I agree that data, metrics and measurables are invaluable in gauging effectiveness. Real-time data representing "key indicators" is not only beneficial to the individual teacher, but the publication of school-wide and district-wide data can serve to help focus resources where they are most needed.

However, I think one should also explore how the students react to the teacher.  Although this is less objective and more subjective, the ability to reach, motivate and excite students - independent of test performance  - must also factor into a teacher's effectiveness.  The ability to "reach" a student on this level not only short-circuits the "teaching to the test" argument, but also improves the likelihood that the student will stay engaged in the education system and ultimately continue through graduation.

Effective teaching ultimately depends on one's perspective.

One paradigm suggests that the performance and achievement of the student validates the effectiveness of the teacher.

This perspective does not take into account the inherent qualities and dispositions of the student.

Take for example the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. Was Plato an effective teacher because of Aristotle's achievements?

What did Aristotle come to the table with?

Another paradigm suggests that the disposition of the student (the student's attitude about learning) validates the effectiveness of the teacher.

This perspective does not take into account the performance and achievement of the student.

Again lets consider the example of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. Did Aristotle's departure from Plato's teachings invalidate Plato's effectiveness as a teacher?

Do effective teachers make for effective learners?

Do ineffective teachers make for ineffective learners?

Perhaps the unique and individual relationship between teacher and student determines the learning dynamic. If this is true then wouldn't it make sense to simply determine where teachers and students can be effective teachers and learners? And how can one determine where without understanding motive?

What motivates an effective teacher? What motivates an effective learner? Are these respective motivators found in the classroom? Do they vary from person to person? Do they share anything in common which can be capitalized upon? To what extent can this information be effectively exploited?

Then there is another consideration. If you take the most effective teachers and place them with the most underachieving students, do the teachers remain effective teachers? What becomes of their former students? Who assumes responsibility for those former students? Are the motivators still in place and operative?

And finally, in assessing what is or is not being taught, what politics determine the definition of success?

Well, that was a lot to absorb...and the main thrust I get from it is that teaching is as much an art as it is a science.  And, as in art, it is often tough to negotiate "good" from "bad" and/or what constitutes effective art.  While there are many, many guidelines about art (balance, hue, movement, etc...) that are "taught" in schools at all levels and across the country, the "in the eye of the beholder" is often the trump card that equalizes things.  One may believe that Van Gogh's Irises is one of the finest pieces of art ever created, but if one says "I don't like it and don't think it's very good." it becomes hard to challenge that...except when one enters the art world...which would very forcefully challenge that!  Indeed, the "market" challenges that in that the painting would seel for millions and millions of dollars were it to be sold....Good?  Bad?  Who knows...valuable?  Absolutely!

Okay...so what does all that mean to me?  I completely understand how hard it is to evaluate teaching.  There are too many variables involved to make it clear cut.  That said, I don't believe we have the luxury of waiting 20+ years to assess the investment made in our children...at least I'm not willing to wait that long to determine that a teacher my kids had in 3rd grade was bad, ineffective, etc...(By the way, I have a kid going into the 5th and another going into the 7th...both public school kids in Pasadena)...Nor do I think we should have to because teaching is hard to evaluate.  Instead, I DO believe that there are all sorts of things we can use as indicators of good AND bad teaching that should set in motion activities to either praise or adjust as necessary.  Teachers watch each other...Principals watch teachers...Scores tell part of the story...Feedback from kids and parents should be included...All to be used to determine if and how long a person should be in a classroom with what kids...Indeed, sometimes the person is a good teacher for the wrong aged kids...(We had someone who just was not right for the 2nd grade...moved to Kindergarten and he's doing very, very well!)...or someone is doing very well with the kids, but the scores were not high...or whatever...As stated in many of your e-mails, there's lots going on...

