Effective Teacher Appraisal

Effective Teacher Appraisal

Mary-Angela Tombs, 2012

 

In New Zealand’s self-managing schools, boards of trustees are required by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to be good employers, implement policies that promote high levels of staff performance and ensure that each staff member participates in a performance management process (MOE, 2012a, 2012b). Boards of trustees, through school principals, are accountable to their parent community for the practice of their teachers, ensuring that teaching practices are effective and responsive to student needs and community priorities (MOE, 2010; New Zealand Teachers Council, 2009, 2012).

The Education Review Office, which is responsible for evaluating and reporting on school performance to the Ministry of Education and the school’s community, recommends that teacher appraisal can inform learning. But ERO reports that only 50% of primary school principals make a link between professional learning and appraisal. ERO notes the effectiveness of teachers gathering evidence about their own capability in relation to student achievement, peer observations, and feedback processes for building effective teaching practice within reviewed schools (ERO, 2009, 2011).

 

Dual Purposes: Professional Learning and Accountability

There is much external pressure on schools to be visibly accountable for student outcomes, as well as teacher practice (Campbell, Kyriakider, Muijs & Robinson, 2004; Fitzgerald, Youngs & Grootenboer, 2003; Grootenboer, 2000; Middlewood & Cardno, 2001). This accountability can also impact career progression and teacher pay (Fitzgerald, et al., 2003; Middlewood & Cardno, 2001). However, Middlewood and Cardno (2001) question whether public emphasis on accountability has led to school improvement, as was intended.

Campbell et al., (2004) argue that if appraisal is focused on being accountable for school improvement, rather than individual needs, it is not likely to lead to school improvement. Therefore there is a risk that professional learning, and moreover effective teaching practice, may be undermined in a school’s effort to fulfill their responsibility to be accountable (Lovett & Verstappen, 2003; Snook, 2003). Campbell et al. assert that when there is a contrast between the expectations of the community, school leaders and teachers, this can lead to disconnection between them and undermine communication.

Teachers who communicate their learning needs to others, and work collaboratively to improve their practice, benefit themselves in terms of professional learning, and their students’ learning (DuFour, 2004; Lees, 2004; Lovett, 2002; Robertson, 2008).  However, for teachers to work collaboratively and develop as effective professionals, trust between them is necessary (Lovett, 2002; Middlewood & Cardno, 2001; Spillane, Healey, Parise & Kenney, 2001; Townsend, 1995).

Responsibility for evaluating teachers in order to account for professional practice can have an impact on this relationship of trust (Wragg, 1996). According to Townsend (1995), teachers are reluctant to give negative feedback to others in fear of breaking down such relationships. Fitzgerald, et al., (2003) argue that perspectives of those in differing positions within a school can lead to misunderstandings, and according to Campbell et al., (2004) and Grootenboer (2000) the positional role of the appraiser impacts on their relationship with the appraisee. Relationship breakdowns and misunderstandings, caused in an effort to account for professional standards, provide constant challenges to teachers and leaders in their ability to work collaboratively.

While some see leaders see evaluation professional standards through classroom observations as an essential element of measuring accountability (Wragg, Wikely, Wragg & Haynes, 1996), issues related to observation can also be a factor that limits success of appraisal. Campbell et al., (2004) assert that observations carried out to measure teacher performance can only ever provide part of the whole picture of teacher effectiveness and can be subjective. Accordingly, Jones, Jenkins & Lord (2008) warn against the dangers of measuring underperformance of teachers by merely looking at individual practice. They recommend an approach that additionally considers the impact of the immediate working context (relationships, support, for example) and the wider school context (induction processes) as a fairer assessment of the performance of a teacher. Subjective forms of assessment may result a breakdown in trust, teacher needs being misunderstood, teachers being misjudged, and gaps in professional learning and accountability.

A further challenge to effectiveness of accountability-biased appraisal stems from historical influence. Education’s long history of individual effort and privacy limits collaboration in an industrial age paradigm where the emphasis is on individuals developing specific skills in order to sustain their organisation (Earl & Hannay, 2011; Fitzgerald, et al., 2003; Grootenboer, 2000; Middlewood & Cardno, 2001). Lovett (2002) endorses an environment where adult learners can take risks, while supported through collegiality and honest dialogue, but Snook (2003) argues that an industrial model limits risk-taking, creativity and innovation:

     If we put in place systems which turn teachers into well-trained functionaries, we

     are downgrading the importance of creative and critical thinkers and teachers will

     be unable to model these qualities for their students. If teachers are to help pupils

     to be creative, critical, innovative and flexible they must themselves be critical,

     creative, innovative and flexible. And our appraisal systems must support rather

     than undermine these aims. (Snook, p.48)

Earl & Hannay (2011) emphasise the importance of individuals looking beyond their own understandings and tacit knowledge, to engage in collaboration that can lead to innovative knowledge.

