# data[].attributes.body
5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the 1990s standardized tests became entrenched in American K-12 schools as nearly every state, and later the federal government, adopted policies that mandated annual testing and held schools accountable for the results. In the ensuing decades, however, educators and policymakers began to recognize that high-stakes testing was not living up to its promise and that the single-minded focus on test scores had produced unintended (although, in retrospect, entirely predictable) consequences.

Increasingly, school districts across the country are now turning to an alternative evaluation tool-surveys that ask students to rate their teachers and their schools on various metrics of quality and effectiveness. This growing use of evaluative surveys in K-12 reflects a rare consensus among education policy wonks and activists, bringing together strange ideological bedfellows who all believe surveys can help achieve their goals and priorities.

Unfortunately, there is a risk that education leaders will make the same mistakes with surveys that they did with standardized tests-overpromising and not thinking through perverse incentives. Fortunately, it's not too late to consider carefully both the promise and the likely pitfalls of using student surveys as a measure of teacher and school performance.
Judging Teachers
Education research has established that teachers are the most important in-school factor influencing student academic achievement. The same research, however, documents considerable variation in the effectiveness of public school teachers, suggesting that improving the workforce-by providing professional development for existing educators, recruiting better teachers through nontraditional pathways, and dismissing the poorest performers-offers a promising policy lever for raising student outcomes. Many states reformed their teacher-evaluation policies during the 2010s, after the Obama administration launched its Race to the Top grant competition, which incentivized states to adopt rigorous evaluation systems designed to measure and reward teacher contributions to student learning.

This effort did not work out as hoped. With a few notable exceptions, such as the highly regarded IMPACT system in Washington, D.C., it seems that efforts to improve teacher rating systems have largely been a bust. One recent analysis of state-level teacher-evaluation reforms found "precisely estimated null effects." Commentators have offered many hypotheses as to why these initiatives fell short, but one probable explanation is that the metric of teacher quality preferred by reformers-"value added" to student test scores-can only be calculated for a minority of teachers, since most do not teach grade levels and subjects where standardized tests are administered annually. The ensuing push for one-size-fits-all evaluation systems resulted in considerable weight being put on other, more easily gameable or subjective measures of performance that could be applied to more teachers.

That is one reason why some accountability hawks are now pinning their hopes on student surveys, which can be administered in every subject and to students as young as grade 3. The innovative teacher evaluation system in Dallas, identified as one contributor to recent improvements recorded by the city's lowest-performing schools and described as a national model by some reformers, relies heavily on student surveys. The Dallas survey of students in grades 6-12 asks them to evaluate factors such as the teacher's expectations of students, the positive or negative "energy" in the classroom, the fairness of the teacher's rules, the depth of a teacher's subject knowledge, the frequency of helpful feedback, the clarity of instruction, and more.

Critics of standardized testing have also written favorably about student surveys, arguing that they help move education leaders beyond the obsessive focus on test scores by identifying other aspects of teacher and school quality valued by students, parents, and policymakers. One of the most influential researchers in this area is Northwestern University economist Kirabo Jackson (an Education Next contributor). In pathbreaking work, Jackson showed that measures of teacher quality based narrowly on contributions to test-score improvement missed many other ways teachers affect long-run student outcomes. More recently, Jackson used data from Chicago high schools to show that student surveys can help quantify important dimensions of school quality, including school climate, that affect not just student achievement but also outcomes such as high school graduation rates and criminal-justice involvement. Jackson's recent appointment to President Biden's Council of Economic Advisors suggests that survey-based measures are likely to play a bigger role in federal school-improvement efforts in the future.

Student surveys also play a central role in policies promoted by many other political entrepreneurs. For example, on the political left, increasing interest in social and emotional learning will also mean greater reliance on student surveys, since they represent one of the few ways in which such skills can be measured and quantified. At the same time, conservatives have embraced surveys in their efforts to promote free speech and protect ideological diversity in schools. Proposed legislation in Ohio, based on model bills developed by high-profile conservative think tanks, would require that public university professors have their teaching evaluated in large part through student surveys, including a specific question asking, "Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender, and religious bias?"
Too Much Too Fast?
Promising as these developments may seem, it is concerning that the hype surrounding student surveys has gotten well ahead of the evidence. Researchers have devoted too little attention to validating survey-based measurements to confirm that they assess the things policymakers hope to measure. Nor have decisionmakers sufficiently considered the potential consequences of attaching high stakes to student survey responses. (Jackson's work in Chicago sheds little light on this question, as it was conducted at a time when surveys were not part of the city's school accountability system.)

One cautionary piece of evidence comes from the Gates Foundation-funded Measures of Effective Teaching project. As part of this effort, researchers compared three distinct ways of assessing teacher quality-test-score value-added, classroom observations, and student surveys. While early data did find some evidence that survey-based measures predicted test-score growth, these results were not confirmed in the more rigorous part of the study in which students were randomly assigned to different teachers. The final results found no relationship between student survey scores and improvements in academic achievement, prompting researchers to suggest "practitioners should proceed with caution when considering student survey measures for teacher evaluation."

