At the 2013 International Summit on the Teaching Profession, we have made tremendous progress in our debate about the evaluation of teachers. As our colleagues from Germany reminded us today, we have not just been talking about evaluation. We have been talking about the overall policy on teachers and education policies.
I’d like to reflect briefly on some of the themes which we have found so exciting. As Kai-Ming Cheng has said, evaluation must be about enabling teachers rather than monitoring teachers. Is there a distinction between the evaluation of teaching and the evaluation of teachers? We can solve that question if we apply our newly minted Swiss rules. Formative and summative appraisal are different and the idea that competency procedures and compensation can be part of appraisal should be excluded.
Is there a distinction between feedback between teachers and formal appraisal? Undoubtedly yes. Feedback is part of professional activity. It’s part of a collaborative culture. Conversations between teachers about young people’s learning are also feedback, as is peer observation as part of professional development.
Well-structured appraisal may work. But we must remember what is essential to effective teaching.
- Feedback is essential.
- Collaboration is essential.
- Teacher self-efficacy and confidence are essential.
- Trust is essential.
- Teachers sharing knowledge and wisdom is essential. Indeed schools are wisdom organisations.
However, in order to have an outstanding education system you do not have to have a jurisdiction-wide formal appraisal scheme. Our own evidence and OECD evidence show this.
Therefore any scheme must demonstrate to teachers that it’s going to add to the value of their work – not to some value-added scheme. That it’s going to help in career choices. In short, that it’s going to help teachers’ professional growth. Anthony Mackay’s with teacher colleagues in the intermezzo illustrated this. How are you? What do you need? How can we help you? These questions should underpin any appraisal scheme. And Ben Levin posed one issue that we are going to have to tackle. Any scheme has to have 80 per cent benefit and 20 per cent effort.
Accountability has been the undercurrent running through our debates. We have no problem with accountability. Our problem is with the misuse of accountability. And as Randi Weingarten has said, we need to start thinking creatively about accountability. We look forward to the OECD report on the range of evaluations from pupil to system.
That is the final point I would like to make. As Education International, we are ready to take on any challenge and any opportunity. These Summits are invaluable. For you in government who need to see education delivering for all children and young people. For teachers who rely on government to have coherent and equitable education systems in place.
We need the Summits to continue that dialogue in partnership with governments. There are certainly plenty of professional issues we could consider. Here are a few examples:
- Sustaining young teachers in the profession. How can we create the conditions to keep their fire and passion going?
- The art of teaching and new forms of teaching.
- Enhancing the role of the school at the centre of the community.
These are just a few ideas – and there are plenty more that countries will have. No items should be off limits.
This has been an optimistic Summit. We look with optimism to future dialogue – not for the sake of governments and teachers but of all children and young people.