Informed literature tells us that adult learning can only be effective when teachers initiate, and take ownership of their learning (Lovett, 2002). Ownership is equally relevant to teacher appraisal processes according to Timperley, et al. (2007), and Fitzgerald, et al. (2003). When appraisal enables teacher ownership, subjective misinterpretations of learner needs, as mentioned previously, can be avoided. 

Allowing ownership by teachers may however be threatening to school leaders who are concerned about individuals moving away from the school-wide, community vision (Campbell et al., 2004; Timperley, et al., 2007). There is also a risk that misguided individual ownership of the appraisal / learning process may perpetuate misinformed traditions and biases in a school if teachers rely solely on their own experiences to set professional goals (Earl & Hannay, 2011; Middlewood & Cardno, 2001). When teachers reflect on and challenge bias, improved, culturally responsive learning environments are more likely to be developed (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke & Curran, 2004). Such challenges have the potential to push boundaries, and re-shape a community’s vision and inherent systems for the better.

Demptster (n.d.) emphasises the need for schools to balance what he terms as ‘reproduction’, where individuals have professional sustenance to work on their own goals and the school system is maintained through monitoring student achievement, with ‘reconstruction’ where the system and individuals within it push boundaries by trying alternatives, making improvements to practice, restructuring to improve learning systems, and so on. While schools are accountable to students, parents and taxpayers, Middlewood & Cardno (2001) argue that it is important that they develop appraisal systems that provide a balance between assessing performance outcomes and responding to adult learning principles in teacher professional learning.

To achieve a balance between ‘reproduction’ and ‘reconstruction’, school leaders must ensure that teacher appraisal reflects dual purposes by balancing the needs of individual teachers, with the needs of the school community. It should also encourage creativity and innovation while providing objective feedback to teachers in order to improve teacher practice.

 

Literature on Effective Appraisal

Appraisal, when effectively applied to an education context is far more than a formal assessment of an employee’s performance against expectations (Fleming & Kleinhenz, 2007; Snook, 2003). According to Kofoed (n.d.) it is a systematic approach to enhancing teacher knowledge, which is responsive to context and ability, and reflects adult learning principles.

A great deal of current educational literature makes reference to the necessary components of successful adult learning (Lovett, 2002; Lovett & Verstappen, 2003; Robertson, 2008; Timperley, et al., 2007), and some key themes emerge from such writing. For the purpose of this assignment, these themes are summarised according to the following categories: Ownership, investment, inquiry, effective dialogue, and innovation.

Ownership

Adults bring a range of prior learning, experiences, skills, biases and perspectives to their learning (Roberson, 2008). Responding to individual experience, within the context of providing quality professional learning in a school is a complex task. Research suggests that appraisal must be tailored individually as a response to differing learning needs and experiences (Kofoed, n.d.). It is widely accepted that teachers, as adult learners, need to feel that the process belongs to them and that they have control over it (Fleming & Kleinhenz, 2007; Lovett, 2002; Timperley, et al., 2007). Snook (2003) argues that teachers should, in fact, negotiate their own appraisal process, a view shared by Campbell et al. (2004). Accordingly, if adult learners take responsibility for their learning, they are more likely to commit themselves to success, invest energy and be accountable to themselves.

Investment

A commitment to appraisal success requires an investment at a systems level. Fleming and Kleinhenz (2007) argue that it is not enough for a school to set up a system of appraisal and presume it will be effective. These authors emphasise the need to build a strong professional learning culture within the school. It is widely believed that if professional learning is to be given status, the investment of time is necessary, through systematic provision of opportunities for teachers to learn from discussion, observation, reading and experimentation  (Grootenboer, 2000; Lovett & Verstappen, 2003; Poskitt & Taylor, 2008; Timperley, et al., 2007). This investment requires a large amount of involvement by the principal in terms of decisions about staffing entitlements, how their school’s professional learning budget is spent, and the level of guidance and support necessary for professional learning.