Other potential problems also need scrutiny. For example, one recent study examined the association of survey-based measures of student conscientiousness, self-control, and grit with outcomes such as school attendance, disciplinary infractions, and gains in test scores over time. While researchers found a positive relationship between attitudes and behavioral outcomes among students attending the same schools, these correlations disappeared when the same data were aggregated up to the school level and compared across campuses. Most worrying, the authors also found that high-performing charter schools, shown through randomized lotteries to improve both student attendance and academic achievement, recorded the lowest scores on the student surveys. One possible explanation is that the school environment may have affected survey responses in unexpected ways-with students in classes made up of higher-performing peers rating their own attributes more critically, through a form of negative social comparison.

Such results are unlikely to surprise political pollsters, who have long understood the importance of both priming and framing effects in shaping survey responses. That is, even modest changes in the survey-taking context-such as changing the order of the questions-can have a significant impact on the responses. Designing survey questions that actually measure what their authors intend to measure requires considerable skill. Small variations in question wording-for example, describing a protest as an exercise in free speech as opposed to a threat to public safety-can yield sharply different results. Unfortunately, too few education practitioners working with student survey data have any rigorous training in survey research methods.

Finally, although many now appreciate the ways in which high-stakes accountability policies can encourage "teaching to the test," few have considered the problem of "teaching to the survey." Letting students weigh in on teacher evaluations, as is done under the Dallas model, is a great way to encourage teachers to do more of what students want. But whether those changes lead to improvements in instructional quality is another matter, and there are many reasons to expect that they won't.
Lessons from Other Fields
Fields outside of primary and secondary education that have used evaluative surveys for decades provide disturbing examples of undesirable and problematic gaming behaviors that such surveys can incentivize. At the college level, student evaluations have long served as the primary method for evaluating teaching, and considerable evidence indicates that this practice has contributed to grade inflation. Regardless of the specific questions included in the survey, student responses appear to reflect their satisfaction with grades (higher is better!) and the effort required in the course (less is better!). Some professors have even resorted to bringing sweets to class on days when students complete their surveys, as such treats seem to significantly boost evaluation scores.

As Doug Lemov has argued, grading reforms implemented during the pandemic in hopes of reducing stress and supporting teenage mental health have contributed to grade compression and diluted the returns to student effort (see " Your Neighborhood School Is a National Security Risk," features, Winter 2024). The experience from higher education suggests that incorporating student surveys into formal teacher evaluations will only exacerbate these dynamics.

Although some equity advocates have reacted with alarm to recent research finding racial gaps in principals' evaluations of teachers, systemic bias-against women, nonwhite professors, and nonnative English speakers-has long been documented in student-survey evaluations of college instructors. Ironically, growing interest in inherently subjective surveys coincides with technological changes, including using AI to classify and score recorded lesson videos, that promise to remove much of the personal discretion from teaching observations.

Even more concerning evidence comes from the field of medicine, where patient satisfaction surveys are required for hospital accreditation and, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, linked to Medicare reimbursements. For example, some studies suggest that patients rate doctors more favorably when they prescribe antibiotics on demand, including for viral colds for which this treatment is inappropriate because it may contribute to the rise of antibiotic resistance in the population. One journalist has argued that, because a number of the patient-satisfaction questions ask about pain management, the use of high-stakes surveys has also contributed to America's opioid epidemic by creating pressure on doctors to overprescribe pain pills in order to achieve higher ratings.

If there is one lesson that the past four decades of education reform have taught us, it's that well-meaning policies rarely work as their proponents expect and hope. Sometimes they even backfire, producing the opposite of what was intended. Both practitioners and policymakers should remember these lessons as they think about how to incorporate student surveys into education-accountability systems or use such data to shape policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Student Surveys the Right Tools for Evaluating Teacher Performance?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this post we discuss peer teaching observations that are done by a peer in or outside of your department focusing on pedagogy and the classroom environment. We discuss why we began engaging in peer observation, how we do it, and provide some tips for getting started.
Why We Engage in Peer Observation
One goal we share is to ensure that our teaching doesn't get stale, both for ourselves and our students. So, we use peer observation as a way to gauge the successes (or failures) of new ways of presenting content, new assessments, and new course design. We've found that a peer providing critique on a lesson gives us more insight than just us reflecting on our own. Additionally, peer observation provides us a low-stakes way to get feedback on pedagogy and curriculum design outside of student evaluations of teaching. While student feedback can be very helpful, we've both had our fair share of less than helpful student evaluations. So, we look to our peers and each other to provide more constructive classroom feedback. We still engage in student feedback, including mid-semester evaluations, but we like to get also get more specific insights from other folks who teach.

What we love about peer observation is that it's helpful for both the observer and the observed. We learn a lot about our own teaching by watching someone else in the classroom and then talking about our practice. For example, observing how other instructors engage students in course material can help us make decisions about our own classrooms and pedagogical techniques.
Our Peer Observation Process
We follow a process for peer observation outlined by Martin and Double in their 1998 article, which is to have a pre-meeting, observation, and post-meeting. Before the pre-meeting the person being observed completes the Peer Observation Form summarizing the goals for student learning, and what they'd like the observer to focus on during the class. These are discussed at the pre-meeting to ensure both people are on the same page. During the observation the Peer Observation Form is used by the observer to takes notes. The post-meeting is used to debrief the observation and to collaboratively think through changes and course improvements.

