By Adrian E. Palazuelos and Sharon Conley
The process of performance appraisal has long been viewed as a primary source of an organization’s capacity for improvement and vitality. Formal personnel evaluation is an organizational control system that assesses whether actions taken meet organizational goals and objectives. However, informal personnel evaluation also occurs on a continuous basis by people themselves (how am I doing?) as well as supervisors and colleagues (Porter, Lawler & Hackman, 1975).
In schools, the potential for performance evaluation to improve schools is often reduced. Principals are concerned that as job demands grow increasingly intensive and complex — balancing instructional oversight and managerial responsibilities — the time they can spend in individual classrooms is limited (Pounder & Merrill, 2001).
Furthermore, an evaluation that is a “dog and pony show,” resembling a performance rather than actual instruction, restricts the kinds of useful information that can be provided. Scholars confirm what principals already know: classroom observation alone does not guarantee good evaluation (Stronge & Ostrander, 1997). Instead, an overall “supportive culture of teacher appraisal and evaluation in schools” is essential (Ingvarson & Chadbourne, 1997).
How do administrators mobilize formal and informal evaluation and a school culture to facilitate information exchange among people and improve individual performance?
In 2006, we were granted permission from Superintendent Jody Dunlap and three school principals in Oxnard Union High School District to survey and interview teachers in three high schools about their system of personnel evaluation.
In this district, a standards-based evaluation system provided teachers a choice of an administrative, peer or portfolio option (Palazuelos, 2007). The idea was that offering teachers a choice of evaluation — and stressing a self-assessment component in the evaluations — might lead to improvement in different types of formal and informal appraisal and in school culture.
The evaluation system
Oxnard Union High School District is a medium-sized high school district located in an urban coastal location. The community is a mixture of multi-generation families and recent arrivals from primarily Mexico and Latin America. It has six comprehensive high schools as well as a continuation school and a community day school.
In 1998, under a previous administration, the district adopted an evaluation system based on the California Teaching Standards and its developmental continuum, a description, performance or rubrics at five levels of teacher competency (beginning, emerging, applying, integrating and innovating). The current administration is working hard to both maintain the system and improve it over time.
The evaluation system provides the teacher with three options: to be evaluated by an administrator, to be evaluated by a peer or “partner” or to use a portfolio to demonstrate teaching proficiency.
Evaluations are conducted annually for beginning teachers and once every two years for permanent staff members.
As in many districts, the personnel evaluation system features a “clinical supervision cycle,” which includes:
1. a planning conference;
2. classroom observation(s); and
3. a feedback conference designed to provide teachers with feedback on the quality of their instruction.
Under the first two evaluation options, the evaluator — typically a principal or assistant principal or the partner — meets with the teacher prior to the classroom observation to discuss the goals and objectives of the lesson, as well as “areas of investigation” on which the teacher wants to focus.
As part of the evaluation, teachers use these areas of investigation to devote attention throughout the year. The administrator schedules and conducts the classroom observation, and then a post-observation conference during which the teacher to be evaluated is provided with feedback for improving instruction and performance.
Classroom artifacts or lesson plans are also a component of all evaluation options. Teachers in different options conduct a self-assessment as well.
• The ADMINISTRATOR OPTION follows the clinical supervision process described above, but uses only two clinical supervision cycles in the year of the teacher’s evaluation. Together with the administrator, teachers using this option also choose an area of investigation, typically a standard(s) from the developmental continuum.
• The PARTNER OPTION also follows the clinical supervision process. Partners are chosen from the same school site but not necessarily the same department. Initially, the partners meet with an administrator and agree upon an area of investigation. This meeting is followed by four clinical supervision cycles with the partner teacher in the year in which the teacher is evaluated. Teachers are responsible for writing a self-assessment, to which the principal adds comments and approval on a final summary evaluation form.
• The PORTFOLIO OPTION omits the clinical supervision process but involves a meeting between the teacher and administrator to agree upon the areas of investigation. There is one collaboration between the principal and teacher based on in-class work used to develop a portfolio selection and a reflection.
The entire evaluation process is assisted by a color-coded notebook that clearly and visibly indicates forms that teachers and/or administrators who are choosing different options must use.
In a survey of approximately 200 teachers from three high schools, teachers indicated that their choice of evaluation for the 2005-06 year (or the previous one) was fairly evenly split between the administrator option (44 percent) and the partner option (43 percent), with the portfolio option less common (10 percent).
Interestingly, survey results indicated that teachers using different options generally agreed that the evaluation conducted of them reflected good teaching and could be used to help them teach better. One interpretation of this finding is that teachers’ positive response was due to the fact that they were able to choose how they wanted to be evaluated. There was more evidence that this was true for teachers exercising the administrative or portfolio option.
Conclusions from survey results
Overall, results from surveys and interviews led to the following additional tentative conclusions:
1. Providing choice in teacher performance evaluation provides teachers a sense of control that is missing from traditional evaluations.
2. When teachers choose evaluation by administrators, it is important for teachers to have a sense of control over the content of their teaching and their setting, perhaps because of the hierarchical nature of the relationship.
3. When teachers choose evaluation by teaching partners, it is important that teachers view the partner as qualified, perhaps sharing the teacher’s area of expertise and/or interest in collaboration.
4. When teachers are being evaluated by teaching partners, a trade-off is that teachers may perceive less independence or autonomy than they would otherwise.
5. Portfolios appear a viable choice for those who want to use documentation of their activities, such as a teacher-developed language arts test, as a basis for evaluation.
To delve deeper into teacher perceptions of the evaluation system, we asked a teacher who had been a member of the initial team that developed the system and had experienced different options over the years to share her experiences.
One teacher’s perspective
A language arts teacher with more than 25 years of teaching experience shared her perceptions of personnel evaluation with us. As a veteran teacher, she had participated in all the different evaluation options, as well as the system previously in place.
She noted that then when administrators came to observe her classes, she “really had no idea what they were looking for” other than whether she had good classroom management. Over the years, she had worked with many principals who used a variety of evaluation approaches and had a feel for what their evaluation would focus on; however, it was still difficult to know “exactly what your observer would be looking for.”
With the advent of Madeline Hunter’s system for defining elements of instruction in the 1970s (Hunter, 1976), this teacher noted the evaluation process became clearer. However, demonstrating that she had an “anticipatory set” or achieved “closure” was not a big change for her, because many of the elements of instruction were stressed in her university preparation program.
The new system, by contrast, was a big change. The teacher was a member of the original team that examined different procedures schools were using, traveling to another district to examine their system. The district visited provided the initial idea of teachers having some kind of choice as to how they were going to be evaluated.
She noted that when the team introduced this idea in Oxnard, “There was not a big fight” over why they were changing the system. “People were ready for change.”
The teacher said that choice is underscored not only by the choice of evaluation option, but also by the self-assessment that is done by each teacher. Teachers are encouraged to do the self-assessment, and although they have to sign off that they did it, they don’t have to show it to anyone. This teacher felt that the self-assessment paves the way for teachers to identify an area of investigation the teacher would like to explore for his or her own professional development.
Meeting the standards
She indicated that she had also chosen the administrative option the first year, “just to see what it was like.” She found that it was similar to the other options except that administrators were “looking at my plans and observing me, asking ‘why have you done this?’” She noted that having to come up with a work product that she and her administrator agreed met standards was a “very good assignment.”
She also shared her thoughts about working with a partner.
“I worked with [a vocational] teacher. ... [Because I was a language arts teacher], we went way outside of our normal boundaries. But I learned so much about how he managed his classroom, and he learned about how I managed my classroom. I was blown away by the amount of writing that he had his students do — note-taking and writing. And when he came to my class I think [he was blown away by] the amount of reading that I had my students do ... He said he would see my students in his class with their novels and when they would have spare time they would get out the novels and be reading them — and he knew why … So it was a great collaboration for me to see him in his element and him to see me in my element.”
Finally, she spoke of her experience with the portfolio option, which she said she enjoyed very much. One of the elements she used was the benchmark testing the district had just instituted. “[I wanted to help] students understand the tests. So when we would get a benchmark test back, I had a one-on-one with each student. They had to highlight what standards they had met and then they had to write a note home to the parents saying, ‘these were my results.’ The parents had to sign it and bring it back. … The kids knew how they were going to be tested, when they were going to be tested, and the parents also knew how and when.”
She concluded with some thoughts about what other districts could do that were considering a personnel evaluation system for teachers that emphasizes choice.
“Make sure that everyone understands what the process is about. And if it’s a drastic change, make sure everyone understands what a powerful tool [it is]. Go for the positives, have them explain how important the choice is and how important the documentation is. Make sure every administrator who is going to be monitoring the program understands every single part of it. And make sure the teachers understand what their responsibilities are. And it’s that whole thing about choice and consequences. Choices have responsibilities. Communicate with everybody and monitor everybody.”
Maximizing the benefits of evaluation
This brief look at the personnel evaluation system in Oxnard Union High School District indicates that choice appeared to provide much potential in maximizing the formal and informal benefits of evaluation. The formal requirement that teachers identify areas of investigation tied to standards was perceived by many to improve their teaching. Teachers could document what they are doing that fit the teaching standards, thereby providing quality information at evaluation time.
For example, an agenda for Back-to-School night that demonstrated parent communication, the postings of classroom rules, and lessons dealing with rules and/or respect could all be highlighted and the link to standards made explicit.
The choice of options for formal evaluation also helped ensure that choices fit individual teachers’ preferences.
The personnel evaluation system also seemed to help informal dimensions of performance appraisal. Self assessments provide a way to monitor oneself not only at assessment time, but also throughout the year. A partner option, even if only chosen once, seems likely to forge close relationships between teachers that could continue to pay dividends over time.
Remaining questions
Some questions remain. Oxnard Union High School District’s experience with offering choice to teachers in evaluation raises some issues about teacher evaluation generally. How much choice is enough to ensure an evaluation that meets teachers’ needs but is simple enough so that it can be clearly communicated and implemented to all personnel?
In this district, this challenge was helped by extensive color-coded documentation (used for each type of evaluation) and ongoing communication among all parties.
Another question is, how can a choice-driven system not add to what are already intensive work demands for administrators and teachers? In this setting, administrators appear able to use their time well in targeting chosen modes of evaluation (observation, discussion of partner results, discussion of portfolio), perhaps using time more efficiently. The alleviation of the need to evaluate everyone in the same way may also have lessened time demands.
Food for thought
For teachers, affirming what they were already doing as a basis for further evaluation and improvement, rather than “reinventing the wheel,” also seemed beneficial.
Hopefully, the accumulation of experience in this district system and in others will offer ongoing food for thought for improving and revitalizing personnel evaluation systems as we know them.
References
Hunter, M.C. (1976). Improved instruction. El Segundo CA: TIP Publications.
Ingvarson, L. & Chadbourne, R. (1997). “Reforming teachers’ pay systems: The advanced skill teacher in Australia.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11(1), 7-30.
Palazuelos, A.E. (2007). Teacher control over evaluation. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Porter, L.; Lawler, E.E. & Hackman, J.R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pounder, D.G. & Merrill, R. (2001). “Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective.” Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 25-57.
Stronge, J.H. & Ostrander, L.P. (1997). “Client surveys in teacher evaluation.” In Stronge, J.H. (Ed.) Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice. (pp. 129-161) Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Adrian E. Palazuelos is principal of Charles Blackstock Junior High School in Hueneme School District. Sharon Conley is a professor of education at University of California, Santa Barbara.