Dr. Greg Rockhold, a former Superintendent, has served on the National Association of Secondary School Principals board as president of the New Mexico Coalition of School Administrators and executive director of the New Mexico Association of Secondary School Principals.
Dr. Hans Andrews is a distinguished fellow in community college leadership through Olney Central College (Illinois) and a former college president. He started the first dual-credit program between community colleges and secondary schools in the country.
The system meant to protect mediocre teaching has become so rigid that it hides what matters most: students. At least not well enough to see the expression on a student’s face when they are told, “There’s nothing we can do about your teacher.” That is a look no educator, policymaker, or board member should ever forget—a sentiment echoed years ago in a Chicago Tribune editorial.
Decades of teaching and administrative experience at both the K–12 and community college levels have taught us a hard truth: when action on behalf of students is necessary, it must move forward despite resistance. Change in education is rarely comfortable, but inaction is far more damaging.
The Failure of Traditional Evaluation Models
When any of us was assigned as a community college instructional administrator to evaluate faculty, it quickly became clear that practical resources on teacher evaluation were limited. A thorough search revealed only two books on the topic—both written by university professors, neither rooted in the real experience of evaluating classroom instruction, coaching teachers for improvement, or handling remediation and dismissal when improvement did not happen.
These texts relied almost exclusively on three approaches:
- Student evaluations collected at the end of a course
- Self-evaluation reports written by instructors
- Peer evaluations are conducted intermittently over long periods
While each of these tools may have limited value, research consistently shows that none, alone or in combination, constitutes a valid or reliable system for evaluating instructional effectiveness (Danielson, 2007; Toch & Rothman, 2008).
Joint Planning: Administration and Faculty Leadership
Boards of education and boards of trustees want effective evaluation systems, but the responsibility for developing them cannot be outsourced. Meaningful evaluation systems must be collaboratively designed by administrators and teacher leaders, clearly defining:
- What high-quality teaching looks like
- How instructional weaknesses will be identified
- What remediation will entail
- What happens when improvement does not occur
Once adopted by a governing board, such systems gain legal standing—critical when due process and personnel actions are challenged (Odden & Kelley, 2002).
Teacher Response: Quiet Support, Not Revolt
Contrary to popular stories, resistance didn’t come from effective teachers. Strong educators were quietly supportive; they already knew who the weakest performers were in their departments. New teachers often appreciated the clarity, seeing evaluation as a tool for professional growth rather than punishment.
In one notable instance, a union representative present during a follow-up conference with an underperforming instructor later remarked: “Don’t misunderstand my role—we want the same thing you want: excellence in teaching.”
Over 18 years at one community college, 14 tenured faculty members were dismissed after documented evaluations and remediation efforts, following the adoption of honest, systematic evaluation practices that had not been in place before.
Outcomes That Matter: Student Success
The results were measurable. Over seven years, graduates from this community college who transferred to a major Illinois state university earned:
- The highest GPAs among transfers from 49 community colleges in 12 of 14 semesters
- The second-highest GPAs in the remaining two semesters
These data were shared each semester with faculty and trustees, reinforcing pride, accountability, and a common commitment to instructional quality.
Students Know Who the Weak Teachers Are
Students have always known. During a visit by secondary school journalists to the Chicago Tribune, every student could identify the weakest teachers in their schools. When one asked about “mediocre” teachers, the accompanying principal responded honestly: “It’s too complicated to do anything about them.”
That resignation—not contractual language or legal process—is the actual failure.
Time to Wake Up
The issue is no longer whether we should actively assess teaching but why we keep avoiding it. Incompetent teaching must be:
- Properly evaluated using clear, professional standards
- Addressed through structured remediation
- Re-evaluated with evidence of progress
- Terminated when improvement does not occur
Anything less prioritizes adult convenience over student learning—and violates the profession’s ethical obligations.
Why good evaluation matters
These principles are reflected in state educator codes of ethics nationwide, which uniformly require educators and administrators to prioritize student learning and welfare, maintain professional competence, and take corrective action when performance deficiencies are identified.
References (APA Style)
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Adequate supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. ASCD.
Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (2002). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. Corwin Press.
Rockoff, J. E., & Speroni, C. (2010). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness. American Economic Review, 100(2), 261–266.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Education Sector.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project.