Evaluating teacher’s performance is part and parcel of the educational process. Teaching and learning are the two major interdependent operations of that process that also involve two interdependent players – the teacher and the student. The evaluation of the performance of teachers is intended to ensure that teaching is performed effectively, resulting in the achievement of the goals of learning.

Evaluation of teacher’s performance can either be formative or summative. While both are performed for the purpose of improving the teaching-learning process, they are different in terms of objectives.

Formative evaluations are intended to give teachers information or feedback to help them improve their pedagogical skills. It can be done at any time throughout a school term to monitor what teachers do in the classroom in order to identify where they are good at and where they need improvement.

Conversely, summative evaluations are done to appraise teacher’s performance, not for the purpose of giving them feedback to improve their delivery of instruction but for measuring the effectiveness of their teaching methods and strategies. The main objective is to determine if the teacher’s pedagogical skills measure up with the institution’s standards.

While formative evaluation is used by academic institutions to monitor (and promote) the progress or growth of the teacher, summative evaluation is carried out by school administrators in order to have a basis for employment-related decisions like promotion and continuation of employment.

Results of the summative evaluation of the performance of teachers determine whether they get promoted, given tenure, or allowed to continue to work in the academic institutions that employ them.

In the university where I am currently working, topnotchers in teachers’ evaluations are even given cash incentives. Unfortunately, failure to get the required passing scores in the annual evaluation of teachers’ performance would mean not being given a contract extension for the following school year. That is for non-tenure foreign professors like me.

Because the results of summative evaluation affect the employment status of teachers,  it is important that heads of schools ensure that this analysis of teachers’ performance is valid and reliable. The evaluation instruments created should be able to measure what they intend to measure. The items/criteria included in the instrument need to be authentic measures of the pedagogical skills of teachers and their professionalism.

The appraisal of the performance of teachers is usually done through actual class observation. Additionally, checklists are used to determine teachers’ compliance with administrative requirements.

It is important that people designated to carry out the evaluation should be competent and trained to appraise teachers’ performance.  This assertion brings to the fore the question of including results of students’ appraisal of their teachers’ performance in summative evaluation.

I think including the scores of students’ evaluations makes the results of summative evaluations less valid and reliable. Why? Students are not expected to be as objective as they ought to be when appraising the performance of their teachers.  Even if teachers are pedagogically sound and professional in handling their jobs, if students don’t like their styles, they will get low scores. There exists a possibility that some students, when they perceive their teachers to be strict and unfriendly, they will use teachers’ evaluation as a means to get even. It is even likely that students won’t take seriously the evaluation not bothering to carefully read the items in the instrument.

Students have no training in pedagogy for them to understand what things to consider when evaluating the performance of their teachers. Therefore, their performance appraisal should be treated only as a formative evaluation intended to give teachers feedback or information that will guide them in improving their craft. Excluding their scores from the summative evaluation eliminates any bias that could potentially impact the employment-related decisions that school administrators make at the end of a school term.

In a tertiary institution where I used to teach, class observations are done 5 times in a semester. Three of those are called pop-in visits (unannounced), where the evaluator stays for a few minutes, targeting only a specific area of the lesson plan. The other two are formal visits where the one doing the appraisal of the teacher’s performance stays from the beginning up to the end of the class. One of those formal visits is “announced,” and the other is “unannounced.” The teachers are informed at the beginning of a school term that those pop-in visits and formal class observations will be done at any time.

I believe that the results of class observations are more valid  and reliable if they are done “unannounced.” School administrators get to see the “real performance” of teachers when the latter have no inkling as to when they are going to be observed in their classes.