Inquiry

Kofoed (n.d.) and Timperley (2011) define teacher inquiry as an approach to learning, where teachers work through a cycle of identifying their learning needs, sharing practice and considering changes that are necessary to meet learning needs. Timperely (2011) adds that teacher inquiry is an effective way of giving the control of the process to the adult learner and Tester (n.d.) asserts that inquiry provides an opportunity for teachers to communicate their teaching choices to colleagues.  Timperley (2010) also suggests that for teachers to engage effectively in evidence-based inquiry they need the guidance and example given by informed leaders, and to work within a systematic process. Kofoed (n.d.) argues that for this process to be relevant and honest; it must be systematic. According to research it must also start and finish with the students (DuFour, 2004; Fitzgerald, et al., 2003; Timperley, et al., 2007; Timperley, 2011).

Effective Dialogue

An inquiry model can incorporate aspects of self-evaluation and reflection, and peer evaluation (Campbell et al., 2004). When peers collaborate to inquire into their practice, constructive dialogue is characterised by open questioning and reflection on the careful analysis of student progress, while employing a variety of ways to illustrate student success (Lovett & Verstappen, 2003; NCSL, n.d.; Timperley, 2011). Robertson (2008) stresses the importance of teachers engaging in dialogue about their own educational values and beliefs as a starting point to establishing collaborative partnerships. Effective and honest dialogue can make evident the kind of change that needs to occur in teacher practice, and the support that is needed in order to activate that change (Campbell et al., 2004; Timperley, 2011).

Innovation

Change that is informed by a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge leads to innovation (Earl & Hannay, 2011). In other words, teachers who combine what they know, through their own experiences, with what they learn from others, create new knowledge.  Once they apply this new knowledge to their context (Lovett, 2002), the resulting innovation can benefit the teacher and the students (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007).

 

 

Improved Inquiry

It is proposed that an appraisal process whereby teachers work with a partner to carry out evidence-based inquiry into his or her own practice (Timperley, 2010) is implemented. By working with a colleague who has a similar length of experience, or who teaches a similar student age-group, this process is responsive to context and experience. It is recommended that release time be arranged for teachers to visit each other’s classrooms as requested, and that one normal meeting time per term be assigned for teachers to meet with their inquiry partner.

A template provided to guide the inquiry process (Teacher Inquiry and Knowledge-Building Action Plan, Appendix 3) gives direction while allowing for individual approaches. Key principles of adult learning are made visible to teachers on the template in order to draw attention to the potential for teachers to lead their own learning. Development of the learning-related discussion at area and staff meetings is recommended in order to enhance this inquiry. It is recommended that these discussions, facilitated by the principal as learning leader, incorporate time for teachers to reflect on their participation in their inquiry process, and share their reflections with others, should they choose to.

Improved Ownership

It is further recommended that a flexible approach to goal setting be employed to allow teachers to set short term or long term goals as needed, within the inquiry process, as opposed being confined to a timetable. It is suggested that when individual teachers are ready to discuss their goals and action plan, they arrange a meeting between themselves and the principal, rather than being timetabled to do so. This approach gives ownership to teachers as well as easing the pressure on the principal to meet with all teachers within a short time-frame.

Improved Dialogue

A further proposal is the carefully facilitated inclusion of an opportunity for teachers to reflect on their own educational values and beliefs. This would ideally be included at the initial teacher meeting to explain the appraisal process to teachers. It is suggested that teachers also discuss adult learning principals, and investigate reflective questioning techniques through a group dissemination of academic readings on these subjects within the initial teacher meeting. The principal’s continued modeling of the use of reflective questioning, and explicit references made to professional readings he has reflected upon would enhance professional dialogue and encourage teachers to explore learning beyond their tacit knowledge.

Improved Innovation

In order to encourage innovation, in the proposed appraisal model, it is suggested that the principal explicitly encourage innovation by applauding trialed practice. A regular ‘walk through’ of classes, similar to those carried out by Mathematics curriculum leaders in 2011, would allow the principal to strengthen relationships with the staff and students. If the focus of these ‘walk-throughs’ is explicitly to look for and celebrate new ideas, teachers may feel an incentive to be creative in their practice.

Conclusion

School leaders who balance the dual purposes of teacher professional learning and accountability within appraisal can effectively respond to student needs while creating a learning community that is culturally responsive and innovative.

 

References

Campbell, J., Kyriakider, L., Muijs, D. & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher             effectiveness: Developing a differentiated order. London and New York:           Routledge Falmer.

Dempster, N. (Presenter). (n.d.). Recognising competing agendas: system and individual [Podcast]. Retrieved 3 May, 2012, from

            http://learn.canterbury.ac.nz/course/view.php?id=779&topic=4

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8) 6-11.

Earl, L., & Hannay, L. (2011). Educators as knowledge leaders. In J. Robertson & H. Timperley (Eds.), Leadership and Learning (pp.186-201). London: Sage.

