4: Evaluation of Teaching
In the early 1970s, we discouraged linking teacher evaluation and the clinical supervision process. Occasionally, a district administrator would ask, “Why not use the notes from the clinical classroom observation as a major aspect of the evaluation of teachers?” Our response was that we believed it was very difficult to develop and maintain a high level of trust between the supervisor and teachers if evaluation became part of the process.
The latter part of the 1970s witnessed an increased focus on accountability and evaluation across the United States. Increasingly, districts were including classroom observations as part of their teacher evaluation programs. Districts consulting with Jerry Bellon and his associates (including me) asked how they could connect what they were doing within the clinical supervision process with their emerging teacher evaluation programs. So we began to assist them and offered the following suggestions:
a. The observational data should only be used in the part of the evaluation process that deals with classroom instruction.
b. The evaluation program should be based on the assumption that the major purpose of evaluation is to gather information for decision making that will improve the instructional program.
c. All aspects of the evaluation program should be philosophically and procedurally in harmony with the clinical supervision approach.
d. Agreement should be reached about which important behaviors will be evaluated.
e. Evaluation forms should be congruent with gathering objective data that can be used for decision making. Rating sheets that are heavily laden with value statements that require subjective judgments should be avoided.
f. And, given the fact that each school district is different, each district should engage in an inclusive process to develop its own unique evaluation program. (Bellon, Eaker, Huffman, & Jones, 1976, pp. 24–25)
I find it amazing that the clinical supervision process that I experienced in the late 1960s is so prominent in the 21st century. While not referred to as clinical supervision, classroom observation has become a feature of virtually every state evaluation system. Palimpsest indeed!
A Summing Up
Clearly, the decade of the 1970s was a seminal period in my life. In retrospect, this was the time that I seriously and purposefully began to delve into issues related to both instructional improvement and, toward the end of the decade, school improvement.
The consulting work with Jerry Bellon gave me the confidence to work in schools and school districts of all shapes and sizes. I increased my understanding not only of instructional improvement but also of the importance of appreciating each school and school district’s unique history and culture. I also acquired valuable experience handling the political issues that often accompany any attempts at change.
I was fortunate to work in all types of schools. Most were upper-middle-class suburban schools, but because I worked in so many different schools in a wide variety of districts, I was able to gain insights into rural schools, inner-city schools, wealthy schools, and poor schools, as well as schools of all sizes.
This period was also important in that I made new and enduring friendships, both personal and professional. My relationship with Jerry evolved from being his graduate assistant to being close friends with both him and his family. Also during this period, my friendship with Rick DuFour grew and deepened. We realized we viewed the world through the same lens, including things beyond educational issues. We found humor in many of the same things. Not all who knew Rick had the opportunity to witness his sharp sense of humor. Boy, did they miss out! He was one of the wittiest people I ever met. Simply put, for four decades, we had great fun together.
Working in schools also gave me the opportunity to make new friends, especially in the districts of suburban Chicago and Long Island, such as Hinsdale, Illinois, and West Islip, New York. I often traveled with Jim Huffman, who also was a graduate assistant of Jerry’s and after receiving his doctorate joined me on the faculty at Middle Tennessee State University. In the evenings, we would have dinner with friends, such as Roger Miller from Hinsdale and, of course, Rick.
My experiences in these schools sharpened my belief in the critically important role leadership plays in regard to district, school, team, and classroom effectiveness, particularly the quality of superintendent and principal leadership. I realized quickly that the defining difference between success or lack thereof was leadership. Programs, regardless of how well they may be conceived or supported by research, will have limited impact in districts and schools in the absence of strong leadership. It is ironic that teacher empowerment, ownership, and improvement depend on strong top-down leadership.
I also gained a greater appreciation of the role that attitudes play in instructional improvement. In many ways, attitudes are the lubrication that makes things work—or not. In Kid by Kid, Skill by Skill (Eaker & Keating, 2015), Janel Keating and I write of the difference between have-to educators and get-to educators. I was amazed at the differences between schools and within schools regarding this basic attitude. Some educators seemed to have an attitude of “I have to come to work and do these things I am told to do,” while others expressed excitement or gratitude that “I get to work with my colleagues and these kids.” What a difference!
A get-to teacher attitude is exemplified by Eleanor Roosevelt. After her husband, Franklin Roosevelt, was elected governor of New York in the election of 1928, Mrs. Roosevelt refused to give up the job that meant the most to her. She was teaching American history and 19th century literature three days a week at the Todhunter School for girls in Manhattan. She remarked, “I teach because I love it. I cannot give it up” (Ward & Burns, 2014, pp. 268–269).
Another example: For years one of my dearest friends was Richard Marius. Although Richard passed away in 1999, I often think of him and his impact on me—and countless others. For almost two decades, Richard was director of expository writing at Harvard University. Beyond directing expository writing, Richard frequently taught a course in the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences on William Faulkner’s novels, from Soldiers’ Pay to Go Down, Moses. Although the university catalog course description noted enrollment was limited to fifteen students, in the fall of 1996 his final grade sheet listed grades for seventy-one students (Anderson, 2006)!
Richard did not feel he had to teach those additional students. Instead, he felt grateful that he got to share his knowledge of and enthusiasm for Faulkner’s life and novels with students. Later in my career, as a university dean, I witnessed get-to attitudes like Richard’s time and again. Unfortunately, I also occasionally encountered faculty members who would not allow any additional students in their courses beyond the published class size limits, regardless of the circumstances.
What a difference attitude makes! What would lead us to believe that students will have a better attitude than their teachers or that teachers’ attitudes will be more positive and enthusiastic than the attitude of their principal? Doesn’t the attitude of the superintendent have an effect on an entire school district—especially on principals, teachers, and support staff? The answer: absolutely!
During this period of utilizing the clinical supervision process as a vehicle for improving instruction, both Jim Huffman and I (and, I am sure, others) began to realize the process had some severe limitations. While the process offered educators helpful skills at observing and recording classroom interactions, along with a framework for partnering with teachers to reflect on their instructional effectiveness, the process did not place a heavy emphasis on providing teachers specific research-based approaches for improving their classroom effectiveness.
We saw that at the end of post-observation