Altogether the peer observation process takes approximately three hours from start to finish. Not too bad considering the benefits to you and your students!

A detailed description of the process can be found online along with the Peer Observation Form (and an online course observation form), which can be modified for your needs.
Getting "Good Data"
A good way to approach peer observation is to focus on personal improvement, rather than an evaluation of your teaching skill. So ultimately, the data that you get from the observation is as good as you think it is. Is it actionable? Has it provided you something to seriously consider in your teaching practice? Then it's good! To get the most of your observation experience you want to be specific and clear about what you want observed. The peer observation sheet you fill out before the pre-meeting will ensure that the observer is focusing on specific things and their notes are not all over the place. The post-observation meeting also provides a great opportunity to gain clarity.
Getting Started
First, identify a peer you trust to be confidential but who you know will provide honest, constructive feedback. It's okay if this is someone outside of your department. It's natural to feel nervous about teaching in front of other professionals, so starting with a trusted colleague outside of your department can help alleviate any anxiety you feel about being judged by a peer. You can also contact the folks at CETL for a peer observation session.

Then, think about what you really want to get out of this observation. Remember that specific goals are key for gaining effective, actionable feedback.

Lastly, read the literature! The literature on peer observation suggests that engaging in peer observation fosters commitment to improvement and pushes faculty to become more self-critical of their teaching and more reflective. Check out some of our favorites, listed below!
Literature on Peer Observation
Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25-27. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar02/vol59/num06/Critical-Friends.aspx

Levene, L.A. & Frank, P. (1993). Peer coaching: Professional growth and development for instruction librarians. Reference Services Review, 21(3), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb049192

Martin, G. A. & Double, J. M. (1998). Developing higher education teaching skills through peer observation and collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education & Training International, 3(2), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350210

Samson, S. & McCrea, D.E. (2008) Using peer review to foster good teaching. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320810852032

Sinkinson, C. (2011) An assessment of peer coaching to drive professional development and reflective teaching. Communications in Information Literacy, 5(1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2011.5.1.99

Vidmar, D. J. (2005). Reflective peer coaching: Crafting collaborative self-assessment in teaching. Research Strategies, 20(3), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.06.002

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peers can provide valuable insight about teaching practice. Through observation of courses and review of course material, conversations with peers in and outside of your department can be helpful. In this post Rachel Dineen and Lyda McCartin discuss a process for peer observation and tips for getting started.

# data[].attributes.headline
Twelve tips for peer observation of teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
Twelve tips for peer observation of teaching

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of Peer Observation in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of Peer Observation in Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Cambridge Assessment International Education, Teaching and Learning Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This interactive resource explores the theory, discusses the benefits and considers some practical examples. Teachers and researchers share their experiences, and reflective questions will help you to think about how you can apply Peer Observation in your school.

# data[].attributes.body
Newmarket School District's High Leverage Practices (currently implemented in the Mentor Program)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As educators, we strive to model what we hope to see in our students: compassion, collaboration, creative problem solving, critical thinking skills, a growth mindset, and more. If those skills and dispositions sound familiar, it's because they are invariably included on Portraits of a Graduate that savvy schools and districts across the country have generated. The language of the portraits may differ, but the substance is pretty consistent; what school does not want to cultivate engagement, intellectual curiosity, a broad knowledge base, communication skills, confidence, and empathy in its students?

For us in New Hampshire's SAU-16, creating our vision for our graduates sparked another profound question: If we expect educators to model those admirable qualities, why do we not have a Portrait of an Educator? Thus, in 2020, we brought together representatives-academic teachers, arts educators, paraeducators, principals, and others-from different schools to begin imagining what a Portrait of an Educator would look like. With support from 2Revolutions, we built a rubric of knowledge, skills, and mindsets that provide both a template and an aspirational document for the educators in our district.

These indicators are research-based and pull from diverse frameworks, but they also have direct bearing on our specific district by aligning with the SAU-16 Portrait of a Graduate and our focus on competency-based education. More importantly, they were generated by our own educators and leaders with the hope of having a direct and positive impact on the students they teach.

Getting the Portrait of an Educator off the ground was a monumental task that included finding consensus within a large group pulled from across 7 districts and 8 school boards, but we knew that it was just the beginning; we could list skills and attributes all day, but without the right evaluative tools and supports, the Portrait would simply be another piece of paper. Our current system of evaluating our educators would not be the vehicle that would move them toward demonstrating the knowledge, skills, and mindsets that we had so painstakingly named and codified. Like so many other districts, we were using a deficit-based system of evaluation, where teachers would set SMART goals that aligned with their particular school's goals and then they would be observed and evaluated by administrators to see if those goals were met. If teachers received too many "needs improvement" notes, they would be moved to an improvement plan. Not surprisingly, many teachers found this approach constricting, punitive, and overly focused on what was wrong, rather than supportive, inspiring, or self-directed. Some educators would set SMART goals that were easily achieved, so as to avoid getting poor marks on an increasingly outmoded evaluation. Needless to say, this was not the outcome that we desired, and it was definitely not the approach that we strive to take with our students. So why were we imposing it on our teachers and modeling the very type of hoop-jumping evaluation that we were working to get away from?

