Teacher Evaluation: A Postscript

My friend decided not to leave teaching but is transferring to another building. She says she is trying to walk through the hallways without feeling as if she has the scarlet letter “F” tattooed on her forehead. This process has eroded her confidence and I hope she finds it again so that she can recover the gift she’s been able to give students these past fifteen years.

Her story and reaction to a negative evaluation may be an extreme example, but judging from the number of responses I received to Teacher Evaluation: Taking Stock, perhaps not. It is interesting to note that the responses came as whispers – through private email, rather than public posting – suggesting that teacher evaluation might have become one of education’s “elephants in the room.” Maybe it’s time to talk about it.

My purpose in writing last week’s blog was not to bash teacher evaluation, but instead to give voice to the reality that this particular reform strategy may be reaping some unintended consequences. If the underlying purpose of teacher evaluation is to make sure every student has a highly effective teacher every day, we need to think about the role evaluation plays in the learning required for everyone to make this happen. Harvard Professor Richard Elmore claims that the reason our education system is not delivering the results we want is that everyone is being asked to do things they don’t know how to do. We’re in an era of higher expectations for students with a commensurate reduction in student tolerance for school-as-usual, made more complicated by technology, advancing poverty, and scarce resources. And as with any adaptive challenge, we are going to have to learn our way through this.

We’ve been supporting education transformation for two decades now and there is something noticeably different in today’s landscape: ownership. A decade ago friend and colleague Tony Wagner advocated for a culture of “no shame, no blame, no excuses” recognizing that all of us go to work every day wanting to do our best work for students. We translated that into building urgency for the changes our education system needs through careful exploration of data in relation to the world our kids were heading into, involving all stakeholders in the complex work some used to refer to as “building the plane while flying it.” Today the urgency remains, but the ownership for how we’re going about it seems to have dwindled. A Gallop Poll released this week shows that teachers are the least likely of all occupational groups surveyed to feel that their opinions matter, with accompanying feelings of disempowerment and isolation. Somehow we seem to be going in the wrong direction.

External mandates have their place, to be sure. But in complex adaptive work, their leverage is limited to their ability to create the kinds of conversations and experiences that foster learning, in this case for the adults responsible for educating students. Perhaps Tony was right in his mantra of “no shame, no blame, no excuses.” Somehow we need to move away from the shrouds that currently cloak teacher evaluation, to check our theories of action about its place in our improvement work, and consider how it can foster the adult learning that will take teaching and leading into the future.

 Harriette Thurber Rasmussen is a coach and partner with Abeo School Change.

Teacher Evaluation: Taking Stock

I recently experienced the new teacher evaluation system through a different lens: that of a teacher. In our role as systems coaches, we most often look at initiatives through their potential to scale up high quality instruction for all students. Evaluation is not new to education, of course, but its role in the current reform efforts gives it a stronger emphasis than in the past. One significant change is the role of instructional frameworks, or teaching standards, in the evaluation system and the relationship of the evaluation instrument to those standards. The return on investment of this strategy has yet to be determined, but there is no doubt that teacher evaluation plays a significant and increasing presence in the current reform landscape. 

My new perspective came from a life-long friend who, after trying a variety of careers, came to teaching rather recently. Here she found her calling, as she puts it, bringing her lifetime of experiences to elementary students and in the process, “changing lives,” according to the hoards of parents who clamor to get their children into her class. In her 15 years as a teacher, she’s certainly paid her dues, learning the challenges of classroom management, figuring out how to reach that recalcitrant student, adjusting curriculum so that different kids could learn math concepts that seemed just out of reach. These last few years she really hit her stride, loving everything about the career she finally found…until last month when I received a tearful call, telling me that she was going to leave teaching. After two glowing evaluations this year, she had just received a third that devastated her. 

Stunned, I asked to see the evaluation that placed her on probation, an odd move for a tenured teacher. My first reaction after reading was, actually, “Wow. This principal really knows instruction.” The observation was detailed and zoomed in on specifics. He had scripted the lesson, relating descriptions observed and recorded to the evaluation form and was specific in pointing out areas of missed opportunities. My friend was recommended for further employment with two areas of action suggested by the observation. At first glance, it was hard to find fault with it. 

