Coaches Needed
October 2006
The pulse quickens. The mouth dries. The stomach
flutters. It’s a feeling we’ve all experienced at one point in our teaching
careers– the dread of an impending observation. Even the most seasoned and
competent among us still experience a moment of anxiety when faced with the
prospect of being observed.
But why is this? Why does the prospect of a
professional observation provoke such a negative response? The answer to this
question reveals much about the fundamental inadequacy of how teachers are
evaluated, and has important implications for all teachers, novice and veteran
alike.
As educators, we are all abundantly aware of the crucial
significance of assessment. Regular evaluation of our students is essential to
our understanding of both how well our students are learning, and of how well we
are teaching them. We test, quiz, question, probe, observe, and discuss
endlessly, all in an effort to gain a clearer picture of where we are, where we
need to go, and what we need to do to get there. And we do this because we know
it is what must be done to help our students succeed.
Now, contrast this with how teachers are evaluated.
Three times a year new teachers are visited for a single lesson. Based on this
miniscule glimpse at what they are capable of, administrators then decide
whether or not a teacher will keep his or her job.
Imagine, if you will, the response if someone were to
propose graduating students using similar methodology. Three multiple choice
tests per year. That’s it. You fail, in some cases even one, and you don’t
graduate. The absurdity of such a system would be obvious to all. Yet, this is
essentially the process we use for teachers. In a profession so dependant on
authentic and adequate assessment, we employ a method that is so wholly
inauthentic and inadequate.
As a result, many promising young educators do not
survive the probationary period, while some less than qualified candidates do.
While many might acknowledge the shortcomings of our
current approach, little is being done to improve upon it.
The district has taken a step in the right direction by
introducing the state-sponsored mentoring system, which provides new teachers
with support from a veteran colleague. However, given their own hectic
schedules, it is often difficult for mentors to devote substantial time to their
mentees, and the district has yet to provide compensatory time for mentors and
mentees to collaborate.
In light of the district's immense interest in ensuring the
professionalism of their new teachers, they should take a greater role in
evaluating and
assisting
new teachers in reaching their full potential. One possible solution to
this problem is to increase
the number of observations for new teachers. While this might
strike many as somewhat less than desirable, this is only due to the way that
most
administrators currently interact with their faculty.
It is the rare administrator who provides ongoing and meaningful professional
support for teachers. Instead, they periodically stand in judgment, then
retreat behind the barrier that separates them from their staff. Even the most
well-intentioned principals rarely spend much time cultivating their charges.
This model, which is all-too-typical of most schools,
essentially leaves young teachers to sink or swim on their own. If a new
teacher happens to be especially talented, or has the good fortune of connecting
with supportive colleagues, then they may well survive the harrowing first few
years. However, should they, like virtually anyone else at any new job,
experience some difficulties, then woe to them. No tenure, no job, have a nice
life!
It is small wonder, then, that so many talented young
people leave the teaching profession, whether voluntarily or not. Given the
clamor
de jour
for more talented and motivated teachers, it is beyond negligent to allow fine
young teachers to flounder in the pool of indifference that is so many schools.
Altering this situation requires a fundamental shift in
the way administrators and teachers currently interact. Principals should not
be perceived (and should not perceive themselves) as judges (executioners?), but
as coaches, whose overriding responsibility is to help teachers reach their
fullest potential. This entails both a basic shift in perspective, and an
ongoing and collaborative relationship with staff. Classroom visits should be
so routine as to barely raise notice, and administrators should be seen as a
source of professional support, not potential professional annihilation.
While we may be a long way away from this model now, it
is certainly a goal worth striving for. Otherwise, we will continue to dread
observations, and more regrettably, see more promising young teachers forced out
the door.