Should Experienced Teachers Be Evaluated Differently Than New Teachers?

Should experienced teachers be evaluated differently than new teachers?

I thought this was a pretty good comment here, pretty good question.

And part of my answer has to do with the purpose of teacher evaluation.

I think it makes sense to not worry so much about a teacher's evaluation if you're confident that they're doing a great job.

But we have to remember that it's not just about our own confidence as educational leaders.

It's also about the public trust.

So part of the reason we do and continue to do teacher evaluations, even for very experienced teachers, is to reassure the public that we're doing them, that we're paying attention to this, that we're on top of this issue.

And I think everybody is aware.

So like the second part of my answer would be like, everybody is aware that people can fall apart at any point in their career when something is going on in their personal life or, you know, just their...

their health changes or their commitment changes, maybe they burn out.

Like there's no guarantee that experience translates directly to good performance.

And there's no guarantee that past good performance translates directly to good current performance.

Like another thing that happens is a teacher will stay in a school for many, many years and the population changes.

And maybe the teaching approaches that were effective with the previous population aren't working with the new population.

So we have to really stay on top of things throughout our careers.

I think there's really no magic to experience.

Obviously, you're going to struggle with different things as a new teacher, and you're going to get some of those things figured out in your first couple of years.

But I don't think the quality assurance or the support or just the awareness demands ever go away.

So I think as administrators, we have to always be paying attention to this.

I don't think you should need a formal observation to know if somebody is doing a good job.

I think that's kind of late.

And earlier today I talked about classroom walkthroughs and my book.

Now we're talking 21 Days to High Performance Instructional Leadership.

Like if you're getting into classrooms the way I talk about in that book, you don't really need to do the formal observation to know that.

You'll have a sense for being in classrooms all the time.

And then it just becomes a matter of, well, okay, we have to do the formal observations.

We have to do the write-up and all of that stuff.

And that just is what it is.

But all of that is easier if you are in classrooms frequently.

Now, the final part of this question is the idea of kind of a contractual difference, right?

In a lot of districts, you do have a more streamlined process after your first couple of years.

That was the case for me when I was a teacher in Seattle.

And when I was a principal in Seattle, for more experienced teachers, the process is faster.

It has fewer steps, fewer requirements, maybe just one observation instead of two.

And I know in some places you don't even get evaluated every year if you're a more experienced teacher.

And I think that's fine.

But I do think we have to make sure that we know what is going on in every classroom all the time, not moment by moment.

I'm not saying visit every classroom every period and some of the insanity that we're hearing from some places now.

But get around to every teacher about once every two weeks and you'll have a sense of what's going on.

You won't have any surprises and you'll know exactly where each person's performance is and where your school is and where you need to go collectively.