Reading the “Sunday Dialogue” about the evaluation of teachers in the March 18 New York Times, I have to agree with Joanne Yatvin that the best of the bunch came from a high school student, Nikhil Goyal, who said “Evaluation is not a spreadsheet. It is a conversation.” How profound!

“Responsive Evaluation” is actually a well-developed model of assessment, which assumes that both the evaluator and evaluated have something to say about the process (Robert E. Stake, 1975).   The doctor patient relationship, the work of the investigative reporter, the work of Congressional inquiry all turn on the notion of “responsive evaluation.”  The goal in each case is seek out evidence that will result in equitable and significant conclusions.

If the goal of teacher evaluation is to develop successful teachers, then responsive evaluation is the ideal process. If the goal is to merely weed out the most egregious cases of malpractice then an adversarial approach, such as that practiced by our legal system, is the solution. But we already have that in the tenure system, which most will agree is flawed.

The problems with responsive evaluation are that it is time-intensive and it does not invite definitive results. For those who are not being evaluated it appears to be a very equivocal system, one with conditions. If the teacher accomplishes certain goals in the future, the teacher will be qualified and perhaps even rewarded or promoted. If the teacher does not reach all of those goals then new goals are set.  Eventually definitive personnel decisions will be made, based on continuous and responsive evaluation.

For those who are not assessed or for those who teach under less problematic conditions, evaluation models that prolong personnel decisions  are unnecessary.  They appreciate the quick-and-dirty process of “evaluation-warning-dismissal.”  This more resembles the process of confining criminals or social misfits. And, of course, the intent is the same.

For those who teach under the most severe conditions, where students arrive in school from dysfunctional or less literate households, where adolescents may have heavy work or baby-sitting responsibilities, where school attendance is a basic challenge, the ability to teach always seems in question.  The abilities of such teachers are refracted even as the achievements of their students are.   Many are teaching exceptionally well with minimal results. Under those conditions responsive evaluation is the only equitable and productive model of assessment.

Or, as the wise Mr. Goyal said, “Evaluation is not a spreadsheet. It is a conversation.”