Until I took a closer look…. Then I noticed that even in the areas marked as meeting standard she was almost always rated “beginning/emerging.” As I read it again, I saw how crushing it must have been for her, someone who, like many teachers, devotes her life to the success of her students, who routinely spends her evenings and at least a day every weekend planning lessons. Now, after 15 years, all she knows is that she is a “failure” and that the long steady of climb to affect the learning of students has come to naught. Crushing. 

Now here’s the thing. I don’t know if she’s a good teacher or not. I’ve not seen her teach, nor would I be qualified to make that judgment if I had. I don’t challenge the standards against which she was evaluated. What I do know is that she’s a maverick in the classroom, that her students adore coming to school, that they do well on all standardized measures, and that (according to parents) they continue to thrive when they move on to middle school. Could she do better? I have no doubt that she could, as can we all. But what we have here is a teacher who has lost all confidence and with that, perhaps, her ability to continue to, as she’s been told she does, “change lives.” 

This is not a slam on teacher evaluation, but it is a call for a reality check on the weight we’re giving this particular investment in student performance and how we’re going about it. A few years back, I had a “discussion” with a community member wishing that his district would do more about teacher evaluation. My response was, “Well, maybe. But I wouldn’t put too many eggs in that basket. It’s really only about a 5% solution.” 

Startled, he asked what I meant. I explained that while every profession has those that need to be, shall we say, “counseled out,” in education we’re talking about 5 – maybe 10 – percent. So the biggest return you’d get on an investment in teacher evaluation would be 5-10%. His assumptions are common, I’ve found, with many who believe that stronger evaluation systems are the key to solving any and all problems of student learning. We’ve observed that the learning required to implement these new systems is taking significant amounts of time and resources. Are they worth it? At some point it behooves us to consider our return on this investment, including any unexpected consequences. 

In the case of my friend, I doubt that the principal intended to counsel her out of teaching or erode her confidence. It is clear to me that he is an expert in instructional practice and was applying his knowledge earnestly in an effort to give kids the best possible instruction. I’ve certainly been in plenty of classrooms where the very things he noted as needing attention were exactly what I would have suggested myself to pump the lesson up to a higher level of effectiveness. And I don’t know what will happen with my friend – whether she’ll decide to leave the classroom or find a way to continue to “change lives.” The next steps are for her and her principal to work out. 

But this does, perhaps, speak to the larger issue of teacher evaluation and its role in improving student performance through instructional excellence. We need to keep our teachers, most of them anyway, with the richness found in the variety of personalities, styles, and experiences they bring to the classroom. Assuming that it is possible to articulate teaching standards as practices that leverage the time teachers have with students, certainly we should be as considerate in our measurement of those standards as we need to be in assessing student acquisition of the Common Core. We need to make those practices visible to teachers in ways that do not crush spirits and that are accompanied by high quality professional development in ways that illustrate how teaching standards support the learning we all want to see for students. 

 Harriette Thurber Rasmussen is a coach and partner with Abeo School Change.

Are We Deskilling Our Teachers?

I’ve always been an advocate of standards, high ones, to be sure – those benchmarks that target outcomes everyone must reach.  They seem to me to be something to shoot for, a guarantee, if you will, that the goals we set for our students will ready them to do whatever they decide to do with their futures.  On the other hand, I’ve never been a fan of standardization.  I’ve had many a conversation with parents over the years explaining the difference between standards and standardization.  Standardization suggests sameness in how one reaches those outcomes.  And as we all know, students are not the same, do not learn in the same ways, and do not do well in standardized environments.  But standards?  Standards are outcomes:  a vision of where we need to go.  High standards ought to denote excellence.

