As instructors all have varied schedules and different lessons types, goals should be different from instructor to instructor. More importantly, they need to be feasible.

The most important part of an evaluation is the one on one meeting between the evaluator and the employee being evaluated. This is totally non-existent in ECC’s system. How on earth did this happen? Why does ECC continue to allow it to happen?

In most cases, the evaluator lacks the language skills to conduct a proper meeting with the one he/she is evaluating. Good communication is essential for the evaluation to be of any use, and what does this say of the communication in the office? The grades given during the end of the year evaluation should not be a surprise to the one being evaluated, but more importantly, it should not be the first time the one being evaluated is learning of matters that need attention.

The process ECC uses for instructor evaluations is purely opinion based, and is usually done in haste. One must wonder if the evaluators even understand the forms they’re required to complete. When asked what an instructor must do to get a grade of out-standing, two evaluators couldn’t even put it into words.

Some Questions:

How does a teacher who arrives well before his/her shift starts only get a grade of “very good” for punctuality?

How does a teacher who documents with greater detail in comparison to previous years get a “needs improvement” in the record keeping category when the grades for previous years were “very good” by the same evaluator?

How does a teacher who’s been given no notice of schedule changes, or little time to prepare for a sudden model lesson, only get a “very good” for adaptability?

How does a teacher who goes out of his way to vacuum classrooms dirtied by craft activities; who straightens up the office area, textbooks and flashcards; who checks school bulletins for grammar errors; who makes scrap paper; who photocopies advertisements, cuts them and places them into tissues only get a “very good” in the helpfulness category?

How does a teacher whose overall evaluation grade average is “very good” only receive half of the maximum raise allotted? ECC has four different grade types: Out-standing, Very Good, Satisfactory and Needs Improvement (listed from top to bot-tom). If “very good” is only second from the top, shouldn’t a teacher’s whose overall average is “very good” receive three-quarters of the maxi-mum raise?

Why doesn’t a teacher get a grade of outstanding for approachability & receptiveness if he/she’s done everything asked by staff without putting up a fuss or a change in attitude? And what about the time a teacher spends talking to potential students and current students? Are these not taken into consideration as well?

Time For Change

If ECC honestly wants to improve the working relation-ship with its native English-speaking employees, it needs to re-invent the evaluation process. A start would be to set aside time for a one on one meeting with the employee being evaluated by the evaluator—this needs to hap-pen. A system that prevents the evaluator from speaking with the one being evaluated is a system without thought.

ECC needs to commit to making the evaluation system a helpful tool that improves worker performance rather than as a stick to keep salary increases low. A start would be listening to teacher suggestions, removing any ambiguity or arbitrariness, as well as making the process unbiased and transparent.

Written by CR – Kobe Area