Any evaluation method should meet some bare minimums as a threshold for assessment when it comes to monitoring the work that teachers do in their various jurisdictions. These include and are not limited to reliability of the evaluation tool such that there is some level of consistency when handling any variable when using the instrument. The other issue that comes in handy is that of validity meaning that the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. This therefore implies that an instrument can be reliable but not valid and as such, reliability alone is not enough, there must be validity ( Danielson 2015) . The third aspect is objectivity and fairness. The instrument should always strive to offer a standard that applies across board without bias and subjectivity. The best instrument can be used in any institution without adjustments. Then finally the other issue that one must look at is the practicability or the feasibility of the instrument used in the evaluation. Practicability connotes the ease and simplicity of using the instrument. Practicability deals with issues of time and ease with which one can come up with the instrument, administer it, interpret it and get results. This also takes into account the resources necessary to administer the tool and whether it is expensive or cheap and affordable.
The three best teacher evaluation tools from the discussion board are the Watts Learning Center assessment tool, Greenville County Schools ’ Informal Classroom Observation Form and Hillsborough county public schools pre-observation conference guide. These three tools are reliable in their construction and valid as they appear. They are also objective and are not subjective in anyway although the best among them all is the Hillsborough county public schools pre-observation conference guide. This is because while the all the three tools look objective and reliable, the Watts Learning Center assessment tool, Greenville County Schools ’ Informal Classroom Observation Form are not specific in their approach as is the case with Hillsborough document.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The thematic areas of inquiry that all the three documents offer are useful to the people under evaluation and those who would interpret the documents but Hillsborough county public schools’ document goes a notch higher and offers the probable questions thus making the tool simple and straightforward. The questions make the tool practical and allows for standardization as all those using it will not deviate and ask irrelevant questions unlike the other two tools which do not offer sample questions thus giving room for a possible deviation by whoever is implementing them. When the questions are not available, the interviewer or the evaluator is likely to lack objectivity and wade towards subjectivity. This may also prove unfair to the teacher as such tools would appear to lack professionalism when used ( Derrington & Brandon 2019) .
Finally in all the tools among the three it is only Hillsborough county public schools’ document that allows the teachers to prepare in advance to allow for a conversation with the evaluator. In fact by using the term conversation, the Hillsborough county public schools’ document insinuates that the evaluation is not one sided by rather a two-way traffic in which the teacher and the evaluator have a conversation implying that it is for the benefit and improvement of the teacher ( Darling-Hammond 2014) . In the case of Watts Learning Center it is simply to meet the goals and mission of the institution meaning perhaps the focus is not to help the teacher improve but to ensure that the teacher as employee delivers perhaps if the teacher does not deliver they are fired.
References
Danielson, C. (2015). The framework for teaching: evaluation instrument . Moorabbin VIC: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Getting teacher evaluation right: what really matters for effectiveness and improvement . Cheltenham, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Derrington, M. L., & Brandon, J. (2019). Differentiated teacher evaluation and professional learning: policies and practices for promoting career growth . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
