Search

The logic behind "continuous improvement" sounds simple--but it takes a skillful leader to make the process pay off. While the logic behind the popular "continuous improvement" process seems simple, the authors' study of schools using approaches based on continuous improvement revealed that skilled leadership is as important as that logic in bringing lasting change. They show, with examples from case studies, three things school leaders did to spur continuous improvement: forge common purpose; be flexible rather than "implement with fidelity;" and develop key dispositions in school adults.

When classroom observations are grounded in curiosity, they're more likely to give teachers the feedback they need--and want, write Sean Conner and Jennifer Froehle. Thoughtful questioning (over telling and directing) prompts teachers to construct their own understanding of strengths, needs, and next steps.

What information addresses teachers' greatest concerns and actually has value to improve their impact on student learning? Thomas Guskey and Laura Link share new research that points to five characteristics for effective instructional feedback.

Through Project I4 (which aims to lift academic discourse in STEM classes), principals and other school leaders who observe faculty use tools to identify, through evidence and clear criteria, what teachers are doing well and less well. The project's tools, including a post-observation Effective Conversation Guide, address aspects of equity (such as whether all students get a chance to speak) and rigor in lessons observed by leaders.

School leaders need to be able to give and receive feedback--to give it skillfully to teachers, and to receive it skillfully from, well, everyone. Most educators agree that feedback can be necessary and helpful--yet the unending cascade of new directives governing feedback often feel like a waste of time. In this article, the authors offer guidelines for how school leaders can both give and receive feedback. When giving feedback, they say, it's important to separate coaching from evaluation. When coaching and evaluation come from the same person in the same time frame, the evaluation component tends to hijack the recipient's attention. When receiving feedback (from parents, students, teachers, or peers), school leaders should take charge of their own learning by listening with an open mind and heart. It's important to look for the parts of the feedback that are useful and to make sure you understand what the feedback-giver means. When school leaders make it clear that they not only welcome feedback but demand it, they can establish a positive schoolwide feedback culture.

How are teachers experiencing the more rigorous teacher evaluation systems that many states have mandated in recent years? Donaldson, who has studied teacher evaluation reform over the past eight years, shares insights from a study of 14 Connecticut districts that have implemented the state's 2012 teacher evaluation reforms. In surveys and interviews with hundreds of educators, she found that teachers favored the general aims of evaluation reform. They wanted to raise standards for professional practice and they favored using multiple measures of teacher performance. They valued the feedback they received from more frequent observations and post-observation conferences--but they noted that principals were struggling to find the time to provide this feedback. They also shared that the new evaluation systems were causing tension, stress, and anxiety. The author fears that the demands of new teacher evaluation systems will lead many schools to revert to the traditional, ineffective model--and she urges schools to learn from experience and remain committed to implementing reforms.

Today's teachers and administrators are caught in a squeeze of conflicting demands. And evaluation guru Charlotte Danielson fears that teacher evaluation, as it's often implemented today, is making things worse. In schools where teacher evaluation has become simply a matter of numbers, ratings, and rankings, it may be undermining the very professionalism that's essential to positive learning environments for students. Danielson cautions that evaluation must include self-assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversation. But even evaluation systems that include these components, she writes, should not be used as a school's main engine of teacher improvement. Instead, school principals should establish the school as a community of practice--a place of learning for adults as well as students--by (1) creating a safe, yet challenging environment, (2) establishing the expectation that colleagues will continually learn from one another, and (3) supporting teacher leadership.

Improving the teacher workforce is now high on the education policy agenda, and most policymakers draw on research to inform their positions about teacher quality. Many policymakers cite the "fact" that, in general, teachers don't improve their effectiveness after their first five years in the classroom. However, recent research shows that the reality is more nuanced, and that many teachers do show improvement in their teaching ability throughout their careers. The authors present findings from their recent study showing that, over 10 years, the test scores of students of particular teachers increased, indicating that these teachers' skills were increasing throughout this 10-year period. Papay and Kraft also found that teachers vary a lot in how much they improve over time, and that teachers in some schools improved more, implying that school conditions play a role in promoting or constraining teacher growth. The authors discuss, and provide examples of, four levers schools or districts can use to promote long-term teacher improvement: peer collaboration, teacher evaluation, tailored on-the-job training, and organizational supports.

