25 years later, it’s still the same.

According to this article,

http://inservice.ascd.org/the-stark-realities-of-teacher-evaluation-with-hope-for-the-future/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=Social-Organic&utm_medium=social

Most observers and teachers would agree upon three consistent points of contention around traditional teacher evaluation: 1) perceived inequities in the system, 2) models that are too complex for teachers to understand, and 3) lack of meaningful feedback to support teacher growth. How can our next generation of evaluation systems address these issues?

These are not the main points of contention, but #2 reflects the primary point of contention — that traditional teacher evaluation is an insult to teachers and the art of teaching. It is right there, in the claim that teachers are too stupid to understand complex models. Is more proof needed for the insulting nature of teacher evaluation? It is not surprising that the publishing organization is the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development – an educational organization that has always set itself apart from all those stupid teachers.

If you want to understand the real issues, read “Undervision” (1993) at:

http://paws.wcu.edu/churley/articles612.html

Twenty-five years later, the answer to the question at the end of the italicized paragraph is the same. The next generation of evaluation systems can address the real issues by adopting “undervision” instead of supervision.

BTW — prior to publication, the repeated objection of reviewers was that I should find a better term than “undervision.” Evidently, those who write about teacher evaluation, do not like a term that reverses the relative positions of teachers and supervisors. I kept “undervision,” so they would know and feel exactly how teachers feel about “supervision.”