectations is little short of an institutionalized insult. (p.7033 Gitlin dk Smyth (1989) claim that far from being value-free, traditional notions of teacher evaluation serve conservative interests by reinforcing authoritarian school relations which ultimately run counter to the idea of an active, informed citizenry. They also run counter to the demands of the profession for self-regulation and autonomy and in this regard they highlight a basic tension which naturally accompanies the professional and the bureaucracy as they attempt to occupy the same organizational space (Corwin, 1965).

Critical Attributes of Effective Teacher Evaluation Programs

There is general agreement among education writers that teacher evaluation must satisfy two competing individual and organizational needs. One requires a process of control and surveillance which is hierarchically performed; the other utilizes educative relationships in which the educational community creates self-knowledge. "By separating accountability-driven and growth-oriented evaluation,

school systems remove a number of obstacles to professional development" (Duke, 1993, p. 704). Teacher evaluation can determine whether new teachers can teach, help all teachers to improve, and indicate when a teacher can or will teach effectively (Wise et al., 19S4). Personnel decisions of retiring, tenure, promotion, demotion, and dismissal are greatly influenced by it. Any system of teacher evaluation, however reliable, must first and foremost be faithful to teaching. The cornerstone of evaluation schemes should be the belief that teachers wish to improve their performance in order to enhance the education of their pupils. Montgomery & Hadheld (1989) claim that a fair, non-threatening, valid, and comprehensive evaluation system offers what is often an unprecedented opportunity to learn and develop in a situation which benefits the individual and the school, and meets the prime aim of evaluation which is to improve the quality of teaching and learning. (p. 194) Wareing (1990) echoes this feeling when she writes that an effective evaluation process "will serve to minimize fear and maximize Hunan potential and, ultimately, improve the quality of the teaching-learning process" (p. 250). The evaluation process holds great potential as a means to push toward improvement of pedagogical skills and instruction it our schools. Its potential as a "positive, growth-inducing process has been long overlooked" (Conley, 1987, p. 64). While it is obvious that some form of accountability in education is imperative, this does not mean it has to be

impositional We need practices that highlight the tensions, contradictions, and distortions in schooling g and that permit alternatives to be debated and adopted. Accountability of this kind means that teachers not only acquire a voice in the determination of educational aims, but that they do so on the basis of a joint assessment of the political, ethical, and moral implications of schooling. (Gitlin dc Smyth, 1989, p. 563 Teacher evaluators should be concerned with words, behaviours, methodologies, and pedagogies of teachers and not just what is taught. Teacher evaluation is judgmentally based and, therefore, varies according to an evaluator's conception of teaching. This implies that teacher evaluation tends to be as effective as the people who carry it out. The need for better trained evaluators is more evident as they are being required to be collaborative, collegial, and dialogical and less directive. Teacher evaluation, although in many instances still dominated by inspection and control, is becoming more concerned with assisting teachers to improve instruction. Daresh (1992) suggests the following to help an administrator provide colleagues with feedback that will enhance positive, professional self-images and encourage more effective performance: 1. Stick with facts - Evaluation should be based on facts not rumour or gossip. 2. See for yourself - Information gleaned from students, other teachers, and parents should be checked out before used as part of an evaluation report.

3. Be honest - effective evaluation depends on trust and communication that should exist in the organization. 4. Be confidential - Evaluation comments and feedback should be shared in private by the evaluator and the person being evaluate 5. Don't try to be funny - Evaluation is a serious business and the use of sarcasm in tense settings usually backfires. 6. Talk about problems not people - The goal of evaluation is to improve performance not to attack individual teachers. Alkire (1990) states that teacher evaluation is an essential element in attempts to improve instructional programs and that teachers and students deserve nothing less than the best. He offers the following suggestions for effective evaluations: 1. Read union contracts and board policies and abide by them. 2. Ask teachers for self-evaluations. 3. Plan classroom visits wisely - make unannounced visits. 4. Do observations correctly - longer visits at different times of the day. 5. Take accurate notes - crucial for marginal teachers. 6. Consider video-taping teachers. 7. Don't limit yourself to ratings - no single source of data is sufficiently problem-free that it can form the cornerstone of a defensible program. 8. Make sure post-evaluation conferences mean something - discuss possible solutions to problems and complement strengths.

