Over 15,000 educators subscribe to my free weekly newsletter. Click here to sign up.

Myth: If We Supervise and Evaluate Teachers More Intensely, the Quality of Teaching Will Improve

By Dr. Richard DuFour, EdD

Note from Dave: I first became aware of Dr. Richard DuFour when I moved to Cedar Springs and experienced professional learning communities (PLCs) for the first time. When I was approached about hosting a guest article from Dr. DuFour, I was eager to read what he had to say after a decorated career as a leader in education. Below you'll find debunked a popular myth that many of my readers — be they teacher, coaches, or administrators — will recognize. Teachers, the thinking goes, just need to be monitored more closely and evaluated more intensively.

Dr. DuFour's new book, called In Praise of American Educators: And How They Can Become Even Better, is out now. Dr. DuFour was also gracious enough to give 30 minutes of his time for an expert interview inside of Teaching with Articles.

dufour-american-educator-bookIt is conventional wisdom in the United States that our public schools are failing. This is the message that Americans have received, ad nauseam. Plug the phrase “failing schools” into the searchable database Nexis, and it provides 544 hits in newspapers and wire stories for the single month of January, 2012. Because our schools are clearly failing, the federal and state governments have taken steps to improve schooling in our country by holding educators more accountable.

There are a great many myths that have driven this narrative. I would like to address one of them.

Myth: Intensive supervision and evaluation of teachers will improve schools by leading to the dismissal of ineffective teachers.

Principals are being called upon to devote much more time to observing, supervising, and evaluating individual teachers into better performance. The effort to improve schools by supervising a faculty into better performance will only lead to higher levels of student learning if principals have the time and expertise to provide meaningful feedback to every individual teacher. There is no evidence that these conditions exist. The average principal oversees twenty to forty teachers compared to an eight- to ten-employee “span of control” in most other professions. A review of the research on the principalship identified twenty-one distinct responsibilities principals must address in an environment where any or all of these responsibilities can be put on the back burner by a crisis over which the principal has little control.

There is growing concern that the demands on principals have expanded beyond what can be expected of mere mortals. As Michael Fullan writes on the principalship, “New expectations have been added on to the traditional ones without any consideration of whether the new role in its entirety is feasible under the current working conditions faced by principals. The principalship is being placed in an impossible position.” Principals agree. Seventy-five percent of them report their jobs are too complex to be done well.

But even if principals could somehow carve out time for the time-intensive process of observing and evaluating teachers on a much more frequent basis, they often lack the content and pedagogical expertise to offer meaningful feedback to teachers. As a former high school principal with a major in history, I had no clue whether or not the teachers I observed in a calculus, foreign language, physics, auto mechanics, or countless other courses were presenting content at the appropriate level of rigor. In fact, they could have been presenting information that was totally incorrect and I would have had no way of knowing.

One of the most comprehensive analyses of factors that improve schooling concluded “there is a robust body of empirical work that informs us that if school improvement is the goal, school leaders would be advised to spend their time and energy in areas other than teacher evaluation.” If current efforts to supervise teachers into better performance have proven ineffective (and they have), the solution is not to double down on a bad strategy and demand more classroom observations, tighter supervision, and more punitive evaluations. The effort to improve schools through tougher supervision and evaluation is doomed to fail because it asks the wrong question. The question isn't, “How can we demand that principals do a better job of monitoring teaching?” but rather, “How can we collectively do a better job of monitoring student learning?”

Thank you to Dr. Richard DuFour, a public school educator for thirty-four years during which both he and the school and district he led were the recipient of numerous state and national awards. He is an author and consultant and considered one of the nation’s leading authorities on implementing the professional learning community process in schools. His latest book, In Praise of American Educators: And How They Can Become Even Better is available through Solution-Tree Publishing and Amazon.com.

, ,

3 Responses to Myth: If We Supervise and Evaluate Teachers More Intensely, the Quality of Teaching Will Improve

  1. Debbie McFalone, Ph.D. February 16, 2016 at 11:02 am #

    Dave, Thanks for sharing….DuFour’s book is one that I love, and use often in my leadership consulting work across Michigan with educational leaders. Here’s my take: The traditional model of teacher evaluation is exactly what DuFour indicates—absolutely untenable, and according to Kim Marshall and others, has absolutely no impact on teacher instructional practice. However, I also believe strongly in the work of Kim Marshall (Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation) and Paul Bambrick-Santoyo (Leverage Leadership). Ideally, skillful principals adopt a “mini-observation” model that includes short, very focused classroom observations followed within 24 hours by 15-minute face to face conversations that is focused on specific praise, a specific probing question, and a suggestion or idea for the teacher. I’ve taught that model to over 300 principals across Michigan, and am convinced it truly does impact teachers and opens a dialogue between principals and teachers who are partners in this important work. The best principals I know balance DuFour’s theme of strong support for teacher teams, with frequent, focused feedback to individual teachers. And the work continues!

    • davestuartjr February 19, 2016 at 3:01 pm #

      Debbie, it’s a small world — I was just speaking with my evaluating administrator Anne Kostus today, and she was sharing this excellent PD she had been to the day before, from this person named Debbie McFalone, and I said, “Hmm, that name sounds familiar…” Very cool 🙂 I am convinced of the mini-observation model as well, as our administrators have used it successfully for a year and a half now. And your last sentence merits repeating: “The best principals I know balance DuFour’s theme of strong support for teacher teams, with frequent, focused feedback to individual teachers.” I’m thankful to have some of the best principals in my own building.

      Thank you for commenting, Debbie and Ruth!

  2. Ruth February 16, 2016 at 1:30 pm #

    My present principal is great at the “mini-observation” model, and I’m able to implement suggestions right away, The expectations are realistic, and I feel respected as a professional.

Leave a Reply