CHAPTER TWO
2.2 THE USE OF EVALUATION SYSTEMS
Evaluation systems differ in many ways. Many systems will emphasize career decision like financial rewards, promotion and probation. Some systems emphasise professional development. The systems that emphasise both the use of professional development and career decision in one evaluation system sometimes, lead to confusion and may be threatening to teachers. (Cangelosi, 1991; Stake, 1989;
Sergiovanni and Starratt, 1983). The analysis of this policy will also take into account whether or not such policy defects and gaps as indicted by Sergiovanni and Starrat are not inherent in our application of the WSE policy.
In England and Wales, teacher evaluations are used to enhance the professional development of the individual and to see it as a way of ensuring that the support mechanisms available are appropriately matched to the individual needs (Brad1ey 1991).
According to Cangelosi (1991) there are two main forms of evaluations, formative and summative as mentioned earlier in the study, each process is linked to a specific set of outcomes. Summative evaluation differ from formative evaluation because it is mainly a tool used to make judgment on instructional effectiveness and for a purpose other than helping educators to decide on how to improve teaching, but instead to
assist in administrative decisions in order to effect promotion, retention, medical boarding etc. This is a teacher-centred form of evaluation. Formative evaluation on the other hand, seeks to identify the weak points and the strong points of a teacher in order to develop a growth plan. These two forms of evaluations do not measure specifically the performance of an institution but deal directly with the teacher. WSE on the other hand assesses the performance of the school and very indirectly the performance of teachers (Department of Education: 2001). It should be noted that whilst the policy allows that WSE information be considered for School Improvement Plans it may not be used for administrative purposes.
According to Cangelosi (1991) the inclusion of both formative and summative evaluations in one system poses a threat to and is a source of discomfort to educators.
Data gathered for one purpose should not be used for other purposes. If educators suspect that evaluator's formative evaluation may influence administrative decisions such as retention, salaries or promotion, the trusting, collegial relationship necessary for effective instructional supervision may be threatened.
Stake (1989) warns that the formative and summative purposes of evaluation "co- exist" and they sometimes "got in each others way." Evaluators therefore, should attempt to make a clear distinction between the two forms of evaluations without affecting the goals of the institution. WSE is also a form of formative evaluation directed at institutional level and not at the level of an individual teacher.
Scriven (1988) as cited by Cangelosi (1991:13) also warns, "Formative evaluation of instruction can hardly serve its purpose unless it is completely divorced from summative evaluation" .
Lewis (1973) from New York State in the United State of America, defines teacher- evaluation as follows: As judgment by one or more educators usually the immediate supervisor, of the manner in which another educator has been fulfilling his professional responsibilities to the school district over a specific period of time. Here failure to fulfil that responsibility may lead to immediate action to termination of service. He further indicates that the education should take into account a certain amount of work covered within a specific period of time. The evaluator and the teacher must discuss the work to be evaluated. From this point of view, it is clear that evaluation is used for both the summative and formative purpose.
Jack (1989 / 1990) Cumbria county defines the concept teacher-evaluation as a professional activity in which the appraisee and the appraiser are professional partners in a structured and negotiated review of the teachers work, with the aim of acknowledging the successes and achievements and to identify the areas for development and to agree to a pattern and method of improving work with in-built review time to discuss progress and if necessary revise targets.
What comes out of this definition is that teacher evaluation is a planned professional activity by the teacher and evaluator in order to acknowledge success and achievement. The acknowledgement of success and achievement increases the level of teacher motivation in the execution of duties. The feature of mutual discussion between the teacher and the evaluator characterises our own system of evaluation. In WSE each evaluation is preceded by a pre evaluation profile checklist used for the profile of any person who is to be evaluated. The evaluator and the teacher interact on a set of questions which are used as a framework for a professional discussion
between the evaluator and the evaluated educator. A record of the provided answers is kept (Department of Education: 2003).
Furthermore evaluation strives to identify areas for development. In this case, the intention is not to identify general incompetence, but the creation of the opportunity for the teacher to acknowledge his weak points and plan remedial action, which encompasses targets to be achieved. Remedial action comes from both the teacher and the evaluator in order to allow for co-operation, support and counselling.
Most importantly both parties should agree upon a pattern and method of achieving success. Jacks, (1989/1990) in his definition also indicates that evaluation should be based on targets, which should be achieved. Failure to achieve the target should necessitate their revision. Following, is a discussion on the past forms of teacher evaluation in a South African schooling system.
From the above discussion it is therefore clear that an evaluation should be a well planned professional activity, between the appraisee and the appraiser. It should be characterised by mutual discussion between the two parties. Since evaluations could be conducted for a variety of purposes, it is therefore imperative that the purpose for each evaluation be clearly identified and be known to the parties involved. For example formative evaluations serve a different purpose from summative evaluations and that the two forms of evaluations should not be lumped together for the same purpose.
2.3 THE UNITED KINGDOM'S INSPECTION MODEL AND ITS