9. offer teachers a chance for a rebuttal - compromise and change can result. Rebuttals are attached to the report. 10. Show that you take evaluations seriously - hire substitute teachers to free teachers for post-evaluation conferences to be held during school hours. 11. Get the teacher's signature on the report - proof that the evaluation actually occurred. There is no recipe or template for a successful teacher evaluation program (Hickcox, Lawton, Leithwood, dk Musella, 1988). Systems where effective, well-operated procedures for teacher evaluation are in place ensure that the previously mentioned problem areas are considered in policy and practice. Furthermore, teacher evaluation processes should be continually monitored for consistency and fairness as they address organizational and individual interests. Toward this end, several practices can be identified from the literature which over the past decade or so has reported successful practices. They reduce to the following prescriptions: 1. While multiple methods should be used for evaluating teachers, school systems must consider the purposes that each serves, to ensure that teacher evaluation goals and processes do not conflict (Mitchell et al, 1990). Some currently in use, albeit some more than others, are: performance assessment centres (Shulman, 1987, 1988), written teacher competency tests (Medley and Coker, 1987), videotaping (Ellis, 1991), students' standardized test scores (Findlay and Estabrook, 1991), documentation portfolios (Shulman, 1987), judgment-based teacher evaluations (Stanley and Popham, 1988), self-evaluation (Montgomery

and HacKeld, 1989; Millman and Darling-Hammond, 1990), parent involvement (McGreal, 1983), peer evaluation (ERS Staff Report, 1988), horizontal coaching (Gitlin and Smyth, 1989), and university-teacher partnerships. 2. Defensible teacher evaluations must be based, in part at least, on the growth that teachers bring about in students. Therefore, an evaluator must also be attentive to what students become, not merely what teachers do. 3. Teacher evaluation processes are more appropriate and valuable when they take account of the context in which teaching occurs (Shulman, 1987). These include such matters as the characteristics of the learners and aspects of the community, language, and culture. 4. Rather than relying on the "annual" formal visit, many visits are required for a better understanding of a teacher's performance (Stein, 1992). By making frequent informal visits to classrooms, claim Gray, McLaughlin, and Blazer (1992), administrators can reinforce and praise good teaching, Bather data regarding curriculum implementation, and head off instructional problems before they become critical. 5. There is a professional and, often times a legal, obligation to improve inservice education to assist teachers (Wood & Lease, 1987). Marginal teachers must be identified and assisted. Teacher evaluation should be part of staff development programs with the intention of enhancing performance (Montgamery & Hadfield, 1989; Dagley & Orso, 1991) because it is capable of a) providing information for determining the extent

of knowledge and skills gained during staff development activities; b) judging the degree of maintenance of the acquired skills and knowledge; c) providing a basis for teachers' and administrators' career planning and professional development; and d) helping to identify staff development needs. It should not be an ancillary service; it should be part of a larger strategy for school improvement. Ideally, according to Wood dk Lease (1987), a school's instructional program should begin with staff development followed by evaluation. Teacher evaluation should also foster the self-development of each teacher (Appendix D). 6. Training for both evaluators and teachers is crucial McLaughlin R Pfeifer, 1988) because evaluates, as well as evaluators, should know how to use evaluation instruments to acquire useful objective data, to interpret results, and to use those results to advantage (Hickcox et al., 1988). It is noteworthy that this provision is under-emphasized in school systems. At best it is represented in sporadic inservice training for administrators; at worst it allows no orientation for teachers or administrators, probably on the assumption that both parties will "learn the ropes" as they grapple with the evaluation process year by year.

7. Evaluation processes and criteria are developed with the rights of the teacher and the nature of the professional in mind. These imply involvement in the development of procedures, knowledge of criteria, right to second opinion, and opportunity to share viewpoints and perspectives. 8. A clear distinction is made between tenured and non-tenured teachers and teachers placed on growth or remediation tracks. 9. Perhaps most important of all, evaluation is clearly and obviously of high priority in the school system (Conley, 1987) as evidenced by a clear articulation of board philosophy of evaluation and budgeted financial support. Although improving instruction sometimes requires removing a teacher, more commonly teachers will become better instructors if boards expend resources to help them improve. Therefore, evaluation procedures should be taken seriously and supported. Some possibilities are to: 1. Train both evaluators and teachers in all aspects of teacher evaluation. 2. Hire substitute teachers to free teachers for post-evaluation conferences to be held during school hours and to permit them to visit each others' classrooms. 3. Hire substitute teachers to enable in-school administrators to visit classrooms.

