Comparing Apples to Oranges

A friend recently wrote to me on the subject of standardized teacher evaluations:

"Just musing, but maybe there needs to be some standardization with respect to teacher evaluations.  I am generally of the opinion that each community knows best and that standardization means more bureaucracy, but it would be nice to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.  What do you think?  Please be brutally honest."

This was my reply... 

That's an excellent question. There's certainly a strong push towards developing objective, universal standards that can be used to compare teachers across districts, states, etc.

My biggest problem with this idea is that "teacher effectiveness" depends to a considerable extent on the quality of the teaching environment. Do teachers receive appropriate administrative support and training? Do they have opportunities to collaborate with and learn from more experienced teachers? (I am very much of the opinion that most good teachers are made and not born.)

Class size, and especially the students themselves vary enormously. (Are they hungry? Are they being bullied? What's going on at home?)  Is there adequate heat, light, books?  Obviously, the "climate" for teaching and learning varies considerably from school to school. Even the "effectiveness" of an individual teacher can vary significantly from year to year, depending on the students in his/her class. (Ask any teacher.) And how do you evaluate teachers when students have more than one, or enter a class mid-year, or...?

So, I am deeply skeptical that an evaluation rubric could be developed that even begins to account for all these factors. The better approach is to have teacher evaluations occur at the school/district level, where principals have been trained as "educational leaders", responsible for establishing best practices across the faculty. And rather than having teachers compete against each other, they should be developing a climate in which teachers are encouraged - and have the time - to share with each other what they have found to work, and what doesn't.

The focus should be on helping teachers to get better at what they do. As long as it's not punitive, other teachers (and even students, who can be quite good at identifying good teaching) can, and should, have significant roles in the evaluation process.  (The principal can't be everywhere.)

Those are my thoughts. Have I been brutally honest? The idea of 'standardized teacher evaluations' sounds appealing, but it's deeply wishful thinking.

A few more thoughts since then:

A recent report from the New Teacher Center emphasizes the extent to which school leadership, opportunities for teacher collaboration, and customized professional development impact teacher success - with particular significance for hard-to-staff schools. High-quality induction programs can help transform these schools into strong professional communities where educators actually want to stay and work.

A must read: Diane Ravitch's scathing criticsm of the NYC DoE decision to release its teacher evaluation data, despite its egregrious unreliability, and their explicit assurances in 2008 to the contrary.

Bill Gates, in his NYTimes editorial, was among those who pointed out that the decision was counter-productive to improving teacher effectiveness.

Also worth reading: Grading the Teachers

Anthony Cody's excellent blog:

And finally, Linda Darling-Hammond's piece in EdWeek: Value-Added Evaluation Hurts Teaching