I have heard educators use many words and phrases to describe the evaluation process in their schools: cynical, useless ritual, suspicious, fearful, waste of time. I, too, have used this language. I also have been frustrated with the procedures for my own evaluation as a superintendent and those used to evaluate teachers and administrators.
Many authors (Candoli, Cullen, and Stufflebeam 1994; Peterson 1995; Shinkfield and Stufflebeam 1995) have noted that, in general, the state of the art of evaluation in education is poor. Indeed, after I reviewed the literature a few years ago, nothing seemed any better for our district than the clinical supervision model we already used. But in 1994 a school committee member invited me to a conference held by his company, Linkage of Lexington, Massachusetts. One of the sessions I attended described "360-degree feedback."
I immediately was intrigued with the process, mainly because it embraces the use of multiple raters for evaluation and focuses on professional improvement. Shouldn't I receive feedback from more than just the school committee? With 360-degree feedback, parents, teachers, secretaries, and administrators also could advise me on my performance. More broadly, principals and curriculum directors could receive feedback from teachers, parents, and stakeholders besides the superintendent and assistant superintendent. Teachers could tap into the opinions of principals, students, parents, fellow teachers, and aides. I decided that 360-degree feedback had definite possibilities for changing the way we conduct evaluations in my district.
Top Down: Starting with Myself
To "sell" this approach, I first needed to try it myself. The initial step with 360-degree feedback is to develop an evaluation survey that reflects the competencies of a position. For my one-person pilot study, I used "Leadership Shadow" by Teams Inc. of Tempe, Arizona, to define my duties and roles.
Next, I chose my team of evaluators. My supervisor group included four of the five school board members. (One did not participate because he had just been elected to the school board.) My colleague group included the assistant superintendent, principals, and curriculum directors. Other rater groups included parents, teachers, direct reports from my office staff, and myself. In all, 22 people were involved in the pilot feedback process.
Those who first use 360-degree feedback frequently comment that evaluatees are apt to "pick their friends" to do the evaluation. Although this could and does happen, research cited by Edwards (1992) indicates that friendship does not bias peer evaluations. And, says Edwards, the multiple safeguards designed in the process—such as Olympic-type scoring and anonymity—minimize the impact of all kinds of bias, including any from friendship.
Once I developed my survey, I sent it to my rater groups. They returned the surveys to my secretary, who sent them to be scored by Teams Inc. I received my results in a few weeks. Figure 1 shows a portion of that report in two competency areas.
Figure 1. Results of a 360-Degree Evaluation of the Superintendent
Improving Performance with 360–Degree Feedback - table
Supports Organizational Objectives | Uses Technology and Resources Efficiently |
|---|---|
| Self: 9.00 | Self: 4.00 |
| Supervisor: 8.75 | Supervisor: 6.50 |
| Colleagues: 8.80 | Colleagues: 6.00 |
| Office Staff: 8.00 | Office Staff: 6.75 |
| Parents: 9.67 | Parents: 7.00 |
| Teachers: 8.75 | Teachers: 7.50 |
| Group: 8.89 | Group: 6.54 |
Ratings from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest.
My highest rating on this section was "Supports Organizational Objectives" (group score of 8.89); my lowest rating was "Uses Technology and Resources Effectively" (group score of 6.54). My colleagues and I clearly believed I needed to better use technology and resources. Thus, that became one of my goals in my professional improvement action plan.
Administrators Try the Process
After I reviewed the process and shared the results with my administration team, I asked them to try it, too. Most were eager, though a few were apprehensive.
Curriculum directors and principals created separate evaluation surveys that reflected the competencies in their job descriptions, then submitted them to a variety of evaluators. Based on the feedback results, they created specific action plans for professional improvement. For example, one principal has improved her writing skills, one is a far better active listener, and another better manages his time. Curriculum directors made similar improvements.
This past year, our administration team decided to pilot a different type of 360-degree feedback. This approach, developed by Cambria Consulting of Boston, allows us to see how we function in areas such as team climate (alignment, clarity, capability, culture, process, spirit, and standards) and team practices (commitment, collaboration, communication, reliability, flexibility, and improvement). Team members can get a sense of how much they con-tribute to the team's success, and I learn how the team rates me as their leader on organization, facilitation, support, and development.
For example, in the area of climate, our team discovered strengths in the areas of capability ("an appropriate amount of resources and skill to support their work"), standards ("team members work to achieve high levels of personal and team performance"), and team spirit ("members contribute to and maintain a positive attitude when working with the team"). On the other hand, we have growth possibilities in the areas of culture ("team members remain open-minded and support others when they contribute new or different ideas and perspectives"), clarity ("roles, responsibilities, and team goals are clearly understood by team members"), and process ("team members develop and use logical systems and approaches for organizing and managing work"). This past summer, we developed strategies for improving in these areas. In addition, after the team analyzed its ratings of me, we decided I needed to improve the way I conduct team meetings. We now have a new meeting structure.
Teachers Buy In
Although administrators first used 360-degree feedback, some teachers agreed to pilot the process, too. Their evaluation survey was based largely on teacher competencies outlined in the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. The pilot with teachers also was a success, and 360-degree feedback is now one of their evaluation options. This past year, a third of the teachers in the district opted to use it.
One teacher's report included a response from one supervisor; a response from herself; and responses from a group of teaching colleagues, nonteaching colleagues like secretaries and aides, and students. Her scores were high in all areas, but she and her supervisor agreed that she could probably develop an action plan to become more familiar with current curriculum content.
Advantages of 360–Degree Feedback
- more precisely identified and measured standards for the superintendent, administrators, and teachers;
- stimulated collegiality and trust among administrators and teachers;
- shifted administrators' roles from judge and jury to coach and mentor; and
- led to specific behavior change for professional improvement.
Some Concerns
I believe the first round of 360-degree reports shows inflated scores. Given the newness of the approach, this is not surprising. But participants can still analyze their lowest scores and choose at least one area to improve. Because the purpose of 360-degree feedback is improved performance, the inflated scores really do not mean much. Still, we have asked everyone to encourage honest feedback from raters so that we all get a true picture of our performance.
The process has created some conflict among administrators and teachers. This happens when various rater groups rate a teacher high in a category and the supervisor rates the person lower. This puts some administrators in an awkward, defensive position. (Our administrators do not agree with Edwards's assertion that picking friends does not bias scores.) My guess is that this will become less of a problem as we all gain more experience with the process.
Evaluation through 360-degree feedback is commonly used in business and is now used in a few school districts. It provides educators with a full view of their leadership and teaching behaviors. It also gives them a chance to see how their perception of their performance compares to how others see them. The approach solves some problems associated with single-source evaluations, including lack of fairness, accuracy, credibility, and usefulness to the evaluatee. This balanced, reliable, and time-efficient approach to evaluation also motivates meaningful behavior changes among all who participate.