Richard DuFour, a leading advocate for creating professional learning communities in schools, shares his insights on why teaching has become an "embattled profession" and the steps teachers and school leaders can take to enhance teachers' practice and their working lives. DuFour explains how recent reforms aimed at educators themselves have disempowered teachers and how teachers are being scapegoated as the reasons U.S. students aren't achieving more--although, by many indicators, schools are getting the best results they ever have. Drawing on his experiences using PLCs to improve schools--as a high school principal, superintendent, and consultant--DuFour describes the best ways to create conditions for true teacher collaboration and leadership, which enhance teachers' professional lives and morale as well as student achievement.

We all have emotional responses that affect what we do; teachers see all kinds of emotions emerge from students. Despite this fact some teachers think their purpose is to teach content and skills only, not to deal with the touchy-feely stuff. Rick Wormeli encourages teachers to develop constructive responses to their own affective needs and equip students to do the same. Borrowing the premise from Steven Covey (1989), but diverging significantly from it, he offers these seven habits of highly affective teachers: (1) Find joy in others' success; (2) Cultivate perspective and reframe; (3) Ditch the easy caricature; (4) Explore the ethics of teaching; (5) Embrace humility; (6) Value intellect; and (7) Maintain passion and playfulness. To these habits he adds an eighth that will help teachers sustain their practice of the other seven: Self-renew. Together, all of these habits can create a feeling of emotional wellness, and enable teachers and students to move in a positive direction.

Both speaking and listening are essential to effective communication. Unfortunately, meaningful two-way exchanges are largely absent from conversations about improving professional practice. Instead, many teachers say that they feel the observation and evaluation process is something that is done "to" them--at the post-observation conference, the supervisor recounts how the lesson went, and then the teacher signs off on a form that will be copied and placed in his or her box later that day. In this article, Shelly Arneson describes how school leaders can shift evaluation conversations from an inspection mode to a reflection mode. Recommendations include narrowing the topic of the conversation to a couple of key practices and focusing on evidence gathered during the lesson observation; being willing to admit that you don't have all the answers and that the goal is to learn and grow together; listening as much as you speak; using effective body language; and using open-ended questions and targeted feedback that invite dialogue instead of shutting it down. Evaluation conferences based on a reflection stance, writes Arneson, are more likely to improve professional practice.

When it comes to professional practice, getting a clear picture of how you're teaching in the classroom is easier said than done. The instructional coaches and teachers whom the author interviewed as part of a study on using video in professional development were, in almost all cases, surprised by what they saw in a video of them teaching. In many cases, they were shocked. Drawing on his research, the author suggests that when video is used in a manner that respects the professionalism of teachers, it can have a positive effect on teaching and learning because it provides a clear picture of reality and a way for measuring progress toward a goal. The author presents four ways that schools can use video: 1) in instructional coaching, 2) in teacher evaluation, 3) with teams, and 4) individually as teachers coach themselves. Knight also warns education leaders not to push the use of video in a heavy-handed, compulsory way. "That's a recipe for disaster," he writes. Knight suggests six guidelines school leaders need to follow to ensure the productive use of video in their professional development efforts.

In the last few years, all but a few U.S. states have rushed to enact tougher teacher evaluation systems. Spurred by the incentives offered by two federal education initiatives--Race to the Top and the ESEA Flexibility Program--these states have designed teacher evaluation systems designed to "remove ineffective tenured and untenured teachers." Unfortunately, many of these new systems have serious flaws that result in inaccurate and unfair evaluation ratings. In this article, W. James Popham and Marguerita DeSander consider whether the courts are likely to protect teachers who have been unjustly fired or denied salary increases under such systems--and their answer is a resounding no. The courts have historically refused to substitute their judgment for that of a school board--as illustrated by a Florida case described in the article.

