| |
Teacher
Evaluation as part of Quality Assurance
List of topics:
Introduction
Broad
Quality Assurance typology
Concrete coherence-generating instruments
Teacher evaluation: what for?
Past
methods and main problems
Recent trends
Remaining challenges
References
-
Introduction
In decentralized
education systems, where schools have a large degree of autonomy, individual and local expectations may be met, but there are two risks.
One is that schools may be complacent and student performance
may fail to meet the needs of the nation, e.g. elite formation in
S&T for global
competition. Another is that equity, a central responsibility of the
central government, may be threatened, as disadvantaged children do
not have equal access to learning opportunities and have lower scores.
Hence the need to ensure coherence between national policies and what
happens in the classroom, the locus of educational change.
-
Broad
Quality
Assurance Typology
Essentially there are three approaches to “quality for all”.
In centralized countries (such as Cuba, France, Japan), the State
controls the curriculum, train, employ teachers, and evaluate
them as well as student achievement, so that the coherence is
built-in. A number of reformist countries, most with a decentralized
tradition (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, US) are using
standards that ideally align teaching, materials, assessment…etc,
on the curriculum goals.
A third group of countries or systems (Holland, Scotland, Ontario)
with a high level of educational attainment and a
strong democratic tradition have a self-regulating approach, i.e., they substitute stakeholder
participation and accountability for control, so that instead of
standards they have a continuous dialogue about how good is good
enough, and what can be done to continuously improve.
-
Concrete
coherence-generating instruments
Whatever
the strategies, quality assurance mechanisms
require (i) a “vision”, (ii) standards (or norms, criteria,
profiles, parameters…) to express it in operational and measurable
terms, (iii) contractual arrangements between government and
decentralized units such as the School Development Projects; and (iv)
a variety of assessment and evaluation instruments to measure
progress towards the goals and guide diagnostic and corrective
decision making. Other tools to promote coherence include teacher training and
professional development and teacher networks .
-
Teacher
Evaluation: what for?
Teacher are evaluated at the end
of their training for selection purposes. This function receives
most attention from policy makers and test makers. Tests are based on
“vertical standards” with cut-off scores which can be lowered or
raised to match supply
and demand. (Acedo, based on Floden). In countries where the
government is both the trainer and the employer of teachers,
graduation and recruitment are a one step process. Where the
government is the employer but training institutions are private, or
in large federal countries where different states have different
policies, the process may take two steps. In these cases,
“certification”
is the process of technical validation of a teacher, whereas “licensing”
refers to the right to teach in a particular State; “registration”
refers to the
requirement that all teachers be accounted for to monitor supply and
demand.
Teachers are also evaluated during
their career (Dwyer):
·
To
improve teaching practice.
This is of particular interest to educators and requires census-based,
formative testing.
·
For
professional accountability.
This is the focus of professional associations such as in the US, the
National Board for Professional Standards (NBPTS) which certifies
experienced teachers. Australia has a similar system.
·
For
administrative control.
This is the perspective of bureaucrats, who see teaching as a profession
in need of supervision.
·
For
merit pay.
In many countries the public and politicians increasingly insist on
linking teacher pay to student performance.
-
Past methods and
main problems
In the US, for instance, the
first generation of teacher
licensing tests were (i) paper and pencil standardized tests of basic
skills, subject matter, or pedagogical knowledge based on multiple
choice; (ii) performance evaluation of first-year teachers as a
condition for a regular of continuing license, conducted by
administrators based on a checklist. Mechanistic, one-shot
tools were used to judge a complex task; the rating systems
were inadequate; comparisons were impossible; and licensing
“yes/no” decisions were difficult (Acedo, ditto).
In market-driven contexts (England under Thatcher,
Texas under Bush) the consequences
of evaluation (such as loss of job) may generate fear and
confrontation which in the long run are not beneficial.
In the past, in many countries evaluation was conducted
by “inspectors”, who
often erred on the side of control rather than support. There has been a
reaction to this in favor of support, to the point that in some nations,
the concept of accountability has
vanished.
Too often the focus has been on the processes of
teaching and learning, and not on results (cf Buckley, NSW, Australia).
Brilliant teaching does not
guarantee that at-risk children will learn.
Tests have frequently been cut-off from the broader
goals of the education system and from the particular context in which
teachers work.
Individual pay based on merit (=student results)
(Kentucky in the 80s) has been resisted by teachers on three grounds:
(i) it favors those teaching children from high socio-economic
backgrounds; (ii) by rewarding individual teachers, it acts as a
disincentive against teacher team spirit and collegial work, now known
to be critical for school effectiveness; and (iii) the profession feels
that causal effects in education are much too complex to establish such
a link.
