Phone Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.
1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
Address 1703 North Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Complete Customer Service Details
by Charlotte Danielson and Thomas L. McGreal
Table of Contents
Some educators equate teacher evaluation with classroom observation; others equate it with the forms used. Revising their system of evaluation, then, becomes a matter of changing the forms, or the forms used in an observation. Although evaluation forms are important in defining the structure of an evaluation process and the types of professional conversation surrounding it, forms do not constitute the system. An effective teacher evaluation system is far more complex than the forms and must contain three essential elements:
In addition, in designing (or revising) its system of evaluation, a school district should follow a process that includes many perspectives—those of teachers, administrators, and the leadership of the teacher's association.
The challenge confronting designers of an evaluation system is to (1) encourage professional learning and, at the same time, (2) ensure the quality of teaching. Thanks to recent experience with assessments, such as those developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, educators are now in a good position to address this design challenge.
In this chapter, we explore the three essential elements of a coherent evaluation system, as mentioned previously. We then outline the demands of quality assurance and the requirements of an environment for professional learning—and describe the means by which schools and districts may merge the two aspects into a single system.
The requirements for quality assurance link directly to the structure described here for the elements of an evaluation system (the “what,” the “how,” and trained evaluators).
Central to the notion of quality assurance in teaching is a clear and coherent definition of exemplary practice (for more information, see Chapter 4). Some states have articulated standards of practice (e.g., the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, the Texas Learner-Centered Proficiencies, and Vermont's Standards for Vermont Educators), and districts are required to use these as the basis of their evaluation procedures. Other districts have found the components of professional practice described in Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 1996) useful as a structure for evaluation. Figure 3.1 lists the four domains and 22 components of this structure.
Source: Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
As part of defining good teaching, we need to establish the relative importance of the different criteria (“Are they all equally important?”); the levels of performance (“What does it look like when it is done well?”); and a standard for acceptable, or exemplary, performance (“How good is good enough, and how good is very good?”). The standards of performance must be clear and unambiguous, and both publicly known and publicly derived (see Chapter 4 for a full discussion of these issues).
To ensure teaching quality, schools and districts must base the evaluative criteria on recent research on teaching and learning. This ensures the validity of the criteria. In addition, the criteria should include all the important aspects of teaching and not be limited to only a part of what teachers do. For example, an evaluation system that defines teaching solely in terms of what teachers do in their classroom interactions with students misses all the important aspects of the teaching role that occur outside that venue. And yet, who could argue that communication with families is not an important part of a teacher's role, and should not therefore be part of an evaluation system?
To ensure a valid evaluation system, when schools and districts identify certain criteria as contributing to good practice, they should ensure that teachers will be able to demonstrate the criteria. If, for example, communicating with families is one of the evaluative criteria, how will teachers demonstrate their skill? Because this skill is not visible in a classroom observation, schools and districts must devise other procedures to evaluate it.
Evaluation processes must allow for evaluators to make reasonable judgments regarding the quality of teaching; and schools and districts must include procedures to offer intensive assistance, if needed, to teachers who are struggling to perform adequately. And, if performance is not at least minimally acceptable, after schools and districts have provided assistance and have followed all the requirements of due process, schools must devise manageable procedures for termination.
The “how” of teacher evaluation includes many items, ranging from the general procedures (possibly differentiated for novices and experienced teachers), the time lines, the personnel involved, and the specific forms and procedures used. All these should be clear to everyone involved and implemented in an equitable manner (see Chapters 5 and 6 for more information about procedural matters).
Those making evaluative judgments must be adequately trained so their judgments are accurate, consistent, and based on evidence. From the standpoint of those being evaluated (teachers), it must not matter who is conducting the evaluation; the result should be the same regardless of the identity of the evaluator. This consistency of judgment on the part of trained evaluators is an essential guarantee of the reliability of the system as a whole.
The training of evaluators has several important dimensions:
Is any of this consistent with professional learning? At first glance, it is difficult to see how, because the demands of quality assurance sound rigid and unlikely to promote professional growth. But before we conclude that they are incompatible, we should take a closer look at the nature of professional learning.
Several factors contribute to professional learning, including reflection on practice, collaboration, and self-assessment.*
Few activities are more powerful for professional learning than reflection on practice. As Schon (1983) has pointed out, we learn not so much from our experience, but from our reflection on our experience. Reflection requires asking (and answering) such questions as “Were those reasonable learning expectations for my students?” “Would different groupings have worked better?” and “How do I know the students have really learned this concept?”