One of the failings of teacher evaluation systems in the United States has been their reliance on the school principal alone as the person expected to observe teachers, mentor those who struggle, document concerns and processes, and make the final call on whether to recommend dismissal. Given the enormous scope of their duties, it's simply unfeasible for principals to give the level of attention needed to supporting and evaluating teachers. One solution to this problem is peer assistance and review (PAR) programs, which rely on highly expert mentor teachers to conduct some aspects of the evaluation and provide assistance to teachers who need it. The PAR system includes two key features: (1) the expertise of consulting teachers, skilled teachers who have released time to serve as mentors to support fellow teachers in the same subject areas and grade levels, and (2) a system of due process and review that involves a panel of both teachers and administrators who recommend personnel decisions based on evidence from the evaluations. The majority of intervention candidates improve. Those who don't improve leave teaching without extended legal proceedings because due process is built into the design of the model. Engaging expert teachers through programs like PAR can help districts build systems that link evaluation, professional development, and collegial learning.

Imagine a school with no principal and with a leadership structure that holds teachers accountable for the learning of all students. About 50 such teacher-led schools currently operate across the United States, and this article tells the story of one of them. The Mathematics and Science Leadership Academy (MSLA) in Denver, Colorado, serves about 300 students in grades K-5. Ninety-five percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and 70 percent are English language learners. Lori Nazareno, a teacher at the school, points out that teachers today are often held accountable for things over which they have no control. MLSA attracts the most highly skilled teachers by giving them authority and autonomy to make authentic decisions on behalf of students. Nazareno describes how the school's teacher teams, peer observation and evaluation, and emphasis on service learning and passion areas have helped spread ownership of learning throughout the school staff. She also describes the challenges that teacher-led face--especially those like MLSA, which has chosen to operate within the district rather than as a charter school.

So much has changed in the last 30 years. Diversity is on the verge of extinction--diversity of curriculum, instructional practices, and assessment. The nation is moving into an era that will link Common Core standards with a Common Core curriculum taught by teachers who will assess student learning through a slate of Common Core exams and be evaluated with a common rubric that uses scores on these exams as measures of teacher quality. Some think this is progress. The authors don't. They think it deflects energy away from opportunities for building a collegial professional culture aimed at real teaching and learning. They point out that the Common Core State Standards Initiative is not the solution for what ails education; standardization can never be the solution. In place of the current initiative, they propose using the common standards to support cultures within schools that put teacher professionalism and student learning at the center. The standards themselves can enhance professional conversations about teaching and learning. The power and efficacy of the programs that schools offer students derive from the knowledge constructed in such conversations, and are built on trusting relationships that revolve around the core mission of schooling: to light up children's worlds with opportunities for learning.

In 2010, after several years of strong opposition from teachers, the South Korean government announced a new teacher evaluation system--Evaluation of Teacher Professional Development--which would be required for all teachers. The new system seeks to foster teacher professional development and, consequently, improve the quality of education. Whereas the traditional system relied exclusively on the principal's judgment of teacher performance, the new system involves multiple evaluations conducted by multiple evaluators. For example, in the required peer review, at least three teachers and the school principal assess their colleague's practices. The system also calls for student surveys, in which students in grades 4-12 assess their teachers, as well as parent surveys, in which parents evaluate their children's teachers. Evaluators score the teacher in a variety of competencies using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest. According to research (Kim & Kim, 20112) conducted on the effects of the new teacher evaluation system, a majority of teachers felt it had little effect on their professional growth. In this article, the author shares what educators in South Korea have learned about their new national teacher evaluation program and how they are trying to fix it.