So when the conversations around improving schools began to talk about teaching standards, it felt right.  A decade ago, researcher Deanna Burney wrote about the importance of craft knowledge, of finding ways for teachers to build their professional repertoire of effective practice, touchstones to define the profession of teaching (2004).  During my days as a coach with Harvard’s Executive Education for Educators program, we helped districts to create “points of view” around teaching – working toward that craft knowledge and a common vision of excellence for every student.  Not long after that, instructional frameworks became the vogue, some more specific than others, but still intended, I thought, to move toward that craft knowledge Burney suggested.  In fact, it wasn’t until I wrote my blogs on teacher evaluation What We're Learning @ Abeo that I began to wonder about the potential that teaching standards could narrow, rather than strengthen, the profession.

Not that I didn’t notice other things along the way.  I spend perhaps 80% of my own practice in classrooms, watching teachers work with kids as I guide educators through the instructional rounds process Instructional Rounds: Not Just a Repackaged Walkthrough .  I have seen many, many beautiful lessons, perfectly designed and executed, illustrating dozens of the components outlined in almost any set of professional teaching standards.  But I have also seen many of these beautiful lessons flop when it comes to actually engaging the students.  How many of us can say we’ve either observed or taught textbook perfect lessons to an audience of lethargic students?  It’s become a puzzle to me.  Teaching standards seem like a good idea.  Other professions have them.  Why not teachers?

My question became more complex when I haphazardly picked up a book I had started perhaps 15 years ago with an intriguing title:  Official Knowledge:  Democratic Education in a Conservative Age (Apple, 2000).  Interested in how it might still be relevant, I thumbed through it and found the author arguing that “when [teachers] cease to plan and control a large portion of their own work, the skills essential to those doing those tasks self-reflectively and well atrophy and are forgotten.  The skills that teachers have built up over decades of hard work – setting relevant curricular goals, establishing content, designing lessons and instructional strategies, ‘community building’ in the classroom, individualizing instruction based on an intimate knowledge of students’ varied cultures, desires, and needs, and so on – are lost.  In many ways, given the centralization of authority and control, they are simply no longer ‘needed’” (p. 117-118).  He claims that, as a result, we are seeing the “deskilling of our teachers” (p. 117).  His thoughts made me wonder if our highly specific instructional frameworks, pacing guides, and “best practices” orientation are, in effect, deskilling our teachers.

If this is so, if we are, in effect, deskilling our teachers, would it not be an unintended consequence of attempts to strengthen the profession?  And if this is so, is it not paradoxical for this to be taking place when the need for deep teaching expertise – and by association, discretion – is greater than ever?  But as I consider some of the challenges I see, including those of my friend about whom I wrote almost a year ago*, I do wonder if we have gone the route of standardization in lieu of standards.  And if that is so, how can this possibly bode well for the increasingly diverse group of students who need our teachers’ expertise, their skills, more than ever?

*who has, in fact, decided to leave teaching after another year of principals and coaches trying to script her relationships with students and the content they’re intended to learn

Burney, D. (2004).  “Craft knowledge:  The road to transforming schools.  Phi Delta Kappa, 85(7).

Apple, M. W. (2000).  Official knowledge:  Democratic education in a conservative age.  New York:  Routledge.

     From Abeo Partner, Harriette Thurber Rasmussen

Do you need a coach or a consultant?

A good question – one we like to ask and help clients answer often because there are distinct differences and justifiable needs for both. The key is in knowing the difference and assessing your needs as an organization.

A simple way of distinguishing between the two is to think of a consultant as a way of addingstaff capacity and a coach as building staff capacity.

Here’s how it looks:
Many organizations need a task completed for which they lack adequate staffing. This could be a numbers game (everyone’s busy) or a capacity issue (nobody knows how to do this). Often it’s in the best interest of everyone to bring in an expert to complete the task and hand it off, particularly if the expertise needed is likely to be sporadic or very specialized – such as strategic planning. This calls for a consultant: someone who comes in from the outside to do internal work, temporarily adding staff capacity… and then departing.

A coach, however, is called for when there are ongoing needs within an organization, yet the skills are not present within current personnel. This is where an organization would be better served to build the capacity of existing staff so that they are able to take on the task into the future.