Many experienced teachers spontaneously engage in such reflection on at least an informal basis. But few novice teachers do so, and many experienced teachers rarely devote the time to it that sustained reflection (and therefore real learning) requires.
Schools and districts may include reflection on practice at many points in a teacher evaluation process. Self-assessment, descriptions and commentaries about learning activities, and analysis of student work all depend on thoughtful consideration of what the teacher intended and whether she achieved her goals.
Some educators are able to engage in reflection on practice on their own and will devote considerable time to the endeavor. Most people, however, find it difficult to attain the self-discipline required for such inquiry; and it tends to be crowded out by more immediately pressing concerns. Thus, a system that builds in collaboration, particularly if that collaboration demands reflection on practice, is more likely to yield genuine effort than one that does not.
The isolation of teachers has been well documented. On their evaluation forms after a workshop, many teachers will write that the opportunity to discuss issues with their colleagues was the most beneficial aspect of the day. Teaching is highly complex, and most teachers have scant opportunity to explore common problems and possible solutions, or share new pedagogical approaches with their colleagues. As educators design systems for evaluation, they can include provision for professional conversation—among teachers and between teachers and administrators.
Collaboration offers another real benefit—the provision of alternative points of view. Most educators find that a colleague's perspective on a situation is a little different from their own, and that this different view offers possibilities that theirs alone does not. Teachers find it difficult to sustain an interpretation of an event in the face of conflicting evidence from a colleague. Thus, collaboration offers the possibility of a more balanced, and more accurate, interpretation of practice.
Teachers are professionals; they are practitioners of a complex craft. Teachers tend to know where their areas of strength and relative weakness lie and are keen to bring all areas of their practice to higher levels. If provided with a safe and respectful environment, most teachers will choose to concentrate their efforts at professional growth in those areas in which they have the greatest need.
The principles of adult learning show that when people use self-assessment and self-directed inquiry in professional development, they are more likely to sustain their learning, in more disciplined ways, than when outsiders impose professional development requirements. When people select their own “problem” to be solved, their own project to pursue, they devote greater energy to it than if someone else has chosen the issue.
The basis for the selection of areas of practice to work on is, or should be, self-assessment, possibly supplemented by evaluator input. Experienced teachers are typically able to assess their own practice accurately, whereas novices, depending on their preparation programs, may be less skilled in this activity. Evaluation systems, then, should include opportunities for self-assessment and self-directed professional growth for experienced teachers, and guided self-assessment for novices. Of course, if an administrator has reason to believe that a teacher's self-assessment is not fully accurate, if the teacher is unaware of aspects of practice that need attention, those should be noted and added to the areas deserving of attention. But the teacher's self-assessment should always be the starting point for the discussion.
When teachers collaborate on a project to advance their knowledge, they create, for themselves, a community of learners. They are, and feel themselves to be, a small group in pursuit of common learning. There is no difference in status—all individuals are of equal rank—and all are engaged in activities to advance their understanding. In addition, the environment must be safe for risk-taking; fear can play no role in a community of learners.
To derive the full benefits of collaborative inquiry, schools and districts need to put forth a systematic effort. A culture of professional inquiry does not happen by itself; schools must create it. This culture can take many forms—for example, protected time for study groups to meet, substitute teachers to cover classes during observations, or funds to enable teachers to attend professional meetings or to acquire professional materials. Alternatively, a school can institute a system of “critical friends” through which teachers meet together to offer constructive suggestions to one another. Through such activities, and the tangible support for them, a school or district demonstrates its commitment to the continuing professional growth of its teachers.
This commitment is also reflected in the more intangible nature of the culture of the school. In a school in which people value professional inquiry, the school's leadership does not tolerate negative comments about students in the faculty lounge, nor put-downs directed against fellow teachers. Teachers demonstrate their willingness to share materials they have developed and to collaborate on the challenges presented by students who are having difficulty in their learning. In such a school, teachers do not work in isolation: Their doors are open and they freely exchange perspectives on their teaching strategies. Procedures for teacher evaluation should include activities contributing to a culture for professional inquiry and ways to support such activities.