These days, everyone seems to be wringing their hands about how to construct new evaluation systems that will make teachers better. This unnecessary angst has led to crazy experiments in reform that have embraced churn for the sake of churn, put school districts at risk, and demoralized many of the most talented teachers. A few school districts, however, have resisted panic, pressures, and fads. Instead, they have invested in models that work. The District of Columbia Public Schools has been at the forefront of a risky, six-year adventure in "bold" reform. The centerpiece of the reform is IMPACT, a teacher evaluation system that has been both lauded and criticized. It's been a rocky ride. The new teacher evaluation approach was implemented in 2009 under mayoral control. The mayor under whose watch it was initiated was defeated in his reelection bid, and schools chancellor Michelle Rhee resigned in 2010. But the reform agenda has continued largely unchanged until this year, although its track record is, at best, mixed. Right next door in Maryland, Montgomery County Public Schools' teacher evaluation model is in its second generation after 12 years. The author taught in the county and then represented teachers when the district administration and the teachers union collaborated in crafting the new teacher evaluation system. Over the years, Montgomery County's system has produced rich evidence of success. Most important, the collaborative relationships established between the administration and the teachers union have enabled the district to continue to refine what works. Far from being an objective observer, the author has been intimately involved in the efforts in both districts, with a close-up view of how these teacher evaluation reforms were developed and how they are perceived by the workforce. He believes that a comparison of their track records shows that one approach is actually better. Such a comparison enables districts to distill a set of principles that are crucial to the success of teacher evaluation systems. (Contains 1 endnote.)

Recently, two of the authors (Amrein-Beardsley & Collins, 2012) studied the impact of Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS), a value-added model used to judge Houston teachers' performance. They examined the cases of four teachers who were terminated in summer 2011, at least in part because of their subpar EVAAS scores. Talking to these and other Houston teachers, they uncovered some unintended consequences of EVAAS's implementation. By implementing its value-added model, Houston Independent School District has created a system that is deterring some teachers from teaching in classrooms in which they are most prepared to teach. Houston teachers who have the opportunity to change teaching positions are becoming savvy about moving out of subject areas in which value-added measurement matters, moving to the grades in which it is easiest to show growth, or teaching students who are likely to test well. Although this study does not fully negate the possible benefits of value-added measures, it does call into question the purported benefits of using such measures for high-stakes decision making. (Contains 1 figure.)

As many states and districts rethink teacher supervision and evaluation, the team at the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has analyzed thousands of lesson videotapes and studied the shortcomings of current practices. The tentative conclusion: Teachers should be evaluated on three factors--classroom observations, student achievement gains, and feedback from students. The use of multiple measures is meant to compensate for the imperfections of each individual measure and produce more accurate and helpful evaluations (Kane & Cantrell, 2012). This approach makes sense, but its effectiveness will depend largely on how classroom observations, achievement data, and student feedback are used. As states and districts rethink their teacher evaluation policies, the author urges them to consider the enhancements to classroom observations, the use of achievement data, and student input that he suggests in this article. He believes these practices will give teachers a stronger voice, use principals' time more effectively, and make teacher evaluation a real player in dramatically improving teaching and learning.

Critics of the public release of teacher evaluation scores sometimes liken these ratings to the scarlet letter worn by Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic novel. The comparison is apt. But public school teachers who are subjected to public shaming because of their students' test scores can rarely expect the opportunities for redemption offered to Prynne, whose humility and good works over time changed the meaning of her scarlet A from "Adulteress" to "Able." U.S. political and economic leaders say that serious problems require bold action. In the realm of public education, this has meant a rapid expansion of systems intended to hold schools and teachers accountable for student performance. Such accountability has been applied to schools for 10 years under No Child Left Behind. But there is still considerable debate over whether individual teachers should face public accountability for the results of their evaluations. After all, personnel evaluations in most sectors of the economy are viewed as a private matter between employer and employee. Should it be any different for teachers? In this article, the author points out that the public release of teacher evaluation scores is unfair and misleading--and it provides little useful information for parents. In spite of the inherent uncertainty in teacher evaluations, policymakers want to treat the evaluation measures as though they are infallible and use them to place teachers in rigid boxes, labeling them as good teachers or poor teachers. Policymakers and the media treat these labels as definitive, but the raw material being stuffed into the boxes will rarely fit in one box without spilling over into the adjacent ones. If states and school districts insist on publicizing individual teachers' evaluation scores--slapping a metaphorical scarlet A on some teachers and a stamp of approval on others--the only fair thing to do is to admit that the scarlet letter is fuzzy, a bit out of focus. Anything else is bad fiction.

