Good Employee Evaluation is not Formal Evaluation

It may very well be that maybe the best employee evaluations have no formal evaluation procedures at all. Performance improvement should be about relationships and communication rather than documents.

Right now there is a lot of national criticism of the education profession alleging that incompetents are allowed to continue practicing. There is growing public demand for more stringent evaluation procedures for educators, with the thinking that stronger evaluation systems will create stronger employees. So state legislatures are getting into the act and trying to define how evaluations should take place.

Let's face it: if it were possible for quality to be legislated, we would have done it years ago, and we would not be concerned with it now.

The problem with the concept of evaluation as it is defined by code and implemented in practice is that it inherently becomes a negative process. Supervisors must keep score on a secret tally sheet and reveal their findings at a given time when the summative evaluation takes place.

What is missing from this concept is the on-going communication and coaching that should be taking place between the evaluator and his or her charge. In the classrooms, instructors teach and communicate with students on a daily basis so those students will be successful by the conclusion of the class. On the sports field, coaches do not silently watch their athletes only to set an appointment to later review their mistakes. Teaching and coaching are dependent upon open and constant communication.

The key to making this system effective is to develop a climate of trust and open communication where all parties understand that everyone's goal is to make the school as effective and successful as possible for the students. Certainly there can be a place for an annual review. But let the annual performance conference be about setting challenging goals for the growth of each individual and setting up personal learning plans to help the educator achieve those goals.

Let's make evaluation about getting better rather than finding fault.

Image creator: David Castillo Dominici

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=3062

There is Merit to Performance-based Pay for Teachers

Performance-based pay can change teacher performance in a school system. I have direct knowledge of a school that implemented a pay-for-performance system, and things changed.

Here's just one example: a teacher was disappointed in his pay raise and went into the principal to question it. The principal explained that the teacher was not actively participating in professional development. He was checking papers, inattentive, and largely disengaged whenever he was in attendance at school improvement activities. The teacher asked if he would fair better if he changed that. The principal replied positively, and the next year that teacher was a model participant in school improvement and professional development activities. The system worked.

Unfortunately, the system did not directly benefit student achievement as measured by standardized tests. All teachers are generally doing the best job they know how for their students regardless of their pay. They are not holding anything back until they get a bump in salary. Their duty is too important, and they know it.

However, the system that worked with the teacher mentioned above did not work with all. Another teacher asked why her raise was less than others, and it was explained to her that her habit of starting her teaching duties a full week after the students arrived in August was inhibiting her performance. She did not believe it, and she was sure it was unfair bias beyond her control that was holding her down.

And this leads into a big problem with performance-based pay. It is vulnerable to favoritism, cronyism, and politics. Teachers often perceive that some principals may have favorites on staff. Realistically, principals are humans who are receptive to friendships and kind gestures. There is also a valid danger that someone with political power within the school--maybe a relative on the school board--may receive more favorable reviews and better pay than others.

There is a vital key to ensuring that performance-based pay improves teacher performance in a school system. The pay system must be tied closely and specifically to the evaluation system, and the evaluation system must deal with very specific, objective performance standards. The more subjective the criteria, the more the system is open to bias, suspicions of favoritism, and failure.