Knowing that we wanted to move to an asset-based system, we proposed that teachers develop their own growth goals-one knowledge goal that focuses on pedagogy, and one skill or mindset goal based on the area in which they want to grow professionally. Once each year, they are observed by an assigned administrator, and twice per year, they can choose from among peers, students, community members, and others to conduct observations. We trained administrators in appreciative inquiry and framing feedback through a positive lens. To those being evaluated, we posed, "How can this feedback help you grow?" and then challenged them to create their own plan to achieve that growth. Throughout the year, educators complete growth reflection sheets and submit artifacts to their personal portfolios to document their progress. In the case of an educator who is truly struggling, we still provide intensive support in the form of a Professional Improvement Plan which exists separately from the growth goals.

It has taken two full years to create our Portrait of an Educator and establish a new assessment system. During our "soft launch"-the first full cycle of goal-setting, assessment, and improvement-about 95% of teachers who were offered the new system opted to give it a try. Feedback that we received from educators was overwhelmingly positive. One educator commented, "This process has been meaningful for me. I have been able to share and create wonderful lessons with my team. The feedback from my team was invaluable to me." Another offered, "I love Portrait of an Educator. I think that it is extremely positive and empowering. Having multiple types of colleagues provide me feedback helped me grow in new and more profound ways. The process felt more meaningful than any evaluation system I have experienced in the past."

More generally, educators cited the collaborative nature of the process as being beneficial; observing, sharing, and having rich conversations improved their practice and their sense of connectedness. Many appreciated the relevance of the growth process to their teaching, and noted that their freedom of choice throughout was a big factor in tailoring their professional development to their actual needs. This aspect- choice -was perhaps most often lauded in the feedback we received. The choices that they had in naming their goals, choosing their collaborators, and creating their own vehicles for growth were empowering. When someone has the fulfilling experience of identifying where they want and need to grow and then getting the support to do it, they cannot help but want to impart that same experience to others. This is the kind of transformational change that we need in our schools.

This system, which was developed and refined by many people through many hours of hard work, was just adopted system-wide in SAU-16. I couldn't be more excited to see where it leads our district, and our students, in the coming years.

As educators, we strive to model what we hope to see in our students: compassion, collaboration, creative problem solving, critical thinking skills, a growth mindset, and more. If those skills and dispositions sound familiar, it's because they are invariably included on Portraits of a Graduate that savvy schools and districts across the country have generated. The language of the portraits may differ, but the substance is pretty consistent; what school does not want to cultivate engagement, intellectual curiosity, a broad knowledge base, communication skills, confidence, and empathy in its students?

For us in New Hampshire's SAU-16, creating our vision for our graduates sparked another profound question: If we expect educators to model those admirable qualities, why do we not have a Portrait of an Educator? Thus, in 2020, we brought together representatives-academic teachers, arts educators, paraeducators, principals, and others-from different schools to begin imagining what a Portrait of an Educator would look like. With support from 2Revolutions, we built a rubric of knowledge, skills, and mindsets that provide both a template and an aspirational document for the educators in our district.

These indicators are research-based and pull from diverse frameworks, but they also have direct bearing on our specific district by aligning with the SAU-16 Portrait of a Graduate and our focus on competency-based education. More importantly, they were generated by our own educators and leaders with the hope of having a direct and positive impact on the students they teach.

Getting the Portrait of an Educator off the ground was a monumental task that included finding consensus within a large group pulled from across 7 districts and 8 school boards, but we knew that it was just the beginning; we could list skills and attributes all day, but without the right evaluative tools and supports, the Portrait would simply be another piece of paper. Our current system of evaluating our educators would not be the vehicle that would move them toward demonstrating the knowledge, skills, and mindsets that we had so painstakingly named and codified. Like so many other districts, we were using a deficit-based system of evaluation, where teachers would set SMART goals that aligned with their particular school's goals and then they would be observed and evaluated by administrators to see if those goals were met. If teachers received too many "needs improvement" notes, they would be moved to an improvement plan. Not surprisingly, many teachers found this approach constricting, punitive, and overly focused on what was wrong, rather than supportive, inspiring, or self-directed. Some educators would set SMART goals that were easily achieved, so as to avoid getting poor marks on an increasingly outmoded evaluation. Needless to say, this was not the outcome that we desired, and it was definitely not the approach that we strive to take with our students. So why were we imposing it on our teachers and modeling the very type of hoop-jumping evaluation that we were working to get away from?