Criteria for Effective Teacher Evaluation Policy

To determine what constitutes an effective teacher evaluation policy, one

must relate principles of effective teacher evaluation measures to effective policy development. First and foremost, teacher evaluation at its best is guided by principles of good policy. Effective policy has a statement of purpose which is usually derived from the philosophy of the school division and guidelines that allow the implementors the opportunity to use their professional judgment from situation to situation (Walberg, 1982). The length of the written text and the language used are also important features of effective policy. Policy, according to Walberg (1982), should be free of technical language of a kind teachers use in the course of their professional work. An evaluation policy should also contain a repeal of any prior policies and procedures and a statement of how it will be applied as well as identify the individuals to be evaluated and the personnel who will be doing the evaluating (Frels et al., 1986). Effective policy development, according to Walberg (1982), is comprehensive, participatory, and long range; open to phased implementation, internally consistent with its goals; and indicative of the commitment of time and resources that it requires for success. (p. 359) Teachers, principals, and directors, as well as students, parents, and community members, should be intimately involved in the policy making and implementing processes (Sergiovanni, Burlingham, Coombs, & Thurston, 1980). Hickcox et al. (1988) lucidly espouse the importance of evaluatee involvement in policy development by suggesting: An appraisal system developed jointly between supervisors and subordinates has a better chance of incorporating diverse

but relevant points of view than a system developed by top management alone. The greater the opportunity for participation by parties affected by a decision, the greater the potential for acceptability of the decision. (p. 66) Policies that might alarm the community, warns Orlosky, McLeary, Shapiro, Sc Webb (1984), must be introduced thoughtfully only after sufficient preparation in terms of informing or, better yet, involving the community because, if no one complies with a new policy, it has accomplished little. Provision should be made for any person or group in the school community to initiate review of a policy (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). It is recommended that a policy be developed to facilitate suggestions for change. Such a policy would ensure that a working party, comprised of experts and stockholders, is appointed to explore an issue and prepare at least three viable options. Holmes, Leithwood, & Musella, (1989) write that policy makers must realize that efforts and outcomes will vary from setting to setting and that "the effective school of this year may not be so effective next year" (p. 124). Finally, Walberg (1982) maintains that "the policy must be accompanied by the technical assistance and resources necessary to support its implementation" (p. 338). What follows in the next two sections are recommendations for further research and practice that the author, through his study and literature review, concluded were areas which need to be addressed.

Recommendations for Further Research

1. The duplication of this study in other school divisions would offer a broader perspective of congruence among policy-in-intent,

policy-of-implementation, and policy-in-experience. 2. The replication of this style of study, that would explore congruence of policy-in-intent, policy-in-implementation, and policy-in-experience of other crucial policies, would lead to a better understanding of the effect of the degree of congruence on schools and school systems. 3. Research in the area of policy making would help bring to light the relationship between policy formulation and collaborative policy making. 4. An exploration of the effect of training evaluators and evaluates on the success of teacher evaluation would shed light on the importance of such an initiative. 5. Whether or not gender plays a part of teacher evaluation treatment would seem vital given the emerging significance of equity in personnel issues. 6. Studies focusing on the relationship that exists between staff development activities and teacher evaluation results would enhance both practices. 7. Research in the area of teacher evaluation practices and job satisfaction for evaluators and evaluates would yield useful information about teacher evaluation focus. 8. A comprehensive study of the relationship between teacher evaluation practices and teacher accountability may help to provide a clearer picture of this timely concern.

Recommendations for Practice

9. School divisions should examine their educational goals, management style, conception of teaching, and community values and adopt a teacher evaluation system compatible with them. It should not adopt an evaluation system simply because that system works in other contexts. 10. School divisions should grant evaluators sufficient time, unburdened by competing administrative demands, for evaluation activities. This may mean, for example, providing a substitute teacher on a mandated regular basis. 11. School divisions should regularly assess the quality of evaluation, including individual and collective evaluator competence. The assessments should provide feedback to individual evaluators and input into the continuing evaluator training process. 12. School divisions should train evaluators in observation and evaluation techniques, including reporting, diagnosis, and clinical supervision skills, particularly when it adopts a new teacher evaluation process. Inservice should be provided for teachers so that they are cognizant of the purpose(s) and practices of teacher evaluation. 13. School divisions should examine their existing teacher evaluation systems to see which, if any, purpose(s) they serve well. If a division changes its purpose(s), it should change the process of evaluation.