Learning almost always involves formative assessment; indeed, it is so embedded in the process of teaching and learning that it is easy to overlook. Consider the process of learning to play golf. A novice would need to find a good teacher, one who could offer instruction and help the learner improve her skill. This coach, of course, would be a good golfer; he would be skilled at the different aspects of the game. In addition, however, the coach would be a skilled diagnostician; offering encouragement is not enough. It would not be sufficient for the coach to observe a swing and to say: “That was good; try again.” Instead, the coach would offer specific advice, based on a clear diagnosis: “You are dropping your right shoulder,” or “You are turning your hips too far to the left,” or “You are looking up before you swing.” That is, the coach has assessed the novice's practice, and is offering feedback, for the purpose of advancing her learning. The coach is not judging her, but is assessing her performance.
This distinction is critical and can help us design powerful evaluation systems that promote professional learning. For example, a teaching coach might observe a class and note the type of questions the teacher asked. If they were primarily low-level, with a single correct answer, this information would be of value to the teacher, and could be used to improve practice.
Just as the requirements for quality assurance can be reflected in the elements of the “blueprint,” so can those of an environment (the “what”) for professional learning.
The definition of exemplary practice—with its levels of performance and, especially, the process used to derive that definition—can advance the principles of professional learning. When educators consider what is good teaching, and how it is manifested in a variety of settings; when they debate the levels of performance, and whether these apply equally in all contexts, they engage in professional conversation, in a collaborative setting; and they usually also reflect on their own practice.
The environment for such conversations, of course, must be safe for taking professional risks. As teachers consider drafts of an evaluation document and debate whether all the evaluative criteria are valid in all contexts, or whether the descriptions of levels of performance apply in their setting, they must be free to speak their minds without fear of negative consequences. The discussions must be genuine professional conversations, without undercurrents of point-scoring, or posturing, that occasionally characterize such debates.
These conversations invariably engage teachers in self-assessment and reflection; it is virtually impossible for a practitioner to consider descriptions of levels of performance of a skill of teaching without privately asking questions such as “How do I do that?” or “At what level am I performing on this standard?” In addition, as teachers consider the wording of different components of teaching and their elements and compare their impressions and practices with one another, they trade techniques and learn new strategies from their colleagues. These conversations are rich—focused on the quality of teaching and contributing much to the professional learning of those participating.
Of all the various elements of a system for teacher evaluation that contribute to professional learning, the procedures used contribute the most. The experience of candidates for advanced certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards is instructive in this regard: Virtually everyone who goes through the process, even those who are not successful, report that they have become better teachers because of the effort.
This phenomenon then becomes a design question: “How can we design systems for teacher evaluation that result in professional learning? What can we ask teachers to do, as part of the process, that is professionally rewarding and growth-producing?” Schools and districts may ask teachers, as part of their evaluation process, to submit a unit of study from their class, an activity from that unit, and some samples of student work from the activity—and write a brief commentary about the activity and the student work. If evaluators ask teachers questions that demand reflection and thoughtfulness, and if teachers must select student work that provides evidence of student achievement, teachers are almost guaranteed to learn from the process. If they must answer questions such as “How does this activity deepen student understanding of the concept?” or “What do these student work samples tell me about their level of understanding?” they are required to reflect on the activity, and the experience of individual students with it. In asking teachers to submit this unit, activity, and student work, the evaluation system is not imposing extra “work”: Teachers design such activities and collect student work on a daily basis. In other words, the activity represents, as Mari Pearlman (personal communication, 1994) of the Educational Testing Service has called it, a “natural harvest” of their work. Granted, teachers don't always reflect systematically on students' work or analyze an activity and the larger unit in light of it, and they certainly don't write a brief commentary about their reflections. Being asked to do so once a year, however, is not an unreasonable request, and such reflection can contribute to the development of valuable habits of mind.
The challenge, then, for designers of evaluation systems is to structure the evaluation procedures so that teachers are required to do certain things, the very doing of which promotes professional learning. These required activities can certainly include an administrator's observation of classroom teaching. But the evaluation system can also include self-assessment and conversation about the appropriate placement on charts describing levels of performance. The system can ask teachers to provide concrete evidence of student learning. The evaluation system can also ask teachers to provide samples of nonclassroom responsibilities (such as parent communication; maintenance of accurate records; or contributions to school and district projects, such as participation on committees). If evaluation systems are well designed, teachers take an active role in the process and learn from their participation.