Knowing that we wanted to move to an asset-based system, we proposed that teachers develop their own growth goals-one knowledge goal that focuses on pedagogy, and one skill or mindset goal based on the area in which they want to grow professionally. Once each year, they are observed by an assigned administrator, and twice per year, they can choose from among peers, students, community members, and others to conduct observations. We trained administrators in appreciative inquiry and framing feedback through a positive lens. To those being evaluated, we posed, "How can this feedback help you grow?" and then challenged them to create their own plan to achieve that growth. Throughout the year, educators complete growth reflection sheets and submit artifacts to their personal portfolios to document their progress. In the case of an educator who is truly struggling, we still provide intensive support in the form of a Professional Improvement Plan which exists separately from the growth goals.

It has taken two full years to create our Portrait of an Educator and establish a new assessment system. During our "soft launch"-the first full cycle of goal-setting, assessment, and improvement-about 95% of teachers who were offered the new system opted to give it a try. Feedback that we received from educators was overwhelmingly positive. One educator commented, "This process has been meaningful for me. I have been able to share and create wonderful lessons with my team. The feedback from my team was invaluable to me." Another offered, "I love Portrait of an Educator. I think that it is extremely positive and empowering. Having multiple types of colleagues provide me feedback helped me grow in new and more profound ways. The process felt more meaningful than any evaluation system I have experienced in the past."

More generally, educators cited the collaborative nature of the process as being beneficial; observing, sharing, and having rich conversations improved their practice and their sense of connectedness. Many appreciated the relevance of the growth process to their teaching, and noted that their freedom of choice throughout was a big factor in tailoring their professional development to their actual needs. This aspect- choice -was perhaps most often lauded in the feedback we received. The choices that they had in naming their goals, choosing their collaborators, and creating their own vehicles for growth were empowering. When someone has the fulfilling experience of identifying where they want and need to grow and then getting the support to do it, they cannot help but want to impart that same experience to others. This is the kind of transformational change that we need in our schools.

This system, which was developed and refined by many people through many hours of hard work, was just adopted system-wide in SAU-16. I couldn't be more excited to see where it leads our district, and our students, in the coming years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As educators, we strive to model what we hope to see in our students: compassion, collaboration, creative problem solving, critical thinking skills, a growth mindset, and more. If those skills and dispositions sound familiar, it's because they are invariably included on Portraits of a Graduate that

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A “Portrait” framework helps leaders implement a new collective re-design vision. This publication highlights the Portrait of a Learner, the Portrait of a System, the Portrait of a Leader, the Portrait of an Educator and a Self-Portrait.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As educators, we strive to model what we hope to see in our students: compassion, collaboration, creative problem solving, critical thinking skills, a growth mindset, and more. If those skills and dispositions sound familiar, it's because they are invariably included on Portraits of a Graduate that savvy schools and districts across the country have generated. The language of the portraits may differ, but the substance is pretty consistent; what school does not want to cultivate engagement, intellectual curiosity, a broad knowledge base, communication skills, confidence, and empathy in its students?

For us in New Hampshire's SAU-16, creating our vision for our graduates sparked another profound question: If we expect educators to model those admirable qualities, why do we not have a Portrait of an Educator? Thus, in 2020, we brought together representatives-academic teachers, arts educators, paraeducators, principals, and others-from different schools to begin imagining what a Portrait of an Educator would look like. With support from 2Revolutions, we built a rubric of knowledge, skills, and mindsets that provide both a template and an aspirational document for the educators in our district.

These indicators are research-based and pull from diverse frameworks, but they also have direct bearing on our specific district by aligning with the SAU-16 Portrait of a Graduate and our focus on competency-based education. More importantly, they were generated by our own educators and leaders with the hope of having a direct and positive impact on the students they teach.

Getting the Portrait of an Educator off the ground was a monumental task that included finding consensus within a large group pulled from across 7 districts and 8 school boards, but we knew that it was just the beginning; we could list skills and attributes all day, but without the right evaluative tools and supports, the Portrait would simply be another piece of paper. Our current system of evaluating our educators would not be the vehicle that would move them toward demonstrating the knowledge, skills, and mindsets that we had so painstakingly named and codified. Like so many other districts, we were using a deficit-based system of evaluation, where teachers would set SMART goals that aligned with their particular school's goals and then they would be observed and evaluated by administrators to see if those goals were met. If teachers received too many "needs improvement" notes, they would be moved to an improvement plan. Not surprisingly, many teachers found this approach constricting, punitive, and overly focused on what was wrong, rather than supportive, inspiring, or self-directed. Some educators would set SMART goals that were easily achieved, so as to avoid getting poor marks on an increasingly outmoded evaluation. Needless to say, this was not the outcome that we desired, and it was definitely not the approach that we strive to take with our students. So why were we imposing it on our teachers and modeling the very type of hoop-jumping evaluation that we were working to get away from?

Knowing that we wanted to move to an asset-based system, we proposed that teachers develop their own growth goals-one knowledge goal that focuses on pedagogy, and one skill or mindset goal based on the area in which they want to grow professionally. Once each year, they are observed by an assigned administrator, and twice per year, they can choose from among peers, students, community members, and others to conduct observations. We trained administrators in appreciative inquiry and framing feedback through a positive lens. To those being evaluated, we posed, "How can this feedback help you grow?" and then challenged them to create their own plan to achieve that growth. Throughout the year, educators complete growth reflection sheets and submit artifacts to their personal portfolios to document their progress. In the case of an educator who is truly struggling, we still provide intensive support in the form of a Professional Improvement Plan which exists separately from the growth goals.