-
Recent trends
To-day,
the complexity of teaching, the large number of skills and behaviors it
requires are recognized, as is the importance of emphasizing development
over judgment (Hargreaves). A shift in paradigm is replacing the concept
of pre and in service teacher
training with that of on going , many-faceted professional development
(Stark). The need to link evaluation to the context of the school and its
expectations, the importance of a two-way learning process between
teachers and their evaluators and the desirability of
promoting a culture of team-based
professionalism (ASCD, Fullan) are stressed.
At the same time, the growing concern with ensuring (i)
quality for all children; and (ii) the efficient use of scarce public
money has led many systems to hold schools and teachers accountable on
both accounts. As a result, new types of instruments are being
increasingly used in an effort to assess both disciplinary and pedagogical
knowledge and classroom performance, to embed teacher evaluation in its
context, to combine assessment and support, to be realistic as to what can
be tested, and to apply professional expertise to the task. Below are a
few examples.
Improving
teaching practice: Countries such as France conduct at the beginning of the school year a
census-based test (grades 4,
6, and 10) to establish a diagnosis focusing
on value-added. The results are reported to individual schools as a
basis for changing school organization or teaching practices.
Professional
accountability: For years now, institutions such as the NBPTS have developed performance
assessments which include (i) a portfolio developed at the school site
(video tapes, samples of work, description of classroom events, essays on
the effectiveness of different strategies, interviews, peer observations,…); (ii) a 2 day assessment in a specialized center (e.g. Michigan
Teacher Evaluation Center), by experts in the same field; (iii)
attestations of collegial work and professional contributions. Paper and
pencil and standardized tests are complemented by open ended essays.
Administrative
control:
The UK, NZ and a few other reformist countries have separated the control
from the support function of inspectors. Central teams of inspectors (Ofstead/HMI
in UK, ERO in NZ) which do an in-depth review of “whole schools” (pedagogical as well as managerial aspects) on a cyclical bases (3-6
years). The LEAs/schools have the resources and there is a TA market to
buy the necessary support. Under the new UK
system, teachers at the beginning of the year will define their
objectives based on three elements: (i) students’ expected
scores; (ii) school development plan requirements; and (iii) own
professional development objectives. While the school will be evaluated by
the Inspectorate, teachers will also be evaluated within this context by
the head-teacher. Ontario has similar elements.
Merit Pay: to avoid the pitfalls of the previous model, Chile has
developed a system of merit award to entire schools, the SNED (National
system of school performance). In the SNED, student
test scores (absolute and value added) weigh for 60%, while other
school characteristics deemed desirable such as teamwork, community
relations and equality of opportunities are also taken into account. The
system is structured to allow fair comparison between similar schools. The
award, equivalent to 1 month
salary, goes to each team member. (McMeekin, Mizala).
-
Remaining
challenges
Teacher assessment (also called appraisal, evaluation) is central to
modern education systems and
much remains to be done to develop systems which are fair,
useful and affordable. A census-based system is costly and
institutionally demanding. Professional accountability requires a
mature profession, which has overcome the symptoms of old-style
industrial unions. Central Inspectorates are criticized for being
“cut-off” from reality
and
for requiring a TA provider market, which most industrializing
nations do not have.
References (in order mentioned in paper):
-
Clementina
Acedo, based on Floden “The new
assessment in Teaching” available from the Effective Schools and
teacher network.
-
Carol Anne Dwyer “The
evaluation of Teachers” in “Evaluation & Educational Reform”
, USAID, Bureau for LAC, 1998
-
A.
Hargreaves, “Changing Times,
changing teachers” (…?)
France: “L’ Etat de l’ Ecole” & “ La Géographie de l’Ecole”,
http://www.education.gouv.fr (chapitre: Le système éducatif francais, Rubrique Evaluation &
statistiques de l’Education). See also
Inspection under same adresse.
-
US National Board of Professional
Teaching Standards: http://www.nbpts.org
-
US Education Testing Service
(ETS): http://www.ets.org
-
US Interstate new Teacher
Assessment & Support Consortium (INTASC) : for State Licensing exams,
Jean Miller Director: jeanm@ccsso.org
(Performance based Assessment Development Project, test for teaching
knowledge, etc…)
-
On the support side of teacher
evaluation, see the “Trends in school supervision” series by the
International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP http://www.unesco.org/iiep/), Paris
-
UK: Look for Teacher Training
Agency at http://www.dfee.gov.uk
-
Other developers of performance
exercised for teacher licensing or certification: Rand Corporation,
Teacher Assessment Project at Stanford University, Michigan State
University Teacher Evaluation Center
-
Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development : http://www.ascd.org
-
On Chile:
McMeekin Report on SNED
available from the Reform Management Network (Barbara Bruns/Michael
Drabble). Mizala paper available from
LCSHD.
Prepared by
Francoise Delannoy, World Bank
Click here to access on-line
resources related to teacher career development
|
