Teacher Evaluations

There are a few different approaches for teacher evaluations for schools, but two ways are the most common; observations and formative assessment results.

The IB school I taught at in Malaysia used the observation method. Once a semester, the HOD would observe one of my classes. The HOD would have a checklist that the school used for all classes tailored to IB classes that had about 17 different points on it. The observation would be done without warning, and after the lesson later that day we would sit down and talk about how it went and the HOD's comments/concerns. There are a few benefits to this type of assessment- it allows the HOD to have her finger on the pulse so to speak of the classroom environment- if students aren't usually organized or used to turn-taking or raising their hands, they won't be able to adapt on the fly, so often an observation can be a very accurate snapshot of the teachers rapport with students and progress in implementing classroom policies and procedures; processes that take a long time to come to fruition. This also allows for immediate feedback; in essence the observations can act as a formative assessment for the teacher, where a third party can observe and notice things that the teacher isn't doing or is overlooking.

 My experience with this was usually neutral- after a certain number of these observations, I felt that there wasn't much more room for me to grow as a teacher. Sure, there were tons of incremental improvements my HOD could discussess/suggest that I could still make, but for the most part, I had adapted my planning to better suit her particular preferences for teaching, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of this method of evaluation. Perhaps teacher observers can be rotated to get the benefit of multiple different perspectives after a certain time period to increase the effectiveness of observations and reduce impact of diminishing returns and individual bias. Considering that the teacher is supposed to create a rapport with the observer before classes are observed means that this would have to be a semi-long term thing, but I believe it could be done. The other big drawback of this method is the fact that it's a simple observation- a snapshot of teaching ability. I was once observed on a day that for whatever reason I wasn't fully prepared- the class didn't go well for the plan I had for it, and I hadn't prepared a backup plan in case things didn't work well, so it was abysmal. However, that was literally one of maybe a half dozen classes over the course of the year where I was unhappy with my own performance, and it just happened to be the one I was observed for, and considering that my year end bonus depended on high marks, I was quite unhappy with this.

The other method of teacher evaluations I'm familiar with is the summative exam grades. Teachers are judged through students performance in a standardized test. While this can be useful in helping teachers focus on students gaining the skills they need, I feel this method has too many drawbacks. First and foremost, this creates massive perverse incentives for teachers to "teach the test", to cheat, to teach the students to cheat, etc. Furthermore, while it may be a good measure of teacher effectiveness and useful in analyzing student test scores over time, it warps the focus of teaching too much. High performing students are ignored and not challenged, as raising the lowest performers is the most effective way of increasing average scores. It also ignores environmental factors, such as poverty, poor home environment, special needs students, etc. There is also a complete absence of acknowledgement about other life skills students learn from their teachers, such as collaboration, risk-taking, empathy, responsibility, etc.

Considering that the top two methods have numerous weaknesses, I'd argue for a system that uses a combination of three factors- exams, observations, and student feedback. I would also like to tie these three together, so that a high quality teacher is one who is well rounded rather than excels in just one area- additional weight should be given when at least two of the three factors are both high/low. A teacher who is amazing at getting students to do well on their final exams but is weak in creating a rapport with and between his students while also being weak in execution during observations should make much less than someone who does all three moderately well. If anything, exams should be weighed the least as they are too narrow to test for skills that are relevant in the real world- often there is only a mild correlation between strong test takers and real world performance. I think it's important to utilize student evaluations for one simple reason- if they respect the teacher, if they enjoyed their classes, their intrinsic motivation is increased greatly, which translates into increased perseverance in the face of adversity, greater self-confidence, and stronger retention of concepts/skills. Observation should be weighted more than exams, but I am uncertain of how it should be weighted in comparison to student evaluations, due to a number of factors that could adversely affect both of them without the teacher being at fault.