The conclusion is inescapable:
It’s highly problematic to
use standardized test scores
to evaluate teachers.
student input that avoids these
problems: Ask all teachers to survey
their students anonymously each year
using questions like Ferguson’s. At the
end of the year, teachers look over their
data with the principal and answer
questions like these: What pleased you
most in this year’s survey? What sur-
A Guide for Instructional Leaders
KEVIN FAHEY, CARL GLICKMAN,
and FRANCES HENSLEY
prised you? What are two changes you’ll
make in your classroom next year? The
evaluation would then be based on
how well the teacher responds to the
Supporting teacher learning is a complicated and challenging task. ;is
much-awaited book combines theory
with best practices to create a vision of
how 21st-century instructional leaders
can improve education for all students.
feedback. For example, a teacher might
express surprise that students said he
talked too fast and sometimes left them
confused about new concepts. He might
resolve to make a conscious effort to
slow his pace and use better methods to
check for understanding, including dry-erase boards and clickers.
As states and districts rethink their
teacher evaluation policies, I urge them
to consider these enhancements to
classroom observations, the use of
achievement data, and student input. I
believe these practices will give teachers
a stronger voice, use principals’ time
Seven Steps to Better Schools
JAMES G. LENGEL
Foreword by David M. Steiner
more effectively, and make teacher evaluation a real player in dramatically
improving teaching and learning. ;L
Kappan, 93( 6), 8–15.
David, J. (2010). Using value-added measures to evaluate teachers. Educational
Leadership, 67( 8), 81–82.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2009). High-level strategies for principal leadership,
Educational Leadership, 66( 5), 62–68.
Glenn, D. (2011). One measure of a professor: Students’ grades in later courses.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 57( 19),
Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2008).
Assessing the potential of using value-added
estimates of teacher job performance for
making tenure decisions. Washington, DC:
National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research.
Johnson, S. (2012). Having it both ways:
Building the capacity of individual
teachers and their schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82( 1), 107–122.
Kane, T., & Cantrell, S. (2012). Learning
about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle,
WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink
teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86( 10), 727–735.
Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher
supervision and evaluation. Hoboken, NJ:
Scales, J., & Atkins, C. (2011). Hamilton
County Department of Education:
Rethinking teacher evaluation through
project COACH. District Management
Journal, 7, 12–21.
Sparks, S. (2012, April 25). MET studies
seek more nuanced look at teaching
quality. Education Week, 31( 29), 12.
Renowned educator and technology
expert James G. Lengel provides a
groundbreaking 7-step process for
envisioning and building be;er schools
that draws on the full possibilities
o;ered by new digital technologies.
Anderson, J. (2012, February 20). States try
to fix quirks in teacher evaluation. New
York Times, p. 1.
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley,
A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012).
Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta
Kim Marshall ( kim.marshall8@verizon
.net), a former teacher, principal, and
central-office leader in Boston, is the
author of Rethinking Teacher Supervision
and Evaluation (Jossey-Bass, 2009;
2nd;ed., in press).
TEACHERS COLLEGE PRESS