The procedures used to orient teachers and to train evaluators in the use of the evaluation system can also represent valuable professional work. When educators discuss the evaluative criteria, when they examine evidence of teaching (such as tapes or commentaries) and determine, together, the level of performance represented, they are engaging in valuable professional dialogue. And the consensus derived through such dialogue serves the district well in forging a common understanding of what good teaching actually looks like.
So how can schools and districts integrate the demands of quality assurance and professional learning into a single system? What characteristics of an evaluation system satisfy the requirements of both, taking into account the dysfunctional aspects of most current approaches? The principal features of such an integrated system include a differentiated approach, a culture of professional inquiry, and carefully designed evaluation activities.
A teacher's career, like that of other professionals, has a distinct life cycle. The job is complex, and skillful practice requires considerable time and support to acquire. But once a teacher attains a certain level of proficiency, professional learning takes a different form from that experienced earlier in the process, and can be more self-directed. And if teachers slip in their skill, if their performance drops below a certain acceptable level, they can also benefit from higher levels of support and more intensive assistance. This suggests that the procedures used in the evaluation process can be different for those at different stages in their careers.
Thus, schools and districts should differentiate their evaluation system for teachers, according to their professional needs. Many schools have designed systems with three “tracks”: separate activities and time lines for novice (or probationary, or nontenured) teachers, for experienced (or career, or tenured) teachers, and for those needing intensive assistance or a plan of action (experienced teachers for whom the next step is dismissal for inadequacy in teaching). (See Chapters 8–10 for more information on these three tracks.)
An environment for learning, whether learning by students or by adults, does not occur spontaneously; it must be planned and honored in practice. While largely under the leadership of administrators, all educators play a role in establishing and maintaining this environment. Its elements include the following:
But the presumption of competence is, by itself, insufficient; it must be accompanied by the presumption of continuing professional learning. This second presumption states that it is every teacher's responsibility to continue to grow professionally, and that teachers may stagnate in their professional knowledge. Both presumptions must be present; the first without the latter breeds complacency; the second without the first undermines trust.
Within the context of an evaluation system, these presumptions play out both in the required activities of the process and the manner in which they are done. The activities, particularly if a school adopts some aspect of the self-directed professional growth phase as part of the evaluation of career professionals, must be recognized as opportunities for learning. In completing them, all teachers expect to improve their practice. But in addition, the presumption of competence suggests that the evaluation process is simply an opportunity to improve one's craft still further.
These two presumptions, together with a culture of inquiry, produce an environment safe for professional risk-taking. Teachers know that, even during a formal, evaluation observation, they can try a new strategy and receive feedback on it, or they could submit, as part of their portfolio, an instructional artifact and student work they wanted to discuss with a more senior colleague. It would not have to be a “showcase” effort, but one in the course of development.
Sound measurement requires that all the aspects of the domain of teaching be capable of being assessed through the evaluation process. But there are design decisions to be made: some activities yield far more professional learning than do others.
By requiring self-assessment, working in teams on a focus area, and reflecting on one's practice through portfolio exercises, an evaluation system can promote professional learning in teachers. No matter how skilled a person embarking on any of those activities, the activities themselves guide and support growth. Even with no evaluation system, if teachers simply did those things, their practice would improve. By making them part of the evaluation system, however, the school district ensures that they will occur.
Some newly developed evaluation systems require that teachers conduct a self-assessment, establish professional growth goals, and participate in a study group with colleagues to pursue a topic of common interest. (Such a requirement engages the teachers in self-assessment, reflection on practice, self-directed inquiry, collaboration, and professional conversation.) Then, in addition to classroom observations, teachers are asked to submit evidence of their professional skill, in the form of planning documents, samples of student work (with a commentary), and other evidence of their professionalism (such as parent communication, contributions to the school and district, etc). Assembling and selecting these documents require deep reflection on practice; describing them to an administrator engages a teacher in professional conversation.
Although the demands of quality assurance and professional learning seem, at first, to be incompatible, they are, in fact, complementary. Careful design work is needed, to be sure. But the concepts themselves can co-exist, and even strengthen one another (for a summary, see Figure 3.2).
Item/Procedure
Quality Assurance
Professional Learning
Definition of Teaching, including levels of performance
Process of development results in shared understanding
Techniques and Procedures for Evaluation
Designed to maximize professional learning and reflection on practice
Training for Evaluators and Teachers
The process of training itself builds consensus and develops shared understanding
* The characteristics of an environment for professional growth presented here owe a debt to the discussion by Lee Schulman (1997).
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our free email newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your email inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.