This might be a completely new area (such as a new approach to literacy or numeracy that calls for an instructional coach), fine-tuning practice as might be the case with a leadership coach, or preparing and implementing a major change initiative where there is anticipated resistance.

We see very few schools and districts that would not benefit from additional support. The trick is to make sure it’s a good match for the task at hand. Coaches teach you to do the work. Consultants do the work for you. It’s as simple as that.

From Abeo Partner, Harriette Thurber Rasmussen

Who is sponsoring the change you want to see?

In any change initiative, there are distinct roles to be played. In education, the ones we pay attention to the most are the roles of sponsor and agent. Who are these folks, what are their roles, and why do they matter?

A quick primer: A sponsor is an individual who has authority over those responsible for implementation –line authority to be exact. In schools this is often the principal but it could be someone several rungs above the principal, such as the principal’s supervisor, or the superintendent. An agent is someone whose job it is to support the change. This could be an internal position (such as a staff developer) or external support (such as a school improvement coach). You’ll know you’re an agent if you have the responsibility to make something happen without the authority to mandate it.

Why do we pay so much attention to these roles when we know that sustainability requires broad-based ownership and that top-down mandates generally fail? We’ve found that oftentimes change initiatives need a jump-start (“just try this”) and that successful implementation is then dependent upon an ability to focus. Permission to choose one activity over another comes from a sponsor, someone in authority such as a supervisor. Much of our education system is organized in ways that separate sponsors and agents so that those supporting the work are unable to either require it or allow it. At the building level this might be an instructional coach who may (or may not) report to the principal but does not supervise those he or she is coaching. Another prevalent example is the way in which most central offices are structured, with a curriculum department (often incorporating professional development) that does not include those able to call the shots on use of time or who supervises those that do (such as the principal or principal supervisor). We call this phenomena responsibility without authority. And when we point this out in coaching venues (most often with agents), we see huge ah-ha’s and recognition of what’s missing in their efforts.

This reality simply means attention to roles so that necessary sponsorship takes place. For those in positions of authority, be certain that you are visibly supporting the work. Make it a public priority. Be present at high leverage events, if only to kick off and affirm the work underway. Make it a public priority. By doing so you will give those responsible for actual implementation permission to focus and a little nudge that this is important. If you are in an agent’s role, you’ll need to be strategic in how you make sure the work is sponsored. An agent operates through influence and relationships; he or she must determine which are the most important relationships to cultivate if the work is to be adequately sponsored. Sometimes an agent’s responsibility is not a priority of those needed for sponsorship and the agent will need to become the sponsor’s new “best friend.” In rare cases, it may be necessary to carefully move up the ladder of authority for adequate sponsorship. Delicate? Yes, but we can almost guarantee an initiative will fail without sponsorship.

Known as organizational alignment, establishing roles in any change or improvement effort is essential. So if implementation is not going as expected, one of the first questions we would ask is, “Who is sponsoring the change you want to see?”

Harriette Thurber-Rasmussen - Abeo Partner

Hiring Instructional Coaches: Getting the “Right” People on the Bus

In the classic book Good to Great Jim Collins says, “…to build a successful organization and team you must get the right people on the bus.” His focus is to get the right people in the right seats. Most of us would agree that one of the shifts that need to happen in education is stronger support of teachers’ professional growth. If good things are happening in the classroom, many of our plaguing problems such as lack of engagement and discipline fade or disappear. This thinking has prompted many districts to build in regular collaborative time and hire instructional coaches to provide professional development. All good moves! Now that you have allocated time for improvement, do you have the instructional coach who can actually lead that work? Often, my experience is that coaches move up through the ranks of teaching and land in the position with little or no training. Though many coaching skills can be developed over time, some entry capacities and dispositions should already be in place. This is where a hiring framework can be helpful. It is critical that district leaders know what they are looking for in a good instructional coach. When you get the “wrong person on the bus” then you have an eager, good individual leading others down the wrong path. The results can be devastating. Teachers get confused, disillusioned and start slamming their doors shut! Our Instructional Coaching Framework helps leaders sort out what beliefs, dispositions and capacities must be present in a candidate and which of those things can be learned.