It has taken two full years to create our Portrait of an Educator and establish a new assessment system. During our "soft launch"-the first full cycle of goal-setting, assessment, and improvement-about 95% of teachers who were offered the new system opted to give it a try. Feedback that we received from educators was overwhelmingly positive. One educator commented, "This process has been meaningful for me. I have been able to share and create wonderful lessons with my team. The feedback from my team was invaluable to me." Another offered, "I love Portrait of an Educator. I think that it is extremely positive and empowering. Having multiple types of colleagues provide me feedback helped me grow in new and more profound ways. The process felt more meaningful than any evaluation system I have experienced in the past."

More generally, educators cited the collaborative nature of the process as being beneficial; observing, sharing, and having rich conversations improved their practice and their sense of connectedness. Many appreciated the relevance of the growth process to their teaching, and noted that their freedom of choice throughout was a big factor in tailoring their professional development to their actual needs. This aspect- choice -was perhaps most often lauded in the feedback we received. The choices that they had in naming their goals, choosing their collaborators, and creating their own vehicles for growth were empowering. When someone has the fulfilling experience of identifying where they want and need to grow and then getting the support to do it, they cannot help but want to impart that same experience to others. This is the kind of transformational change that we need in our schools.

This system, which was developed and refined by many people through many hours of hard work, was just adopted system-wide in SAU-16. I couldn't be more excited to see where it leads our district, and our students, in the coming years.

As educators, we strive to model what we hope to see in our students: compassion, collaboration, creative problem solving, critical thinking skills, a growth mindset, and more. If those skills and dispositions sound familiar, it's because they are invariably included on Portraits of a Graduate that savvy schools and districts across the country have generated. The language of the portraits may differ, but the substance is pretty consistent; what school does not want to cultivate engagement, intellectual curiosity, a broad knowledge base, communication skills, confidence, and empathy in its students?

For us in New Hampshire's SAU-16, creating our vision for our graduates sparked another profound question: If we expect educators to model those admirable qualities, why do we not have a Portrait of an Educator? Thus, in 2020, we brought together representatives-academic teachers, arts educators, paraeducators, principals, and others-from different schools to begin imagining what a Portrait of an Educator would look like. With support from 2Revolutions, we built a rubric of knowledge, skills, and mindsets that provide both a template and an aspirational document for the educators in our district.

These indicators are research-based and pull from diverse frameworks, but they also have direct bearing on our specific district by aligning with the SAU-16 Portrait of a Graduate and our focus on competency-based education. More importantly, they were generated by our own educators and leaders with the hope of having a direct and positive impact on the students they teach.

Getting the Portrait of an Educator off the ground was a monumental task that included finding consensus within a large group pulled from across 7 districts and 8 school boards, but we knew that it was just the beginning; we could list skills and attributes all day, but without the right evaluative tools and supports, the Portrait would simply be another piece of paper. Our current system of evaluating our educators would not be the vehicle that would move them toward demonstrating the knowledge, skills, and mindsets that we had so painstakingly named and codified. Like so many other districts, we were using a deficit-based system of evaluation, where teachers would set SMART goals that aligned with their particular school's goals and then they would be observed and evaluated by administrators to see if those goals were met. If teachers received too many "needs improvement" notes, they would be moved to an improvement plan. Not surprisingly, many teachers found this approach constricting, punitive, and overly focused on what was wrong, rather than supportive, inspiring, or self-directed. Some educators would set SMART goals that were easily achieved, so as to avoid getting poor marks on an increasingly outmoded evaluation. Needless to say, this was not the outcome that we desired, and it was definitely not the approach that we strive to take with our students. So why were we imposing it on our teachers and modeling the very type of hoop-jumping evaluation that we were working to get away from?

Knowing that we wanted to move to an asset-based system, we proposed that teachers develop their own growth goals-one knowledge goal that focuses on pedagogy, and one skill or mindset goal based on the area in which they want to grow professionally. Once each year, they are observed by an assigned administrator, and twice per year, they can choose from among peers, students, community members, and others to conduct observations. We trained administrators in appreciative inquiry and framing feedback through a positive lens. To those being evaluated, we posed, "How can this feedback help you grow?" and then challenged them to create their own plan to achieve that growth. Throughout the year, educators complete growth reflection sheets and submit artifacts to their personal portfolios to document their progress. In the case of an educator who is truly struggling, we still provide intensive support in the form of a Professional Improvement Plan which exists separately from the growth goals.

It has taken two full years to create our Portrait of an Educator and establish a new assessment system. During our "soft launch"-the first full cycle of goal-setting, assessment, and improvement-about 95% of teachers who were offered the new system opted to give it a try. Feedback that we received from educators was overwhelmingly positive. One educator commented, "This process has been meaningful for me. I have been able to share and create wonderful lessons with my team. The feedback from my team was invaluable to me." Another offered, "I love Portrait of an Educator. I think that it is extremely positive and empowering. Having multiple types of colleagues provide me feedback helped me grow in new and more profound ways. The process felt more meaningful than any evaluation system I have experienced in the past."