In 2009, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the investigation of a $45 million question: How can we identify and develop effective teaching? Now that the findings from their Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project have been released, it's clear they asked a simpler question, namely, What other measures match up well with value-added data? Although the authors don't question the utility of using evidence of student learning to inform teacher development, they suggest that a better question would not assume that value-added scores are the only existing knowledge about effectiveness in teaching. Rather, a good question would build on existing research and investigate how to increase the amount and intensity of effective instruction. The following questions get to the heart of any discussion about effective teacher evaluation tools: (1) Do evaluation tools inspire responsive teaching or defensive conformity?; (2) Do evaluation tools reflect goals for public education?; (3) Do evaluation tools encourage teachers to use text in meaningful ways?; (4) Do evaluation tools spark meaningful conversations with teachers?; and (5) Do evaluation tools promote valuable education experiences?

Value-added models are a specific type of "growth model," a diverse group of statistical techniques to isolate a teacher's impact on his or her students' testing progress while controlling for other measurable factors, such as student and school characteristics, that are outside that teacher's control. Opponents, including many teachers, argue that value-added models are unreliable and invalid and have absolutely no business at all in teacher evaluations, especially high-stakes evaluations that guide employment and compensation decisions. Supporters, in stark contrast, assert that teacher evaluations are only meaningful if these measures are a heavily weighted component. But despite the confidence on both sides, there is virtually no empirical evidence as to whether using value-added or other growth models--the types of models being used vary from state to state--in high-stakes evaluations can improve teacher performance or student outcomes. The reason is simple: It has never really been tried before. It will probably be several years before there is solid initial evidence on whether and how the various new evaluation systems work in practice. By themselves, value-added data are neither good nor bad. It is how one uses them that matters. This article offers recommendations on how districts that are required to use value-added measures can ensure that they do so responsibly: (1) Avoid mandating universally high weights for value-added measures; (2) Pay attention to all components of the evaluation; (3) Don't ignore error--address it; and (4) Continually monitor results and evaluate the evaluations.

Peer review of teachers is controversial for several reasons. Some say peer reviewers encroach on the rightful domain of the principal as instructional leader. Others argue that, because peer evaluators are fellow teachers, they may be biased or unwilling to make hard decisions. Many teachers find the prospect of peer evaluation unsettling because it violates the professional norm of egalitarianism--the assumption that "we're all equal." Some traditional teacher unionists reject peer review as a plan that sets teachers against one another. Now that districts across the United States are rushing to implement new evaluation systems, many are taking a new look at peer review. They have good reason to do so. Peer evaluators can reduce the demand on administrators' scarce time, provide subject-matter expertise that a principal may lack, introduce the teacher's perspective into the evaluation process, and enable teachers to take greater control of their profession. Does peer review have the potential to be used widely and to improve teacher evaluation? Or is it too problematic to succeed and last? A look at seven districts' Peer Assistance and Review programs shows what it takes for this approach to succeed. The experiences of these districts suggest that peer review can work well if key components are in place: open and rigorous selection, clear performance guidelines, explicit instructional standards, ongoing training, and effective supervision. (Contains 1 endnote.)

Classroom observation is a crucial aspect of any system of teacher evaluation. No matter how skilled a teacher is in other aspects of teaching--such as careful planning, working well with colleagues, and communicating with parents--if classroom practice is deficient, that individual cannot be considered a good teacher. Classroom observations can foster teacher learning--if observation systems include crucial components and observers know what to look for. Virtually every state requires observations of teaching as a significant contributor to high-stakes judgments about teacher quality. To be defensible, the systems that yield these observations must have clear standards of practice, instruments and procedures through which teachers can demonstrate their skill, and trained and certified observers who can make accurate and consistent judgments based on evidence. In addition, it's possible to design approaches to classroom observation that yield important learning for teachers by incorporating practices associated with professional learning--namely, self-assessment, reflection on practice, and professional conversation. When these practices are put into place, classroom observation can make a dramatic contribution to the culture of a school. (Contains 2 endnotes.)