First and foremost, a good coach must be a good teacher. The only way to know for sure is to actually watch a candidate teach! I would only hire a coach after watching him facilitate an adult learning session where he models strong instructional practices. In addition, I’d watch him teach students. Being a powerful instructor is essential to good coaching. A coach has to be able to “walk his talk” in multiple settings.

Equally important is the belief system a coach brings to the job. District leaders must ensure that a new coach fully embraces the district’s vision. Furthermore, you will want to know a coach’s beliefs about learning. For example, do they believe all kids can learn at high levels? Do they believe that each and every student should be prepared for college? How do they think people learn best? I once watched a coach unintentionally undermined much of the district’s goals by coaching for inequitable practices, curriculum and design principles in a school. The result was painful for the coach and her leaders. The interview questions must bring beliefs about learning to the forefront.

Another entry capacity is a coach’s ability to connect and communicate well with adults. More importantly, he must have a knack for helping teachers build relationships with each other. Some of this capacity naturally emerges as you watch small group facilitation. I also like to see how a coach might provide written feedback to a teacher’s lesson plan or idea as well. A humble, reflective partner is what you are looking for—not someone to come in and “fix” another teacher. A “deficit based” disposition doesn’t work very well in coaching. 

Finally, a coach must be nimble enough to weave in and out of roles such as model teaching, facilitating discussions and offering resources. Coaches wear many hats and juggling those roles with intention takes a special person with a fairly thick skin. Again, you don’t have to have every skill in place, but certain entry capacities and dispositions are essential to good coaching. Our framework offers leaders specific guidelines for hiring coaches and interesting ways to see them in action. If coaching is one of your key initiatives for improvement, then you want to get the right people on the bus! 

Katy Karschney for Abeo School Change.

Abeo Professional Development Tool – Inquiry Circles

Inquiry is “buzz” word education, and thrown around often, but this it not because of bad intent. We really do want our students to engage in inquiry, but what does it look like? More importantly, how do we get educators to internalize the process. One of the best tools that teachers can use to not only internalize inquiry, but also DO inquiry on topics of their choice is the Inquiry Circle.

The Inquiry Circle replaces the “book club” or “book study” model with a more authentic and inquiry modeled process so there is voice and choice for teachers in terms of learning targets, but also a better understanding of inquiry. It is modeled after the PBL process as well. Here are the steps for an inquiry circle:

1) Craft a Driving Question: This question can either be created by administrators, or co-created with faculty and staff. Perhaps it is something like: “How do we make culturally responsive curriculum?” or “How do we create tasks in the classroom that truly make students college and career ready?” You can even have groups create their own questions and jigsaw the faculty and staff appropriately. 

2) Entry Event: Engage participants in a intriguing video, provocative reading or similar. It can help to frame the future exploration and get participants excited about next steps.

3) Research Questions: Have teachers or groups of teachers generate questions they want to know about the topics. After generating, have them share out with other groups to help build transparency and interest. 

4) Expert Groups: The DQ question is the big umbrella question of the Inquiry Circle model, but from the research questions, sub topics are formed. Have teachers choose into a subtopic group. 

5) Product: How will each group share what they have learned by the end of the process. Give them a list of possible products and allow they the flexibility to choose how they are assessed and to pick a product that will be authentic and useful.

6) Facilitate Inquiry: After these initial steps, teachers must choose literature, books, and other resources to explore. Teachers will meet periodically over an extended period to share learning, engage in reading selections, and generate further questions to explore. Participants will need to find more resources and continually draft and revise their final product. 

7) Present Products: After an appropriate amount of time, teachers should present their product to the entire faculty and staff. These presentations should be done by the whole expert group. Encourage creativity! Have the entire faculty, after seeing presentations, generate ideas for next steps and implementation.

In order to rethink how we use professional development time, we must have the tools to do it. The Inquiry Circle is one way to allow for collaboration, voice and choice, and focus in professional development that teachers need.


Andrew Miller for Abeo School Change.