More generally, educators cited the collaborative nature of the process as being beneficial; observing, sharing, and having rich conversations improved their practice and their sense of connectedness. Many appreciated the relevance of the growth process to their teaching, and noted that their freedom of choice throughout was a big factor in tailoring their professional development to their actual needs. This aspect- choice -was perhaps most often lauded in the feedback we received. The choices that they had in naming their goals, choosing their collaborators, and creating their own vehicles for growth were empowering. When someone has the fulfilling experience of identifying where they want and need to grow and then getting the support to do it, they cannot help but want to impart that same experience to others. This is the kind of transformational change that we need in our schools.

This system, which was developed and refined by many people through many hours of hard work, was just adopted system-wide in SAU-16. I couldn't be more excited to see where it leads our district, and our students, in the coming years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As educators, we strive to model what we hope to see in our students: compassion, collaboration, creative problem solving, critical thinking skills, a growth mindset, and more. If those skills and dispositions sound familiar, it's because they are invariably included on Portraits of a Graduate that

# data[].attributes.headline
Models of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness

# data[].attributes.subject
Models of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness

# data[].attributes.headline
Six places where teacher evaluation systems are getting results

# data[].attributes.subject
Six places where teacher evaluation systems are getting results

# data[].attributes.headline
Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts

# data[].attributes.subject
Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research on States use of Value Added models during ESSA

# data[].attributes.headline
iNTASC Learning Progressions for Teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
iNTASC Learning Progressions for Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gates Foundation- Linking Evaluation to Teacher Support 

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Measuring Student Growth and Supporting Great Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Measuring Student Growth and Supporting Great Teaching

# data[].attributes.headline
Introduction to the Series Evaluation & Support: Strategies for Success

# data[].attributes.subject
Introduction to the Series Evaluation & Support: Strategies for Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to the Series Evaluation & Support- Strategies for Success

# data[].attributes.body
Measuring Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness

# data[].attributes.headline
Gates Foundation: Met Project-Reliability of Classroom Observations

# data[].attributes.subject
Gates Foundation: Met Project-Reliability of Classroom Observations

# data[].attributes.headline
Colorado’s Student Perception Survey - Grades 6-12

# data[].attributes.subject
Colorado’s Student Perception Survey - Grades 6-12

# data[].attributes.headline
Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness:

# data[].attributes.subject
Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness:

# data[].attributes.body
A Research Synthesis

# data[].attributes.body
Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policies

# data[].attributes.headline
THE ROLE OF STUDENT SURVEYS IN TEACHER EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT

# data[].attributes.subject
THE ROLE OF STUDENT SURVEYS IN TEACHER EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT

# data[].attributes.body
HOW CAN IT BE MEASURED?

Linda Darling-Hammond 2011

# data[].attributes.headline
Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness (2009)

# data[].attributes.subject
Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness (2009)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Student Surveys as a Possible Source of Evidence in Teacher Evaluation

# data[].attributes.headline
The components of a strong evaluation system

# data[].attributes.subject
The components of a strong evaluation system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The components of a strong evaluation system

# data[].attributes.body
for the MARZANO TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL

# data[].attributes.headline
The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model by Washington State Criteria

# data[].attributes.subject
The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model by Washington State Criteria

# data[].attributes.headline
One Piece of the WholeTeacher Evaluation as Part of a ComprehensiveSystem for Teaching and Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
One Piece of the WholeTeacher Evaluation as Part of a ComprehensiveSystem for Teaching and Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One piece of the whole- Teacher evaluation as part of a comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4-13, 44..pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Article on PD and Professional Growth.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Padlet by Newmarket Staff: Knowledge Skills Mindsets 

# data[].attributes.subject
Padlet by Newmarket Staff: Knowledge Skills Mindsets 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newmarket's High Leverage Teaching Practices.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
MET Project Summary: Bill and Melinda Gates

# data[].attributes.subject
MET Project Summary: Bill and Melinda Gates

# data[].attributes.headline
Edutopia: 5 ways to Improve Teacher Eval Systems

# data[].attributes.subject
Edutopia: 5 ways to Improve Teacher Eval Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Administration & Leadership

Using teacher evaluation to ensure quality teaching requires organizing it as an opportunity for growth.

©iStock/monkeybusinessimages

Current approaches to assessing teacher effectiveness aren't working. The instruments used for observation are overly complicated, and training for observers is often inadequate. Furthermore, the challenges associated with the use of student achievement data, and the political nature in which these processes were mandated in the first place, all make this a very challenging problem to address. Indeed, a recent report by the Brookings Institution suggests that "teacher observations have been a waste of time and money."

But evaluation systems are a central to ensuring quality teaching. A meaningful evaluation system benefits both teachers and students. How might we leverage evaluation to build systems of support that not only help teachers reflect upon and improve their practice but also ensure that all students are leaving our schools with the knowledge and skills they need to live the lives they deserve?