Like high-stakes student assessment, high-stakes teacher evaluation threatens to be an occasional event that is disconnected from day-to-day teaching and learning, producing results that do not help teachers improve their performance and placing teachers in a passive role as recipients of external judgment. For several years, the authors have worked with teams of teachers, helping them develop their capacity for self-assessment using two prominent, comprehensive frameworks for effective practice: Robert Marzano's Art and Science of Teaching model (2007) and Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching (2007). Both of these models systematically describe various components of research-based effective classroom practices. Through this work, the authors have come to understand that as valuable as such comprehensive frameworks can be, it's not enough to simply put them in place as rubrics that supervisors use to rate teachers' effectiveness. Just as students need to be actively involved and empowered as partners in classroom assessment (Stiggins, 2004), teachers need to be actively involved and empowered as leaders in the formative use of the tools that will be the basis for their own summative evaluation. The most effective supervision and evaluation systems empower teachers to accurately assess their own practice and self-diagnose areas for growth. In such systems, teachers use comprehensive frameworks throughout the school year to collect data related to their teaching, reflect on their practice, and identify specific instructional strategies they can work on to improve their repertoire of skills. The school culture in such systems supports teachers by recognizing the need for improvement as an asset rather than a liability. Some of the beliefs that are central to such supervision and evaluation systems are highlighted.

States, districts, and schools all across the United States are busy developing or implementing teacher evaluation systems. One can trace this flurry of activity to a variety of reports and initiatives that highlight two failings of past efforts: (1) Teacher evaluation systems have not accurately measured teacher quality because they've failed to do a good job of discriminating between effective and ineffective teachers; and (2) teacher evaluation systems have not aided in developing a highly skilled teacher workforce. Although efforts to move quickly in designing and implementing more effective teacher evaluation systems are laudable, it is important to acknowledge a crucial issue--that "measuring" teachers and "developing" teachers are different purposes with different implications. An evaluation system designed primarily for measurement will look quite different from a system designed primarily for development. Both measurement and development are important aspects of teacher evaluation. When measurement is the primary purpose, a small set of elements is sufficient to determine a teacher's skill in the classroom. However, if the emphasis is on teacher development, the model needs to be both comprehensive and specific and focus on the teacher's growth in various instructional strategies. These distinctions are crucial to the effective design and implementation of current and future teacher evaluation systems. (Contains 1 figure.)

School districts have typically not done a good job of managing the human side of teacher evaluation. In general, neither supervisors nor teachers find performance assessment a constructive, interpersonally respectful experience. District leaders can cultivate high-quality teaching--and attend to the human side of assessment--by taking five crucial steps. They should (1) include teachers in designing the performance evaluation system; (2) protect opportunities to learn and grow; (3) ensure that principals and coaches are skilled at observing and consulting with teachers; (4) ensure that principals' workloads have sufficient time built in for teacher evaluation; and (5) make instructional improvement a clear district priority.

In this wide-ranging interview with Educational Leadership, Stanford University Professor of Education Linda Darling-Hammond discusses the kind of preparation and support new teachers need to survive their critical first years in the classroom. Among her central recommendations are more intensive mentoring that lasts through the first year of teaching; solid preparation that meshes field work with course work; and attracting the right kind of candidates by investing in development programs and paying costs for candidates to get preparation. She also weighs the pros and cons of alternative models of preparation against the reason they exist. In conclusion, she comments on the current teacher-bashing and test reliance that are creating an "anti-profession" and undermining the enterprise of teaching. (Contains 5 endnotes.)

Evaluation and coaching should not be linked, these authors argue. Although it's tempting for evaluators to identify deficiencies and then specify coaching as a remediation strategy, doing so turns coaching into a consequence of a poor evaluation and termination into a consequence of failed coaching. Another mistake is to use coaching as a data source for evaluation, for example, when an administrator asks a coach for information regarding teacher performance. Tying evaluation and coaching together in these ways compromises both functions. At their best, evaluation and coaching should proceed on separate but complementary tracks. Coaching supports excellence by tapping into five crucial factors: consciousness, connection, competence, contribution, and creativity. In addition, research shows that coaching in schools can best improve teacher practice when it's teacher-centered, no-fault, and strengths-based.

