A principal schedules an observation, and the teacher prepares her best lesson—one she'd never ordinarily teach. An evaluation report rates the teacher "satisfactory" without providing useful feedback for improvement. A struggling teacher receives an unsatisfactory rating that triggers a process of either improvement or dismissal. Teacher evaluation—supposedly serving both accountability and development—often achieves neither purpose well while consuming substantial time and creating significant stress.
The Purposes of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation is supposed to serve multiple purposes. Accountability purposes involve ensuring teachers meet minimum competency standards and removing those who don't. Developmental purposes involve identifying improvement areas and supporting teacher growth. Recognition purposes involve acknowledging excellent practice and motivating continued excellence. These purposes don't always align, and systems that try to serve all of them may serve none well.
The accountability-development tension is particularly challenging. Evaluation for accountability requires teachers to demonstrate competence, creating incentives to show their best and hide weaknesses. Evaluation for development requires teachers to acknowledge weaknesses in order to address them. The same process rarely accomplishes both purposes—teachers reluctant to reveal weaknesses when stakes are high cannot engage in genuine developmental reflection.
Most Canadian teacher evaluation systems emphasize accountability over development. Formal evaluation determines employment status, tenure decisions, and performance ratings. Development happens through separate processes—professional learning plans, collegial observation, instructional coaching—that don't carry employment stakes. The formal evaluation system, as experienced by most teachers, is primarily about accountability.
How Teacher Evaluation Works
Provincial collective agreements and regulations establish teacher evaluation frameworks that local implementation interprets. Typical approaches involve classroom observations by administrators, assessment against competency standards, ratings or judgments, and formal documentation. The frequency of evaluation varies—new teachers may be evaluated annually while experienced teachers may go years between formal evaluations.
Classroom observation is central to most evaluation systems. Principals or administrators observe teaching, note what they see, and assess against standards. Observation may be announced (scheduled in advance) or unannounced (drop-in visits). The observation provides data for evaluation judgments.
Evaluation ratings typically include categories like "satisfactory/unsatisfactory" or performance levels from "developing" through "exemplary." Most teachers receive satisfactory ratings; unsatisfactory ratings trigger formal processes. The distribution of ratings skews heavily positive, with very few teachers rated below satisfactory—raising questions about whether evaluation distinguishes quality meaningfully.
Limitations of Current Approaches
Classroom observation provides limited data about teaching effectiveness. A single observation captures perhaps an hour of a teacher's year. What's observed may not represent typical practice—teachers may prepare special lessons for observation days. Observer presence affects classroom dynamics. The snapshot nature of observation may not reveal patterns that matter more than individual lessons.
Administrator capacity for meaningful evaluation is limited. Principals managing large schools, with many responsibilities beyond evaluation, have limited time for observation and feedback. They may lack subject-matter expertise to evaluate content knowledge. They may have insufficient evaluator training to assess teaching quality accurately. The people conducting evaluation may not be equipped for evaluation's demands.
The heavy skew toward satisfactory ratings suggests evaluation doesn't distinguish quality well. If essentially everyone is satisfactory, the distinction lacks meaning. Some argue this reflects that most teachers actually are competent; others argue it reflects evaluation that isn't rigorous enough. Either way, the signal evaluation sends about quality is limited.
Feedback quality from evaluation varies enormously. Some administrators provide detailed, useful feedback that helps teachers improve. Others provide generic comments that offer little guidance. The developmental potential of evaluation depends entirely on feedback quality, which evaluation systems don't ensure.
Alternative Approaches
Some jurisdictions have experimented with evaluation alternatives. Peer evaluation involves teachers evaluating each other, potentially providing subject-specific expertise administrators lack. Multiple measure approaches combine observation with other data—student surveys, peer feedback, student outcomes—for more comprehensive assessment. Portfolio-based evaluation asks teachers to document and reflect on their practice.
Separating accountability and development might serve both purposes better. An accountability process could establish minimum competence through rigorous but infrequent evaluation. A separate development process could support ongoing growth without employment stakes, enabling the openness about weaknesses that improvement requires. Different processes for different purposes might accomplish what unified processes cannot.
Instructional coaching provides developmental support outside evaluation frameworks. Coaches observe frequently, provide immediate feedback, and support improvement without making evaluation judgments. Where instructional coaching exists, it often supports teacher growth more effectively than formal evaluation does.
The Human Experience of Evaluation
Teachers experience evaluation with varying degrees of stress and utility. For confident teachers with supportive administrators, evaluation may be routine and non-threatening. For anxious teachers or those with critical administrators, evaluation creates substantial stress. The experience depends on relationships and personalities as much as formal procedures.
Experienced teachers often view evaluation as procedural rather than meaningful. They know how to perform for observation, receive expected ratings, and return to normal practice. Evaluation becomes compliance exercise rather than improvement opportunity. The ritual persists without serving its stated purposes.
New teachers experience evaluation differently. Evaluation judgments matter more when employment is uncertain. Feedback—if useful—can genuinely inform developing practice. The stakes are higher and the potential value greater for teachers still establishing themselves.
Questions for Consideration
Does teacher evaluation in your experience actually improve teaching? How might evaluation better distinguish excellent from adequate from inadequate teaching? Should evaluation primarily serve accountability or development purposes? What would evaluation that genuinely helps teachers improve look like?