Tennessee’s educator evaluation system is long overdue for fundamental changes to better support student achievement and improve teaching practice, according to the findings of the TEA Educator Evaluation Forum.
“Ask any teacher or administrator in Tennessee, and they’ll likely list several reasons why the educator evaluation process in Tennessee needs an overhaul,” said TEA President Tanya T. Coats. “It’s no surprise, as the system has been largely unchanged since 2011.”
TEA invited key education stakeholders in the state to the forum with the goal of identifying what works and what must be changed in the state’s evaluation model. Among key findings of the forum is the need to de-couple evaluation scores from high- stakes decisions such as compensation and tenure so that educators can view evaluations as designed – a system to support professional growth rather than a punitive process.
“An effective evaluation model should facilitate an educator’s growth by applying both formative and summative principles,” Coats said. “Forum panelists and attendees said repeatedly that accountability systems should measure education by a variety of indicators that provide a clear and accurate description of resources, processes, and outcomes.”
Another recommendation was to re-establish the Teacher Evaluation Advisory Council (TEAC) to ensure that conversations about improvements to the evaluation system are purposeful and ongoing.
“A good education evaluation model should encourage and promote effective teaching and collaboration among educators to support student achievement,” said TEA Executive Director Terrance Gibson. “Unfortunately, that’s not what currently exists in Tennessee. A clear lack of purposeful and ongoing conversations with active practitioners who are personally experiencing the evaluation system impedes a common vision and collaboration, which adversely impacts student achievement.”
The forum included two panel discussions on the current evaluation process in Tennessee: one panel composed of administrators and another of certified teachers. Panelists were asked different sets of questions pertaining to their professional experience with the evaluation process, as well as a set of questions directed to both panels about the system’s strengths, what changes they would propose, and whether it can be used as a tool for retaining educators and leaders.
The fact that special educators are not adequately evaluated on the TEAM rubric was one of the key findings of the administrator panel discussion, which recommended creating a separate rubric for those teachers. The panel also reported that the current evaluation system is inequitable because it is not appropriate for each educator and affords no flexibility, while the evaluation rubric doesn’t exactly align with what some educators are required to teach. Administrators also agreed that the evaluation model can be a tool for retaining educators only if it is not used punitively. The punitive nature of the evaluation system, as it stands right now, negatively impacts the culture of the building.
There was a profound difference in perception of the evaluation system between administrators and certified staff, with administrators indicating a genuine desire to use the evaluation system as a strategy to support professional growth, while non-administrator panelists consistently characterized the evaluation system as a punitive tool with no real positive impact on their job performance.
“Tennessee’s teachers see the current evaluation process as inadequate, as it doesn’t accurately capture the realities, expectations, and efforts of the educator,” said Beth Brice, head of TEA’s Instructional Advocacy department. “There is a lot of work ahead to improve the evaluation system in Tennessee, and TEA is proud to do its part in making it happen.”