Even the most effective teachers have room to grow, but it's not always easy for principals to give adequate guidance through short observations. High school principal Jenne Colasacco decided to bring more depth to her observations by observing each of her teachers during one class for an entire week. The new observation structure, which included conferences at the beginning, middle, and end of the week, enabled Colasacco to give feedback and then see how teachers implemented her suggestions. Teachers appreciated the more comprehensive feedback. This article addresses teacher evaluations and observation.

According to Frederick Hess, the point of rethinking pay is not to bribe teachers into working harder, but to redefine the contours of education so the profession can attract and retain good teachers. Traditional step-and-lane pay is ill suited to do so in a world of career-changing, scarce talent, and heightened expectations. Well-designed merit-pay systems should reward teachers who choose to take up opportunities to do more good--such as instructing additional students, leveraging particular skills, or assisting colleagues. Merit-pay systems are not an unaffordable luxury but rather an essential tool for designing schools and systems that can excel in tight times. This article addresses teacher evaluation and salary. (Contains 1 endnote.)

Traditional systems of teacher evaluation are often ineffective because they rely on outmoded evaluative criteria, usually in the form of checklists; simplistic assessments, such as "needs improvement"; procedures that fail to differentiate between new and veteran teachers' experience and expertise; lack of consistency among evaluators; and one-way, top-down communication. Noted educator Charlotte Danielson suggests that we can remedy these characteristics by ensuring that teacher evaluation satisfies two important goals--that it assures teacher quality and promotes professional development. A two-year pilot program in Chicago Public Schools, which used Danielson's Framework for Teaching to measure teachers' classroom performance, has documented the benefits of this approach. Administrators and teachers noted that the framework provided a consistent definition of good teaching, opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations about practice, and a focus on what really matters in good teaching. This article addresses the topics of staff assessment, teacher supervision, and professional development. (Contains 1 figure and 1 endnote.)

Contrary to what many people assume, writes Stewart, a high-quality teacher workforce is not the simple result of some traditional cultural respect for teachers that exists in some countries. Rather, it requires deliberate policy choices. In a tour of seven countries that traditionally score high on international tests of student performance (Singapore, China, Japan, U.K., Finland, Canada, and Australia), Stewart describes many ways in which policymakers support effective teaching. Examples include recruiting the most able candidate into the teaching profession; providing time and structure for meaningful professional development; modernizing teacher preparation programs; and improving teacher evaluation and compensation.

Too often, teacher evaluations haven't provided enough information to spur improvement in teaching. The vast majority of teachers in any school, district, or state are rated above--sometimes well above--average. The feedback that teachers do receive is often not specific enough to help them improve. In this article, Morgaen Donaldson explores some of the reasons behind these unhelpful, sometimes overly positive evaluations. She also tells of three school systems that have made concrete changes to their evaluation systems in an attempt to make them more useful. (Contains 1 endnote.)

Although today's performance pay plans take many forms, the most commonly proposed version--in which teachers are rewarded on the basis of their students' standardized test scores--flows from flawed logic and several troublesome assumptions: that teachers lack motivation and supposedly need financial awards to give students what they need; that U.S. schools are failing compared with school systems in other parts of the world; and that measuring academic achievement--through the use of standardized testing--is all that counts. Denver, Colorado's Pay for Performance pilot resulted in a new approach to looking at performance. The new plan replaces the traditional approach to compensation with its combined focus on student academic growth; teacher knowledge and skill; professional evaluation; and market incentives, which refer to bonuses awarded to teachers working in difficult-to-serve schools or in difficult-to-staff positions. The discussion of performance pay should lead states and districts to a new consideration of the true goals of education.

Because they focus on the quality of instruction, teacher evaluations can be powerful catalysts for teacher and school improvement. But today, the typical teacher evaluation consists of a single, fleeting classroom visit by an administrator untrained in evaluation. Often he or she wields a checklist of classroom conditions and teacher behaviors that don't focus directly on the quality of instruction. Several models of evaluation demonstrate that it's possible to evaluate teachers in much more productive ways. These models use explicit standards to evaluate teachers, are based on multiple measures, and involve multiple evaluators and evaluations. Because comprehensive classroom evaluation systems are more labor-intensive, they are more expensive than principal drive-bys or evaluations based on test scores. But they are an investment worth making because they improve teachers' performance and signal to teachers that they are professionals doing important work. (Contains 2 endnotes.)

Peer assistance and review (PAR) reduces the burden on principals, the isolation of the classroom teacher, and sometimes even the antagonism and hostility between labor and management by involving teachers in the formal evaluation of other teachers and making them responsible for employment recommendations. Coaches who have been identified for their excellence in teaching and mentoring support new teachers as well as veterans experiencing difficulty in their teaching. Findings from a recent study of an urban school district in California that implemented the program suggest that PAR creates time for teacher support and evaluation, links professional development and evaluation, increases the transparency of the evaluation process, fosters a district/union partnership, and leads to greater confidence and accuracy in teacher evaluation.

As a high school principal, the author came to realize that the traditional teacher observation and evaluation model did not help teachers become reflective and improve their practice. Because his own use of brief, frequent principal walk-throughs had given him valuable insights into the need for instructional improvements, he decided to offer veteran teachers the opportunity to forgo traditional classroom observations and instead to participate in the walk-through process with him. In this article, he describes how his school gradually implemented collaborative walk-throughs that enabled teachers in different subject areas to talk together about instruction and create a collaborative professional development culture.

Three urban school principals from the US have described their efforts to turn around their performing schools and create sustainable leadership. They describe about the challenges they had faced while reorganizing the school, recruiting new teachers, spending extra time on teacher evaluations and remaining the instructional leader.

Describes components of successful teacher-evaluation and compensation program at the Ladue School District in suburban St. Louis, Missouri. Reports that salary increases based on performance evaluations improve teacher satisfaction and retention. (Contains 13 references.) (PKP)

Experienced teachers in North Carolina benefit from an evaluation system that sets clear expectations and combines traditional evaluation with individual growth opportunities. The model is based on a regional educational laboratory's 10 years of experience in research and development in formative evaluation. Teacher self-assessment is a key ingredient. (MLH)

Widespread dissatisfaction caused a Nevada district to reexamine and revamp its teacher-evaluation process. The new system, which assumes teacher participation in goal setting helps teachers become self-reflective practitioners capable of adjusting their practices, has four domains: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibility. (MLH)

Through the 1950s, principals, supervisors, and education professors determined ideal teachers' attributes. Since then, teachers have been envisioned as analytic, effective, dutiful, competent, expert, reflective, satisfying, reflective, diversity-responsive, respective, or combinations thereof. Districts must create evaluation systems corresponding to the full range of teaching exemplars. (Contains 27 references.) (MLH)

A Utah district's assessment committee created an innovative, yet conservative teacher-evaluation program using direct measures of teacher performance. Teachers can choose among various data sources: parent surveys, student surveys, student-achievement data, documentation of professional activity, and teacher tests. Datasets are preferred over portfolios. (MLH)

Teaching portfolios are not just scrapbooks of random assignments and student work samples, but represent teachers' evolving reflections and analyses measured against rigorous standards. Thoughtful reflection, not a color printer, is the key to portfolio success. Tips on assembling suitable "artifacts" and handling anxiety and time constraints are provided. (MLH)

Lee Shulman's vision of good teaching includes nurturing students' moral and spiritual development, civic engagement, and socialization. High-stakes tests do not embody standards. When evaluating and rewarding teachers, mentoring and monitoring functions should be separated. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards improvement incentives are vital. (MLH)

Rather than burdening administrators, educators are discovering that a well-designed evaluation system can effectively merge professional development with quality assurance in teacher evaluation. New participatory evaluation approaches include differentiated systems, multiyear cycles, and active teacher roles (via portfolios, professional conversations, and student-achievement evidence). (MLH)

Describes the California Formative Assessment & Support System for Teachers, the largest state-supported instructional improvement effort. At the core of the program are mentoring relationships, new teaching standards, and formative assessment tools. Policy makers are setting new standards of teaching quality at the beginning of a teaching career. (MLH)