Recent research indicates that instructional coaching is the most effective strategy for improving instructional practice. And isn't the evaluation cycle really just a formal coaching cycle? If not, why not? To quote former U.S. Secretary of Education John King, "If teacher evaluation feels like a 'gotcha' system, it won't work."

Here are five specific approaches to redesigning meaningful evaluation systems toward improving teachers' practice.

1. Streamline and implement tools flexibly. Current evaluation rubrics are simply too big-observers can't provide meaningful feedback to teachers on dozens of indicators based on a few 30- to 60-minute observations. Streamlined tools like TNTP's Core Teaching Rubric and the Insight Core Framework from Insight Education Group can home in on a narrow, prioritized set of instructional expectations to more effectively focus the observation process.

2. Design systems as a formative feedback process. Moving from "gotcha"-a compliance-driven process with a single score at the end of the year-to a growth-oriented process requires more formative, ongoing feedback from those tasked with evaluating teachers.

For example, in addition to being observed by administrators, teachers at Denver Public Schools are now observed by peers and teacher leaders as well, enabling more frequent observations and feedback conversations. Teachers have reacted positively to these changes-they appreciate the new focus on their ongoing growth rather than an observation score. Meaningful feedback can help them continually improve their practice, a goal to which all evaluation systems should aspire.

3. Support evaluators to be coaches. Evaluators may not have the skills needed to provide coaching, so professional learning opportunities that emphasize effective coaching and support will be needed. Fortunately, there are many approaches that can work here: Video observation exercises, classroom walk-throughs, and deliberate practice with effective coaching conversations can be implemented with some frequency. Likewise, instructional coaches should be included as part of the evaluation process. After all, they are likely collecting the most data on the instructional practice of the educators they support.

4. Involve more people. Evaluation systems will never work if we continue to rely on a single school administrator (or small administrative team) to evaluate all teachers. In addition to instructional coaches, as mentioned above, peers can offer valuable insights to help teachers improve their practice. Teachers have shown more growth, and are generally happier with evaluation processes, when they are involved in both giving and receiving feedback.

This can be done informally with a few colleagues who are also interested in deepening their own practice or more formally as part of the coaching cycle. Engaging others in the process will increase the frequency and breadth of feedback conversations, reduce the inefficiencies of relying on a single observer, and create opportunities for more frequent, formative conversations about classroom practice.

5. Use video tools to allow educators to focus on meaningful feedback conversations. The biggest complaint I hear from administrators in the field is that robust evaluation systems take too much time. Video can help educators streamline the process: Teachers can record themselves and submit videos to be viewed later by evaluators and/or peers for observation and coaching.

Additionally, tech platforms provide an opportunity to effectively manage coaching and evaluation processes while also collecting data for providing targeted support and professional learning.

There's no doubt that this work is hard, but a focus and commitment to making teacher evaluation work for teachers might actually be what we need. The work of Kathryn Procope, principal of Howard University Middle School, gives me hope. She has transformed the evaluation process in her school to be one of ongoing feedback and coaching, and has done it through many of the points above. By leveraging both in-person and video observations, engaging regularly with teachers in the feedback process, providing bite-sized feedback on a narrow set of expectations, and focusing on the formative growth of her teachers, she has blurred the line between evaluation and support.

The students in our classrooms deserve the best teaching that we can provide, and their teachers deserve our best thinking and support. Most of us have been teachers, and few of us rave about the support that we received as teachers. It's time for us to take the opportunity to give teachers-and students-the support they want, need, and deserve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Ways to Improve Teacher Evaluation Systems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using teacher evaluation to ensure quality teaching requires organizing it as an opportunity for growth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hillsboro Independent School's Portrait of an Educator

# data[].attributes.subject
Hillsboro Independent School's Portrait of an Educator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Portrait of a Learner

Preparing Today's Students for Tomorrow's World

In lockstep with Hillsboro ISD's mission of preparing our students for tomorrow's world, Hillsboro ISD developed a Portrait of a Learner profile to illustrate characteristics of a 21st century learner. HISD's Portrait of a Learner embodies four skills necessary for students to be successful: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity/innovation. This defines our approach to teaching and learning--engaging students in programs and initiatives designed specifically to help them master all four skills.

Portrait of an Educator

Leading by Example

Hillsboro ISD recognizes the the teacher in the classroom has the greatest impact on profound learning. The HISD Portrait of an Educator reflects the skills, attributes, and dispositions necessary to build meaningful learning relationships with students as well as with parents and colleagues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
hillsboro isd's portrait of learner and educator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hillsboro ISD's Portrait of Learner and Educator - Hillsboro Independent School District

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hillsboro ISD's Portrait of Learner and Educator - Hillsboro Independent School District

# data[].attributes.headline
Rhode Island Professional Teaching Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Rhode Island Professional Teaching Standards

# data[].attributes.headline
Gulfport School District Educator Profile

# data[].attributes.subject
Gulfport School District Educator Profile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maumee Valley Country Day School is the only age 3 - 12th grade accredited, co-educational, independent school in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan.