Improving teacher evaluation: key issues for appraisers in a globalised era

International educational reforms have taken many forms and one of the most widespread is the emphasis on quality assurance of the teaching force. Consequently, teacher evaluation accountability policies have emerged worldwide. Policy-makers in many countries espoused the belief that improving teaching quality will lead to educational success (Barzanò & Grimaldi, 2013). More specifically, reformers promoted teacher evaluation as the best vehicle for judging quality and assuring that every classroom has a highly qualified teacher.

A look at the international literature reveals that teacher evaluation has attracted many researchers and policy-makers. Although policies vary in substance, procedures and pace of implementation, various teacher evaluation models have been implemented worldwide (OECD, 2013). Globalisation has escalated demands for accountability policies while revealing local implementation differences of those policies in practice (Barzanò & Grimaldi, 2013; Flores & Derrington, 2017; Magno, 2013). Moreover, competitive and performance-related teacher evaluation policies have been introduced and pressure to implement them has been evidenced from international organisations (OECD, 2009, 2013). Acknowledging that similar accountability policies might generate different local results, Magno (2013, p. 203) states that leaders across contexts ‘face similar challenges, demands and are increasingly interconnected through international agencies and testing regimes’. Research has demonstrated the influence of school leadership in fostering teacher learning and development (Flores, 2004) as well as the key role and the complexity of school leadership in implementing policy initiatives by making sense of them (Flores 2009, 2010, 2012; Flores & Derrington, 2017; Vekeman, Devos, & Tuytens, 2015).

A broad search for solutions extending beyond one’s local or national experience is required when pursuing effective teacher evaluation policies (Flores & Derrington, 2017).

The role of a centralised uniformity vs. local autonomy in decision-making is one of two ambiguities that are present internationally in educational policies and practices. The second, accountability in teacher evaluation vs. professional development, has also been widely debated. Coburn, Hill, and Spillane (2016) referred to this trend as the accountability/alignment era in which standards are aligned, or misaligned, with professional development opportunities. Teacher evaluation policies have clearly been a focal point of these ambiguities and a subject of much reflection and research.

The collection of articles in this special issue addresses the topic of teacher evaluation in various countries and contexts, namely Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Norway, Portugal and the USA. Collectively, the authors examine global challenges but also review context specific features of teacher evaluation in each author’s country. By examining the commonalities and distinctive features of the seven models discussed in this special issue it is possible to further explore the purposes, processes and effects of teacher evaluation policies in different parts of the world. The contributions point to the collective challenges countries experience when coping with mandated accountability vs. formative measures for assuring teacher continuous growth.

We envisioned this special issue as a way to identify shared worldwide teacher evaluation practices and problems. Studying perspectives in different contexts promotes beneficial dialogue. Understanding educational reforms through the lens of other countries’ policies may contribute to broaden our collective problem solving and expand the number of potential solutions. Magno (2013) stresses that globalisation and localisation of accountability policies is not mutually exclusive. Thus, a broad search for solutions extending beyond one’s local or national experience is required.

Following the introduction of research supporting changes in existing teacher systems, evaluation policies quickly emerged work-wide promoting accountability. Rapid implementation, however, might have unintended consequences. Thus, it is important to understand the perceived policy effects on schools and on teachers. The purpose of the special issue is, therefore, to explore lessons learned in teacher evaluation policy implementation taking into account the aims of the policies and the perceptions of effectiveness amongst the stakeholders, particularly head teachers. The following questions are explored: (i) What is the principal’s role in teacher evaluation in different countries? (ii) What functions do teacher leaders and peer teachers perform in teacher evaluation? (iii) What evaluation elements and processes have been implemented under recent accountability policies? (iv) What are the key dimensions in teacher evaluation in need of improvement? (v) What have been the major effects of teacher evaluation on teachers and schools? This set of articles included in this special issue draws on and acknowledges existing international empirical research. Moreover, it contributes to a timely and relevant topic adding a multi-national perspective and mixed-method research.

This special issue begins with the paper ‘Teacher evaluation policy as perceived by school principals: The case of Flanders (Belgium)’, by Melissa Tuytens and Geert Devos. Drawing upon both quantitative and qualitative data, collected in primary and secondary schools in Belgium (Flanders), the authors examine the ways in which Flemish head teachers perceive the new teacher evaluation policy and the influences determining their perceptions. Findings show that head teachers generally perceive the policy as clear, but they are rather negative about the need, practicality and complexity of the summative teacher evaluation. Tuytens and Devos highlight several policy-related factors: (i) the balance between accountability and alignment, (ii) the context-related factors of school learning culture and available support, and (iii) factors related to individual school head teacher that influence head teachers’ sensemaking and implementation of the new Flemish teacher evaluation policy. The authors argue that the complexity of the sensemaking process of head teachers regarding the new educational policy requires consideration of the influencing factors in policy implementation. They conclude that most participating head teachers agree that the summative component of the new teacher evaluation system is not feasible and does not contribute to better teaching quality in the school.

Similar findings are described by Maria Assunção Flores, from Portugal, in her paper ‘Teacher Evaluation in Portugal: Persisting Challenges and Perceived Effects’. Drawing upon an empirical study, she analysed head teachers’ experiences and responses to a new teacher evaluation policy in Portugal, particularly in regard to the challenges and perceived effects of the policy on school and on teacher development. Data were collected through a questionnaire including open and closed-ended questions. In total, 134 head teachers participated in the study. The author identifies a number of tensions and problems, most of which are related to the key features of the model of teacher evaluation itself such as its procedures and rubrics. Findings point to other difficulties pertaining to the lack of recognition and legitimacy of the appraisers from the part of the teachers/appraisees and to the emergence of tensions amongst staff leading to the deterioration of the school climate. Flores analyses the persisting challenges, the perceived effects on teachers and schools as well as the dilemmas of the head teachers. The article concludes with a discussion of ways forward.

In the third paper ‘High-stakes Teacher Evaluation Policy: U.S. Principals’ Perspectives and Variations in Practice’, John W. Campbell and Mary Lynne Derrington focus on head teachers’ implementation of new, rigorous, demanding, federal-grant driven, teacher evaluation policies, in a south-eastern state of the USA. The authors report the results of a longitudinal, qualitative study that examined principals’ perceived policy concerns and benefits, and the degree to which these perceptions affected implementation over time. Campbell and Derrington identify simultaneous, contrasting values and assertion of local decision-making. They also suggest that specific teacher observation requirements and common procedural expectations were generally supported, but they were implemented with some variation from school to school. The study concluded that head teachers did not appear to consistently align themselves with mandated observation protocols, and indicated differences existed between appraisers with regard to interpreting and applying the rubric and supporting the policy’s teacher effectiveness criteria. In addition, individual head teachers valued common procedures, tools, and expectations, while simultaneously engaging in autonomous, individualised, decision-making with regard to their own implementation.

The fourth paper ‘Teacher Supervision and Evaluation Challenges: Canadian Perspectives on Overall Instructional Leadership’, by Jim Brandon, Trista Hollweck, Kent Donlevy and Catherine Whalen, addresses the issue of school leadership in regard to supervision and evaluation. The authors identify three persistent obstacles to effective teacher supervision and evaluation: the management challenge, the complexity challenge and the learning challenge. Drawing upon empirical data from interviews, focus groups, field notes, documents, artefacts and reflective research journals, the authors argue for the overall instructional leadership approaches and identify four main assertions: (i) shared, distributed and collective approaches to overall instructional leadership deepen and widen impact; (ii) effective supervision and evaluation are part of a career-long continuum of practice that fosters teacher growth while ensuring quality teaching; (iii) multiple learning pathways exist for effective overall instructional leadership and (iv) policy contexts that place teacher supervision and evaluation practice within a broader conception of overall instructional leadership are beneficial.

In the fifth paper ‘Teaching evaluation: Antecedents of teachers’ perceived usefulness of follow-up sessions and stress’, Eli Lejonberg, Eyvind Elstad and Knut-Andreas Christophersen examine teaching evaluation based on student feedback which has been recently introduced in Norway. The authors focus on the follow-up sessions conducted after the appraisal process. Based on an empirical study carried out in one county in Norway, Lejonberg, Elstad and Christophersen analyse the stress that teachers experience throughout the evaluation process and claim that, although existing literature recognises the relevance of follow-up sessions for professional development, few studies have focused on their usefulness as perceived by the teachers involved. Thus, the authors explore the antecedents of teachers’ perceived usefulness of follow-up sessions and the stress of being evaluated. Findings show that the perceived developmental purposes of teaching evaluation, positive regard of the person conducting follow-up sessions and clear communication from leaders are positively related to teachers’ perceived usefulness of follow-up sessions. In addition, higher levels of perceived control purposes are related to higher levels of reported stress amongst the evaluated teachers.

The sixth paper by Beatrice Avalos, ‘Teacher Evaluation in Chile: Highlights and Complexities in Thirteen Years of Experience’, addresses the development of teacher evaluation system over 13 years, including the steps and procedures developed for its establishment and acceptance by teachers. The Chilean evaluation system began in 2004 following a long process of discussions amongst the main stakeholders. The author examines evidence from a variety of data sources, including research and external reports from OECD, namely in terms of its strengths and shortcomings, as well as the challenges ahead. In general, tensions between formative and summative purposes were identified, both in the nature of the instruments used and in the processing of the information.

Finally, Janet Clinton and Georgia Dawson, from Australia, in their paper ‘Enfranchising the profession through evaluation: A story from Australia’, provide a description of current processes and foundations of teacher evaluation in their country. They focus, in particular, on what they term innovative evaluative tools, specifically the Visible Classroom and the Teacher Capability Assessment Tool (TCAT) which aim at enhancing and supporting teacher evaluation in the Australian context and at developing teachers’ evaluative thinking. Clinton and Dawson recognise that the connection of the added value of teacher evaluation to the quality of teaching is lacking resulting in a gap between policy and practice. Advocating the need to building an ‘evaluative mindset’, the authors reinforce the practice of teachers as evaluators. They suggest that teacher evaluation systems must be used to support teacher career long progression while also enhancing student learning and achievement.

Significant issues across countries

These articles provide points to ponder and lessons to learn in teacher evaluation gleaned from a study of the differences and commonalities amongst them. Although the contexts are different in some details, in other ways the implementation of a new teacher evaluation system resulted in similar concerns and perceptions. Thus, by contributing to the collective understanding of evaluation reforms and the leadership challenges of policy implementation, we might also identify potential pitfalls to avoid.

Authors of these papers collectively raise significant questions that require more attention and discussion. Perhaps the overarching question in search of an answer is the dilemma apparent when a teacher evaluation system has two simultaneous purposes: accountability and improvement. The ambiguities and tensions produced by the merging of the two functions are documented internationally (OECD, 2013). Head teachers frequently face conflict with staff threatening a positive school climate when the incompatibility of a summative accountability collides with formative improvement assistance (Flores, 2018). An attempt to resolve this dilemma is not recent and in fact has been debated for decades (Beck & Murphy, 1993; Hoy & Forsyth, 1986). Even though this debate has decades of history, the balance between accountability and alignment is still a contemporary issue we see in these papers that it has yet to be resolved (Tuytens & Devos, 2017). The accountability purpose as evidenced in the summative evaluation process of a new teacher evaluation system, these authors assert, is not feasible and does not contribute to better teaching quality in schools. Adding a 13 year view of teacher evaluation complexities, Beatrice Avalos points out that the tensions between formative and summative purposes occur not only in concept but in the nature of the instruments used and in the processing of the information. As a consequence, the tools of supervision and evaluation are also subject of debate. As pointed to in the USA and Australian articles, the standards or rubrics provide a needed common language (OECD, 2013). However, when inconsistently or unfairly applied, the process itself might be seen as lacking integrity (Campbell & Derrington, 2017).

A further examination of evaluation vs. supervision might be useful to this discussion. Supervision has long been defined as behaviours that help teachers improve instruction (Olivia, 1976). Consequently, supervision might be conducted by a wide-range of personnel including instructional coaches, department chairs, and colleagues. The summative evaluation on the other hand is viewed as a human resource decision-making function with goals such as a decision to tenure, dismiss or reward teachers (Olivia, 1976). Thus, who evaluates is a question answered by a school system’s definition of supervision and evaluation. If one believes that head teachers have the authority over teacher employment, then they would be responsible for summative evaluation. Supervision, the helping behaviours of improving instruction, might be done by many other including peers, and perhaps as introduced by the Norwegian researchers, students. However, this approach raises other dilemmas when the role of some appraisers might be questionable in some contexts, namely in regard to peer evaluation (Flores, 2018).

This collection of papers points to the problem of conflict or role confusion when the head teacher assumes the role of both supervisor and evaluator of the teacher. Research results lead us to question whether the head teacher can simultaneously serve as both the summative evaluator who makes employment decisions and the supervisor who helps teachers improve. The difficult problem of separating head teacher helping behaviours from evaluating function began decades earlier (Goldhammer, Anderson, & Krajewski, 1980) and remains a critical issue today. A resolution to this long-standing tension might appear hopeless. However, the value of this collection of articles was not only to identify dilemmas but to propose solutions. Australian authors Clinton and Dawson propose that developing a ‘teacher evaluative mindset’ along with providing appropriate tools and evidence can shift control of improvement to teachers themselves. Canadian authors, Brandon, Halleck, Donlevy and Whalen, addressing the supervision-evaluation tension point to school leadership’s potential to resolve this long-standing issue through developing instructional leadership that is shared, supportive, and informed using multi-sources of evidence to make professional judgements.

There apparently are no easy answers to some of the teacher evaluation tensions and often contradictory purposes of accountability and improvement. Our goal in this special issue was to open the dialogue and invite others to join in the research conversation. Clearly many tensions in teacher evaluation will not be resolved until accountability and improvement become a seamless piece of working with teachers.

Note: Terminology varies by country and we use them interchangeably such as use of principal or head teacher and evaluation or appraisal.

Maria Assunção Flores
University of Minho, Portugal
[email protected] Lynne Derrington
University of Tennessee, USA