What are The Aims and Objectives of Teacher Evaluation?

Typically, teacher evaluation serves two functions. First, the improvement function tries to enhance the teacher’s own practise by recognising strengths and shortcomings for future professional growth.

Second, it is intended to ensure that teachers do their utmost to improve student learning – the accountability function.

The improvement function

Teacher assessment for improvement focuses on providing input that may be used to enhance teaching methods, specifically through professional development. It entails assisting teachers in learning about, reflecting on, and improving their work. This is usually done with the school setting in mind, so that an individual teacher’s professional development opportunities are matched with the school development plan.

The accountability function

The accountability component of teacher assessment is concerned with keeping educators responsible for their work and linking it to a variety of career-related outcomes. It aims to create incentives for educators to deliver their best work. Typically, it involves salary bonuses, the prospect of punishments for poor performance, and/or career development depending on performance. Summative in nature, teacher assessment for accountability often entails assessing performance at pivotal stages in a teacher’s career. Additionally, it serves as a way to honour educators.

The tension between the improvement and the accountability functions

There are significant issues with combining the accountability and improvement roles into a single teacher assessment procedure. Teachers are often willing to discuss their areas of weakness when the evaluation is focused on improving practice in schools because they believe that sharing this knowledge will help decision-makers make better choices regarding training and developmental needs.

But when instructors are worried about how evaluations can affect their careers and pay, they are less likely to disclose poor performance, which compromises the improvement function. Additionally, applying the same evaluation process to both purposes reduces the effectiveness of some instruments (such as self-evaluation) and adds to the burden on the evaluators because the results of their decisions can have somewhat contradictory effects (e.g. tension between improving performance by identifying weaknesses and limiting career progression, if the evaluation prevents teachers from advancing in their career). Countries seldom employ a pure kind of teacher evaluation model in practice, preferring to create a special blend that combines many objectives and approaches (Stronge and Tucker, 2003). These dangers are increased in situations when teacher evaluation is not mature, such as when it is not embedded in the culture of the school when evaluatees and evaluators lack experience, or when evaluators’ authority has not been recognised.

There are inherent conflicts when striving to develop through accountability. Sometimes placing too much focus on responsibility can make instructors feel uneasy or afraid, which lowers their appreciation for their own job (OECD, 2009b). Contrarily, via the creation of a formative system of teacher assessment, teachers and their unions anticipate chances for social acknowledgement of their work and for professional progress (Avalos and Assael, 2006).

Teacher evaluation for improvement purposes is likely to benefit from conditions such as:

  • A non-threatening evaluation context.
  • A culture of mutually providing and receiving feedback.
  • Clearly defined individual and group goals for enhancing instruction in the school as well as an open discussion of the goals of the institution.
  • straightforward evaluation tools including self-assessment questionnaires, classroom observations, and organized interviews.
  • supporting school administration.
  • A system of school self-assessment and quality assurance; Opportunities to increase competencies; Resources and ways to improve practise; Integration of teacher evaluation.
  • As In result, circumstances like these are likely to be advantageous for teacher assessment for accountability.
  • An impartial and unbiased evaluation of the instructor’s performance.
  • national benchmarks and requirements for all schools.
  • an outside-of-the-school evaluation component and more formal procedures.
  • specified guidelines for the evaluation’s repercussions.
  • Clearly defined personal goals for a teacher’s achievement in every area.
  • Evaluators of teaching performance who are qualified and well-trained. implications for professional development plans.
  • Teachers who believe they have not been treated properly may be able to appeal.