14. School divisions must allocate resources commensurate with the number of teachers to be evaluated and the importance and visibility of evaluation outcomes. 15. School divisions should involve teachers in the assistance of their peers, particularly beginning teachers, teachers nearing retirement, and those in need of special assistance. 16. School divisions should involve teacher organizations, such as local and provincial teachers' associations, in the design and oversight of teacher evaluation to ensure its legitimacy, fairness, and effectiveness. 17. School divisions should hold teachers accountable to standards of practice that compel then to make appropriate instructional decisions on behalf of their students. 18. Self-development should be encouraged and facilitated by school division teacher evaluation 19. School divisions should ensure that evaluates have the right to appeal their evaluation report. 20. Different approaches to teacher evaluation may have to be used for different stages of individual career cycles, for different levels of jobs in the hierarchy, and for different levels of experience within a system 21. Teacher evaluation should be closely aligned with staff development. However, individual school and teacher concerns must continue to be considered. 22. School divisions should make a concerted effort to assist marginal teachers and initiate a legitimate process to deal with incompetent teachers.

23. School divisions should adopt a policy that states how policy is to be formulated and how and how often policy is to be reviewed and revised.

Concluding Remarks
There is tension between the two major competing paradigms of teacher evaluation based largely upon a silent struggle between ideological forces that support surveillance, hierarchy, and bureaucracy, and the contesting forces of reflection, collegiality, and collectively (Gitlin R Smyth, 1989). The dilemma faced by policy makers and implementors is whether or not the emphasis in teacher evaluation should be placed on cultivation or weeding. A weeding approach would see an evaluator "focus upon the presumed deficits of individuals" (Gitlin dk Smyth, 1989, p. 162) while ignoring their potential for growth. Conversely, a cultivation approach would emphasize the overall development of teachers by encouraging them to "open their hearts, souls, and minds to one another, thinking critically and actively planning improvements to their teaching" (Glickznaa, 1990, p. 162). In the school divisions involved of the Saw (1994) study, policy makers, according to their written policies, seemed to prefer to concentrate an accountability (72.3/o) as opposed to teacher improvement efforts (43.6%). Since incompetent performance is very much the exception rather than the rule, energy ought to be expended in protecting teachers' self-esteem and enhancing professional development. According to Rooney (1993), "support and encouragement have much more effect than criticism however thinly veiled under the guise of

supervision" (p. 44). This is not to suggest that the incidence of incompetence is to be ignored. It is a crucial area for policy because of the implications for the reputation of the profession and, more importantly, the education of children and the well-being of society. Respondents in this study clearly indicated their desire for this distressing concern to be addressed. Teacher unions must become more involved in teacher evaluations by working closely with administrators in devising and monitoring intensive assistance programs for teachers experiencing instructional difficulties. Adversarial relations between management and unions should give way to what is best for students. Follow-up interviews in this study clearly indicated that the preferred approach for teacher evaluation was to utilize a system of peer assistance (Appendix E). This would help to overcome the sort of isolation, uncertainty, and loneliness that characterizes a great deal of teaching (Walsh, 1987). Peers, according to McGreal (1983), can be used in instructional improvement efforts - observation and input by one or more teachers to another teacher for the specific purpose of assisting that teacher in improving instruction. You can learn more about teaching by watching peers teach than you can by having someone observe you and write an evaluation (DePasquale, Jr., 1990). This method of evaluation can not take place unless there is a willingness to provide resources and to assist teachers in reaching their goals (DePasquale, Jr., 1990) as well as open-mindedness and trust among colleagues (McGreal, 1983). Gitlin & Smyth (1989) emphasize the importance of encouraging dialogical relations among teachers because "schools are much more vibrant and reflective places in which to live and to work" (p. 156) if this support is forthcoming. Therefore, evaluators of the future will require training to ensure

they are capable of working with teachers in a collaborative, collegial, and dialogical fashion. Another recurring theme in the interviews was the importance of involving evaluates in teacher evaluation policy formulation and revision. Although this is heavily supported by the literature, only 6% of the policies analyzed in the Saw (1994) study stated that a collaborative approach was utilized to develop their policy. Caldwell dk Spinks (198S) recommend that a policy be developed to facilitate suggestions for change and that policy making should be "all-over-at-once" rather than "top-down" or "bottom-up" thereby releasing the energy in the system rather than keeping it harnessed. Educators should take every opportunity to engage in dialogue, regardless of their place in the hierarchy.