stevenpiziks | The Real Reason Why Teachers Dislike Evaluations

No one really enjoys being evaluated at work. The media and the GOP, however, make a big deal over the fact that teachers dislike and even oppose evaluations. "Why shouldn't teachers be evaluated just like everyone else?" they complain. Well, I'll let you in on a secret:

Teachers dislike being evaluated because they have nothing to gain.

See, in other professions, you suffer through the annual or semi-annual performance evaluation, and then, if you do well, you get to talk promotion and salary and bonus. "According to you, boss," says the employee, "I'm doing a fantastic job in the widget department, so I'm clearly worth another $5,000 a year," or "It's obvious I'm ready to move up to the thingie department," or "About that bonus, then . . . "

And, of course, the opposite is also possible. "Look, Bob, your performance this year wasn't what it should have been. We can't give you a bonus this year. If you finish the widget and thingie projects ahead of schedule, maybe we can talk again" or "Sorry, Fredericka, but we've given you two chances and you still haven't brought yourself up to par. We'll have to let you go."

Or there's the middle course. "Well, everything's okay. You're doing pretty good." "Extra bonus, then?" "Not based on this, no, but you still qualify for the regular bonus, of course."

Teachers, however, don't have these options. Michigan, for example, recently passed a lovely little law requiring teachers to be evaluated every year, though the exact criteria haven't yet been established, which makes things a bit complicated. The law also says that seniority can no longer be the overriding factor in deciding who gets rehired every year. (Teachers are contract employees who technically have to be re-contracted every year.) The law states that during evaluation, teachers are to be classified as highly effective, effective, minimally effective, and ineffective.

Highly effective and effective teachers are considered good, solid employees. They aren't in trouble. They aren't in danger of being fired for poor performance. They're first on the list to be re-contracted next year. Highly effective and effective teachers are treated exactly the same.

Minimally effective teachers are considered iffy. They are automatically on probation, no matter what their previous designation may have been. They are supposed to be given an improvement plan by the principal and are given two years to bring their designation up to effective or highly effective. They are low on the list for re-contracting next year. If there are to be layoffs, these teachers will be the first to go.

Ineffective teachers are treated like minimally effective teachers, except they can be let go faster, even fired before the school year is out.

Do you see the problem?

That's right--it's all stick and no carrot. No matter how good a teacher is, the best s/he can get from an evaluation is a pat on the head and a vague promise that s/he won't be let go next year. There's no reward whatsoever. You could be rated highly effective, be selected as National Teacher of the Year, and earn Blue Ribbon status, and you'd still be eligible for nothing more than that vague promise that you won't be let go.

On the other hand, minimally effective and ineffective teachers are on warning and could be fired at any moment.

And every year, you start over. Last year's Teacher of the Year is on the same footing as last year's ineffective crud bucket.

So when my principal comes into my classroom to observe me, he can't do anything nice to me. He can't give me a raise or a bonus or a promotion. He can't even promise me that I'll have a job next year. The only thing he can actually do is try to get me fired.

Now my principal is a nice guy and I like working with him. He's made it clear that when he observes and evaluates, he isn't looking to jump down anyone's throat or nitpick or look for reasons to fire anyone. But that's =him=. There are a number of jerk-wad principals out there. I know, because after twenty years of teaching, I've met some of them. It would be dreadful to be evaluated by one of them. And no matter how great a guy or gal a principal is, the law has made it quite clear: the only thing a principal can do during an evaluation is designate who is eligible to be fired faster. That puts a little strain on things, you know?

If a raise or a bonus or a vacation in the Bahamas were at stake for earning a highly effective rating, all teachers (including me) would be calling for MORE evaluations. "Hey Jim--you coming into my classroom today? Love to have you. Want some coffee?" But there are no bonuses. There never are. A few (very few) districts have tried offering performance bonuses to teachers, but there have only been two ways to do: 1) cut all salaries and return the lost money as a "bonus" (which isn't much of a bonus); or 2) offer a bonus and then say, "Oops--too many teachers qualified and we, uh, don't have the funding to pay everyone a bonus. Heh. Sorry." So teacher bonuses never get off the ground.

Teacher evaluations are only minuses. No pluses. It's no wonder teachers oppose them. And when the GOP and other conservatives claim teachers should be evaluated "just like everybody else," please note that teachers don't GET evaluated "just like everybody else."