Teacher Appraisals
Honest conversations are more meaningful than form-filling.
One of the side-effects of corporate-creep into education is the mimicking of appraisal systems previously not used in schools.
Time-consuming forms and ratings, often with redundant or ineffective questions, are replacing straightforward, common-sense methods for setting teaching standards and supporting professional excellence.
The rise in superficial appraisals that don’t measure what they purport to measure, and deflate morale, is of concern. Teachers have expressed frustration that they're gimmicky at best and a stick to beat them with at worst - or as nothing more than a justification to withhold salary increases or bonuses.
This compulsory “tick-box” admin task may be doing more harm than good.
Is sufficient analysis of the appraisal’s purpose, intention and design, taking place? Are the right questions being asked?
Many expensive HR-generated appraisal documents bear little relation to the world of teaching and produce flawed data. Mostly, they’re created by consultants who’ve never managed a group of children, marked a paper, or created a lesson. As such, they’re generic and ill-suited to measure good teaching. Yet their impact on staff is significant.
Teachers report being rated by colleagues or superiors outside of their department or scope of practice, as well as by students, and even parents. This practice is questionable. Consider the following:
Are the individuals rating staff members in this way qualified to judge their competence and professionalism?
Do they hold the same credentials? Do they have the same experience?
Is there tangible evidence to prove their ratings or comments?
Is this objective - or personal opinion masquerading as assessment?
Some teachers point to social dynamics influencing their scores, where popularity counts more than skill.
We know that evaluating staff is a legitimate task, but it must be done with critical thinking and fair labour practice in mind.
To maintain the integrity of an institution and ensure standards, authentic conversations and fair, relevant judgements must take precedence.
Sometimes there’s no school like old-school:
Traditionally, the head of department would observe lessons, request the teacher’s files, discuss lessons and content, ask questions about curriculum, investigate pastoral issues, or ask for a demonstration. The teacher would be able to prove diligence over time and evolve naturally with mentorship.
Personality questionnaires, statements requiring the slick use of language to “sell” oneself, and category after category producing opinions instead of facts, don’t provide opportunities for truth or improvement.
Automation is another red-herring. Computers cannot perceive and aren’t capable of nuance. Teachers must be appraised by another educator who has expertise, who is qualified to know whether or not their methodologies enhance learning, and to interpret if they need support.
The process needs real intelligence.
Teachers must be at the heart of appraisals, not at the mercy of them, with opportunities to express themselves. But most importantly, the data collected and recorded must be evidence-based and consultative. Heads of department must assess their teams in ways that are transparent and realistic, not abstract or one-sided.
Ultimately, good relationships between managers and staff, together with open dialogue and a collaborative teaching community, protects against poor performance and easily reveals whether a staff member is coping and capable.