There has been so much study on this subject...and with due respect to all the models, they all need to lead to a "product" or "consumable" for what amounts to the consumer...the kids AND, as guardians, the parents...There is no doubt that the primary recipient/consumer of teaching is the student...Clearly, the person who is impacted by good, bad or ugly teaching is the kids...That said, we are all aware that it is often the parents that make decisions about what their kid is getting...and will bring pressure to bear if they think they need to...Then, we have Principals who must act, with great diplomacy, to manage what he/she thinks is going on versus what the parents think is going, versus the scores, the kids, etc...(Don't get me started on how we evaluate Principals...Wow!)...In the end, we've got to have some way to hash all this out and take action if necessary...We cannot say to the audience, "Wait for 20 years and we'll let you know if this person was effective."  Nor can we say "Well, they are doing all the right things according to the structure we've put in place...we can't account for why the kids are not reading, writing or doing math at the level that is necessary."  We just can't say that or public schools will continue to lose kids and the confidence necessary for a robust schools system.  Instead, we need to have a clear and consistent approach to evaluating teachers.  We MUST use scores as a component...They are the most easily understood by the "parent/customer," albeit the most easily misconstrued as well!...But we must balance with peer review, in-class evaluations, development programs, etc...So that if there's a teacher who is consistently doing all the "right" things, but is also consistently getting lower scores than should be expected, some action can be taken...Similarly, if we have a teacher who is getting scores, while doing things in an unorthodox manner with feedback that is positive, etc., we shouldn't throw out the manners categorically without review...

Whew...I have to get to work now...Wish I could spend all day engaged in this...I'm in the thick of it with my kids...I remember what it was like in the classroom...and understand that the true challenge here is that our "customers" are all experts on the kids in whose care they place teachers every day...Like having 35 bosses who all know what's best for you to do!  That said, we can't say "no" to an evaluation system...Something has to be in place that allows for them to monitor progress easily as well to gauge their own level of comfort about what their kids are getting...We have to help them do that in a responsible manner!

Cheers!

kc

Lisa,

You have done a great service by getting us back to not only how we evaluate effective teaching, but the real question of what is effective teaching. I think we have to start by discussing what is "teaching to the test"

If you see teaching to the test as "test prep" of only key standards in isolation, then you probably won't achieve outstanding results.  Marzano and many others have said that test prep has very little impact on student achievement.  At the same time, I am all for "teaching to the test" if it means that the key standards that students need to learn are embedded in a curriculum that goes deeper and is connected to a system such as PBL or experiential/social learning activities.  Students who engage with content by asking questions, wrestling with it with their peers and have a relevant outcome usually produce greater gains.  Also the standards, if well constructed, can provide a good road map of necessary developmentally appropriate skills that should be a minimum of what students need to progress to the next level. My experience is that there are many ineffective teachers who never read the standards and teach what they feel they should or what they like. Even if they read them, in their planning they are not really breaking them down into the skills that need to be taught to meet the standards and then planning backwards from there to move the kids to achieve those standards.   I believe that part of the problem with elementary math education is that a subset of teachers who are less proficient/intimidated by math spend more time teaching literacy and therefore the kids can move on without key skills. In these cases, a focus on teaching to the test (the whole test) might lead to growth in our students in all areas.

As for the idea of individual growth plans for students - I am in full agreement that teachers should have a clear plan for moving kids from where they are to where they need to go, but I would caution that this could turn out to be a disaster for students who are behind if the teachers have lower expectations for them.  Let's say a student is a grade level behind and a teacher is sitting down to make a plan for him or her.  Does that teacher make the plan more challenging or less challenging for the student.  Most would make it less so because the fact that they are behind often suggests that they cannot do as much as those who are on track.  Unfortunately, this is the absolute wrong course since the lower expectations will only increase the gap between that student and their peers.  If these individual plans include ways to accelerate that student's progress faster than their peers, then I would support it.

Finally, I think that some of the skills you are talking about should be made explicit parts of school curriculums and effectiveness should be judged partially on how well they teach these skills.  In one way that happens as teachers set up procedures in their classroom and planning expectations for their students and teach social skills.  In evaluation this can be seen in classroom observations and student evaluations of teachers.  I am a fan of multiple measures of teacher contributions beyond straight content knowledge as long as a major piece is the demonstration of growth amongst the students.

By the way, sorry I have been out of the loop I just became a principal of a school and have been swamped by hiring and getting in place many of the things we are discussing here to support and evaluate teachers in my new building.  Even with two instructional coaches and two APs, the idea of doing all of this right and helping struggling teachers progress so that the kids learn is daunting.  Which brings me to the point that someone else made.  All of this system is only as good as the evaluators and whether they are trained and have time to do an adequate job of evaluating teaches.  DC's plan to have master teachers help in the system is intriguing and might be a workaround for principals who might not necessarily have the training and temperament to truly evaluate their former colleagues with equanimity (usually being too easy on them, rather than too hard).

As always, thanks for the conversations and I apologize for my long-winded response

David Markus