Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice

by Charlotte Danielson

This is not an indictment of earlier models; indeed, they represented the best of what was known at the time. Like other professions, however, education is built around a conception of practice based on current and emerging research findings; as those findings suggest new approaches, pedagogical practices must also move forward.

Many teachers are more expert regarding their work than the administrators who “supervise” them—more knowledgeable about their discipline, current pedagogical approaches, or the developmental characteristics of the students they teach.

One factor fueling the shift has been an expanded understanding of learning, and what constitutes good teaching. Another factor has been the promulgation, by professional organizations and many states and large school districts, of content standards for student learning.

The Purposes of Evaluation As Donald Haefele (1993) points out, a clear sense of purpose should govern the design of a teacher evaluation system. He identifies the following purposes that must be served, arguing that a system should screen out unqualified persons from certification and selection processes; provide constructive feedback to individual educators; recognize and help reinforce outstanding service; provide direction for staff development practices; provide evidence that will withstand professional and judicial scrutiny; aid institutions in terminating incompetent or unproductive personnel; and unify teachers and administrators in their collective efforts to educate students.

those purposes defined as summative (for the purpose of making consequential decisions)

formative (for the purpose of enhancing the professional skills of teachers).

The two principal purposes of teacher evaluation, then, are (1) quality assurance and (2) professional development.

Not only do different individuals and groups disagree about the relative importance of the two main purposes of evaluation—quality assurance and professional growth—but some even argue that they are incompatible with one another.

These shortcomings are often the result of two common conditions within local schools. First, school staff lack the time, training, and inclination to become knowledgeable about the best evidence emerging from the research on teaching. Second, despite this emerging evidence, school staff show a strong tendency “to pretend not to know what we know.” It is easier to stick with what teachers have always done and believed, rather than go through the often painful process of changing current thinking about teaching—the way teachers practice it and the way people evaluate it.

Reform and Restructuring Initiatives.

Increased Understanding of How Adults Grow, Develop, and Learn.

Increased Awareness of the Importance and Complexity of Teaching.

Increased Focus on the Development of Teacher Expertise.

New Understanding About Staff Development.