The Role of Trust in Measuring Teacher Performance

Classroom observations hold great potential to improve teaching and learning. In an effective evaluation and feedback system based on mutual trust, observations can clarify expectations for teaching, support teachers in elevating their practice, and provide essential information for professional development decisions. Moreover, when teachers receive regular, meaningful, and actionable feedback on their practice they are more willing and better equipped to make the instructional shifts called for as schools increasingly aim to become models of innovation.

Unfortunately, regardless of the nature of other innovations taking place at schools, teacher performance evaluations today often remain stiff, formal, generic and even fearful proceedings. The same forms and evaluation criteria are often used for all teachers. Teachers hold their breath when the supervisor enters the room, they put on their best dog and pony show, and then breathe a sigh of relief when the supervisor leaves. They hope the supervisor was duly impressed, and that they will be able to keep their teaching jobs. The process does not demonstrate the level of trust between teacher and supervisor that is essential for a teacher’s professional growth.

During my time as principal, I once had a second-year teacher approach me with concerns about her fourth grade social studies class. She said, “Dr. Solomon, I’m bored while I’m teaching! And if I’m bored, then I know the students are bored.” She was seeking guidance in developing engaging lessons that held meaning and relevance. And because this was one among numerous conversations and interactions that focused on her growth as a teacher, she trusted that I would not view this revelation of her weakness in a punitive manner, but rather as an opportunity to continue to improve her pedagogy, with the students reaping the benefits. We worked together to plan creative and interesting lessons and activities for the upcoming unit. Naturally, when it came time to conduct a formal evaluation, her progress in promoting student engagement in general, and in social studies in particular, was an area of focus and a discussion topic. Had we not had a relationship built on trust, she most likely would not have sought my assistance in developing what she recognized as a weak area.

Too often, however, teachers fear exposing their weaknesses with supervisors, for fear of losing their job. They will put on their best performance in an effort to appear perfect. A lack of trust in their supervisor’s intentions will drive them to conceal or overcompensate for shortcomings. Therefore, when the formal evaluation process commences, teachers are stressed and supervisors can be stymied in trying to accurately evaluate teacher effectiveness. Even when the formal evaluation is part of an ongoing conversation between teachers and supervisors, as it should be, how can we know if teaching and learning are really going on through these evaluations? How can we help teachers come to understand that performance evaluation is not about “catching them”?

The answer is, we can’t, at least, not through this commonplace process. A system that truly measures instructional effectiveness should be meaningful, respectful (to both teacher and supervisor), trust-based, and faithfully adhered to by all personnel. In addition, when conducted properly, it is clear to all parties that performance evaluations are focused on teacher growth and development, as well as student learning. They are simply part of a continuous growth process.

If we Google the phrase “teacher performance evaluation form,” we will find a seemingly endless supply of generic forms that are currently in use for teacher evaluations. However, we do not have generic schools, and our teachers are not all the same. How can one form provide a complete and accurate picture of who your teachers are and what they and their students have accomplished? And what happens when that form goes into the dreaded “permanent file”? (More on that later.)

The evaluation process, along with any accompanying forms, should be mission- and values-driven. As Jewish day schools, we have a unique set of values that we work to impart to our students. Shouldn’t our teachers be a part of that process? All of our teachers, not only those who teach religious subjects, should regularly communicate and model the middot that are valued by our schools. Therefore, the evaluation process should be developed and conducted with the intent of developing teacher middot as well as pedagogical skills. Ultimately, teachers should feel valued and enriched by the process, not only judged.

However, the best intentions will still yield largely unproductive results if a climate of trust does not pervade the school. In an environment where teachers do not trust their supervisors, and do not feel that they have the teachers’ best interests in mind, a culture of self-preservation will prevail. Megan Tschannen-Moran, a professor and researcher in educational leadership, who has conducted numerous research studies on trust in schools, defines trust as one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the confidence that the other is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open. She believes that in the absence of trust, people are increasingly unwilling to take risks (read: to innovate), are likely to withhold information, and will view even benign actions of others with mistrust. Essentially, without trust, a supervisor will be unable to accurately measure teacher performance.

How do we know if our staff members trust their supervisors? It can be difficult to determine. Annette Baier, in Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics, writes, “We inhabit a climate of trust as we inhabit an atmosphere and notice it as we notice air, only when it becomes scarce or polluted.” Nevertheless, there are some clear, research-based steps that you can take to establish and build trust in your school. (For information on measuring trust in schools, visit the Research Tools page on Tschannen-Moran’s website, http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/page/mxtsch.)

While teachers’ honesty and integrity in interactions with the principal are important, it is the responsibility of the supervisor—the person with more power in the relationship—to set the stage for trusting relationships with teachers. Tschannen-Moran has referred to teacher empowerment and shared decision-making in much of her work, and found evidence of their positive relationship with trust. Phyllis Gimbel, in Solutions for Promoting Principal-Teacher Trust, agrees. Supervisors need to be willing to trust teachers to make decisions, allowing them a voice in issues of consequence, Gimbel believes, and not just in simple matters such as selecting field trips. She writes, “To earn trust, you have to be willing to extend trust.”

Researchers have consistently found that principals who are trusted and respected take an interest in the well-being of all members of the school community. Effective shared decision-making comes with knowing your staff well, and understanding their individual areas of strength and expertise. As a teacher, I had been given generic forms to fill out about my own performance, often as a precursor to a formal observation. There was often no indication that my evaluator was aware of or interested in hearing about the innovative ideas and student learning experiences that were unique to my classroom. Instead, I was asked to respond to generic questions about classroom management and lesson plans. The supervisors would use the same form to evaluate my performance. Unfortunately, this process of questionable value is still in wide use today. Instead of handing a middle school math instructor evaluation documents that look the same as those handed to the second grade science teacher, consider composing questions and criteria that reflect your own awareness of and interest in each teacher’s individual experience.

The value in composing and conducting a highly individualized performance evaluation is twofold. First, it is a clear demonstration that the supervisor actually cares about each teacher’s growth and effectiveness. When you walk into classrooms in your schools, it is apparent that each one has its own set of dynamics. Let your teachers know that you notice and appreciate each classroom’s strengths and challenges. These should serve as a focal point for constructive feedback. Second, it builds trust in the notion that information and suggestions related to the performance evaluation were given for the benefit of the students and the teacher. It is clearly demonstrated that the process has value, and is not just a means to “catch” them.

And what of the dreaded permanent file? Bob Hoglund, an educational consultant and the author of Intervention Strategies and The School for Quality Learning, suggests in a blog post that the sole purpose of an evaluation is to enable teachers to see their strengths, identify areas of growth, and articulate strategies for accomplishing goals. Therefore, keeping evaluation documents in a permanent personnel file serves no useful purpose. He suggests turning over all data and records related to performance evaluation directly to the teacher, who then decides if he or she wants any of it in the permanent personnel file. He states, “This gesture is the principal’s ultimate statement of trust and closes the book on the teacher’s fear of dismissal relative to the evaluation process.”

The role that trust plays in effective teacher and staff performance evaluations cannot be overstated. In a trusting relationship between staff and supervisors, there is a free flow of communication which engenders productive responsiveness, risk-taking, and honest evaluations which highlight both strengths and areas of growth. In addition, as mission- and Jewish values-driven organizations, our teacher-supervisor relationships should reflect the same levels of respect and middot that we work to instill in our students. 

Dr. Rebecca M. Solomon is the director of curriculum and instruction at Hochberg Preparatory School in North Miami Beach, Florida. [email protected].