This section discusses the inspectors’ responses with regards their role in teacher evaluation and the difficulties that they face in executing their role. One inspector, Abdualkreem, holds discussions with individual teachers before observation, organising his timetable so he can meet teachers before and after an observation. This allows him to talk about any issues, about his visit, and gives the teacher an opportunity to ask about teaching, evaluation, content and tests, enabling relationship-building between him and the teachers. Alia, Mohammed and Hada, on the other hand, stated that they only do this when they visit a number of teachers in one school on the same day. Mohammed explained that:
I am very busy and I do not have enough time to talk with each teacher before their observation. I only do this if I find there are three or more teachers to evaluate in one school in my timetable. So, with three teachers I spend my day in the school so I have time to talk with them before observation.
All inspectors, on the other hand, spoke with the teacher after the observation, discussing what the teacher did inside the classroom, providing written feedback and offering recommendations.
Inspectors also talked about some of the challenges that affect their role and the value of their role as evaluators. Firstly, inspectors see the number of teachers and the extent of their responsibilities as affecting their role as evaluators, and thus the value of their role. The number of teachers that an inspector has to evaluate varies between 70 and 260, according to subjects: social studies inspectors evaluate around 70 teachers, while maths and science inspectors evaluate around 110 teachers, while English inspectors stated that as many as 260 teachers may be evaluated by a single inspector. Because of their significant responsibilities for preparing tests, content and curriculum, meetings with department
inspectors indicated that they often do not observe teachers for a full session, but only spend between 15-30 minutes in the classroom due to time constraints.
Second, Abdualkreem (social studies inspectors), Ali and Mohammed (both sciences inspectors) reported that some inspectors suffer from a lack of specialisation in the school levels and this affects their ability to evaluate the teachers. They stated that in high schools, chemistry, biology and physics are taught as sciences, while geography, history, sociology and philosophy are taught as social studies. The MOE chooses inspectors from social studies and sciences in high or middle and a few from primary schools. However, inspectors evaluate teachers at all school levels because there are not enough inspectors to evaluate teachers based on school level. Ali gave an example from his inspection department:
There is one inspector from a high school with only 8 years’ experience. He was a biology teacher due to the lack of Kuwaiti teachers in this subject. He was promoted to inspector with less than 10 years’ experience. He was asked to evaluate biology teachers at high schools as well as science teachers in primary schools. He found difficulties in dealing with teachers in primary schools, as he had no idea how primary teachers taught and dealt with students because he has only worked as a high school teacher.
Third, nine inspectors mentioned the lack of training as preventing them from keeping up- to-date with innovations in the field of education and that this may affect the value of their role as evaluators. For example, Alia stated that some inspectors do not know how to use new technology in teaching, yet they evaluate other teachers on the basis of their use of technology: “Some inspectors are unable to use an iPad, so how can they assist or help
teachers in using one in the classroom? They also judge teachers for not using technology inside the classroom!” Nawaf stated that some inspectors have been inspectors for more
than 30 years, yet still depend on old pedagogies and evaluate teachers on the basis of these pedagogies and learning tools. Mubarak confirmed that many inspectors left teaching more than 10 years ago, and therefore need to be trained in current teaching practices and evaluation in order to increase the validity of their own evaluations.
Fourth, the gender of an inspector and the teacher was mentioned as affecting their ability to perform their role and thus the value of their role. Mubarak explained that as an Islamic studies inspector evaluating teachers who teach students the Quran, he looks at how words are pronounced as part of teaching the Quran in Arabic; this is called ‘Tajweed’. Male inspectors find it difficult, Mubarak explained, when considering ‘Tajweed’ with a female teacher who covers her face with a veil. Yet as a head inspector he could not
let a female inspector only evaluate female teachers, as we have a large number of female teachers but our department only has a few female inspectors. We have only have a few female inspectors as many female teachers refuse to be inspectors. They prefer to be deputy head teachers and then head teachers.
Fifth, Hadel pointed out that female inspectors have difficulties travelling to schools and that this may affect the number of teacher visits. In turn, this affects their role in evaluating teachers:
I do not have a car and I am afraid to drive to be honest, and there are some female inspectors who do not drive. The MOE does not provide us with a car and driver to visit teachers in schools, as we attend the educational district centre and then visit teachers in different schools in different cities. Therefore, I use my private driver, but, to be honest, sometimes I would like to visit a teacher but my driver is busy with other members of my family.
5.4 Summary
Head teachers and inspectors shared view that the current system is concentrated on evaluating teachers for summative purposes, while they believe both summative and professional development are needed. The most common tool currently used is observation, however, teacher portfolios are also commonly used by head teachers. Both inspectors and head teachers would prefer to use multiple tools in teacher evaluation. Evaluators’ role in the current system is significantly affected by their other responsibilities, numbers of teachers, lack of training courses for evaluators, lack of subject
Chapter Six: An Alternative System based on a Risk-based
Analysis Approach
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the principles of RBA are explained and reasons are given as to why it was chosen as the basis for an alternative system to the current teacher evaluation system in Kuwait. This is followed by an example of a country that has implemented the RBA approach in its evaluation.
Following the overall aim of this study, which is to contribute to making better use of teacher evaluation in the Kuwaiti context, this researcher outlines an alternative system for teacher evaluation and, following an investigation in situ, discusses whether it could be appropriate and workable as a means to overcome the challenges of the development plan that is in place for Kuwaiti education. According to the MOE (2013c), one of the development challenges for Kuwaiti education is to develop several aspects of the system, such as curriculum, management, and evaluation. This in turn, will enable the MOE to ensure a higher quality of education.
By including teachers, inspectors, and head teachers in the development of the teacher evaluation system that implements RBA, the extent to which an alternative system is capable of functioning effectively will be established. First, these teaching professionals were selected because they possess practical knowledge of evaluating teachers and working with students in schools. Second, they know what areas of teacher evaluation need to be developed or improved upon more than others who are involved in developing such systems, such as the MOE committees, even if they are not directly involved in teacher evaluation. Indeed, this could be an opportunity for them to give their input on teacher evaluation. Third, they can assess whether the idea being developed is likely to work and be valid. Fourth, they have contextual knowledge; therefore, they can make suggestions or point out aspects that would make the alternative system more appropriate and facilitate its application to different contexts. Accordingly, their participation was noted in, and suggested by, reports and research that encourages teachers and other evaluators to participate in developing or designing new systems. Darling-Hammond et al. (2012b) for example, argued that teachers and schools leaders should participate in developing an evaluation system in order to ensure it works effectively, reflects teacher performance, and
produces valid results. AlBustami (2014) also suggested that when designing, developing or improving teacher evaluation systems, teachers, head teachers, and supervisors should be involved since these people have a good understanding of teacher evaluation systems and regulations, so their understanding will help to guarantee confidence and evaluation sustainability before implementing a new system.