Education Review Office (2009). Managing professional learning and development in primary schools. Retrieved 17 April, 2012, from http://www.ero.govt.nz

Education Review Office (2010). Framework for school reviews (draft) June 2010. Retrieved 17 April, 2012, from http://www.ero.govt.nz/Review-Process/For-Schools-and-Kura-Kaupapa-Maori

Education Review Office (2011). Directions for learning: The New Zealand curriculum principles, and teaching as inquiry May 2011: 22/07/2011. Retrieved 24 April, 2012, from

            http://www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/Directions-for-Learning-The-New-Zealand-Curriculum-Principles-and-Teaching-as-Inquiry-May-2011

Fitzgerald, T., Youngs, H., & Grootenboer, P. (2003). Bureaucratic control or professional autonomy?: Performance management in New Zealand schools. School Leadership & Management, 23 (1), 91­105.

Fleming, J., & Kleinhenz, E. (2007). Towards a moving school: Developing a        professional learning and performance culture. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER    Press.

Grootenboer, P. (2000). Appraisal for quality learning. Waikato Journal of Education, 6, 121-132.

Jones, J., Jenkins, M., & Lord, S. (2008). Developing effective teacher performance.  London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Kofoed, W. (presenter). (n.d.). The realities of supporting teachers’ inquiries. [Podcast] Retrieved 30 April, 2012, from

            http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Media-gallery/Ako-in-

            action-EPDP/Wendy-Kofoed-realities-of-supporting-inquiries#block-1-button

Lees, M. (2004). Appraisal – is it making a difference to teaching and student learning? The Advisor. Christchurch: Christchurch College of Education, School of Professional Development Support Services.

Lovett, S. (2002). Teacher learning and development in primary schools: A view gained through the National Education Monitoring Project. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

Middlewood, D.,  & Cardno, C. (2001). The significance of teacher performance and its appraisal. In D. Middlewood & C. Cardno (Eds). Managing Teacher Appraisal and Performance: A Comparitive Approach (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge Falmer.

Ministry of Education. (2010). Primary Teachers' Collective Agreement 2012-2012. Retrieved 26 April, 2012, from

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SchoolEmployment/TeachersPrincipals/PrimaryTeachers/CollectiveAgreement.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2012a). The national administration guidelines (NAGs). Retrieved 11 April, 2012, from

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/PolicyAndStrategy/PlanningReportingRelevantLegislationNEGSAndNAGS/TheNationalAdministrationGuidelinesNAGs.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2012b) Performance Management. Retrieved 26 April, 2012,       from             http://www.minedu.govt.nz/Boards/ManagingResources/PerformanceManage        ment.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2012c). National Standards. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/National-Standards

National College for School Leadership (NCSL). (n.d.). Learning conversations in             learning networks: transferring knowledge, creating solutions, learning             together. Retrieved 17 April, 2012, from

            http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17271

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2009). Registered teacher criteria. Retrieved 17   April, 2012, from http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/rtc/rtc.stm

New Zealand Teachers Council. (2012). New Zealand Teachers Council registration          policy. Retrieved 17 April, 2012, from

            http://registrationpolicy.teacherscouncil.govt.nz

Poskitt, J., & Taylor, K. (2008). Sustaining professional development: Rhetoric or            reality? NZ Journal of Educational Studies, 43(1), 21-32.

Robertson, J. (2008). Coaching educational leadership: Building capacity through             partnership. London: Sage.

Snook, I. (2003). The ethical teacher. Auckland: Dunmore Press.

Spillane, J., Healey, K., Parise, L. & Kenney, A. (2001). A distributed perspective on learning leadership. In J. Robertson & H. Timperley (Eds.), Leadership and Learning (pp.159-171). London: Sage.

Tester, K. (n.d.). A different practice of accountability. Retrieved 17 April, from             http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leading-change/Educational-            leadership-in-action/Accountability

Timperley, H. (2010). Using Evidence in the Classroom for Professional Learning.           Paper presented to the Ontario Research Symposium.

Timperley, H. (2011). Leading teachers’ professional learning. In J. Robertson & H.          Timperley (Eds.), Leadership and learning. (pp. 118-130). London: Sage

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional      learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington:        Ministry of Education.

Townsend, F. (1995). Appraisal: A process of betrayal? NZ Journal of Educational          Leadership, 10, 12-20.

Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking        the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.

Weinstein, C., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of          culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education,         55(1), 25-38.

 

Appendix 2: Proposed Model for XXX School

Appendix 3: Proposed Appraisal Template