## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Goodhart's Law applies**: When behaviours become evaluation targets, they cease to be meaningful measures of teaching quality > - **Complex interactions resist checklists**: Teaching effectiveness emerges from sophisticated behaviour combinations, not isolated actions > - **Superficial compliance vs. expertise**: Teachers perform observable behaviours without underlying understanding that makes them effective ## Definition **Lesson Observations**: Evaluation of teaching through checklist-based classroom visits that often fail to capture genuine teaching expertise and may encourage performative rather than effective practice. ## Connected To [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Check For Understanding]] | [[Responsive Teaching]] | [[Classroom Management]] | [[Feedback]] --- ## Goodhart's Law in education Goodhart's Law states: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." (Goodhart, 1975/1984). Originally observed in monetary policy, this principle applies directly to education. When teachers know they will be evaluated on specific behaviours, they perform these actions superficially without the deeper understanding that makes them effective (Campbell, 1976). The observable checklist becomes the goal, displacing genuine teaching expertise. ## The checklist problem Classroom observers can easily tick checkboxes: teacher asks frequent questions, students respond, multiple techniques are used, differentiated activities are present. What observers miss is far more important. They cannot assess the quality and purpose of questions, whether student responses reveal genuine understanding, the strategic rationale behind technique selection, or the effectiveness of differentiation approaches. Observations capture surface behaviours without the underlying expertise that makes these behaviours effective. Some observable behaviours, such as asking many questions and checking all student responses, may serve as proxy indicators for teaching expertise, as Greg Ashman notes. However, these proxies only work when teachers understand why these behaviours matter, execute them with sophistication and purpose, adapt them responsively to student needs, and integrate them within a coherent teaching approach. Without this understanding, the behaviours become performative rather than pedagogically grounded. ## How rubrics fail teaching ![[HowRubricsFail.png]] Observation rubrics create a performance trap: teachers learn to perform observable behaviours during evaluations while missing the underlying pedagogical reasoning that makes these behaviours effective. Surface compliance replaces deep expertise. A teacher who asks questions frequently but poses diagnostic questions designed to reveal misconceptions exhibits deep implementation, whereas one who asks questions simply to tick a checklist box demonstrates surface compliance. Similarly, strategic collaboration for specific learning goals differs fundamentally from using group work because the rubric requires it. Differentiated tasks that actually address learning needs contrast sharply with activities labelled as differentiated merely to satisfy an evaluation criterion. Genuine focus on student understanding differs from displayed enthusiasm, and responsive adaptation to learning evidence differs from following a predetermined lesson plan structure. Observation rubrics cannot distinguish between these pairs, yet the difference between them defines teaching expertise. ## Problems with observation-based evaluation Single-lesson observations capture only a snapshot of teaching. Teaching effectiveness emerges over time through consistent application of effective practices, student learning progression across multiple lessons, responsive adjustment based on assessment data, and relationship building and trust establishment. Additionally, teachers and students behave differently during formal observations, creating artificial teaching and learning environments that do not reflect typical classroom practice (Hill & Grossman, 2013). Observation rubrics also ignore critical contextual factors that influence appropriate teaching decisions. Teachers make decisions based on student prior knowledge and learning history, classroom relationship dynamics developed over time, previous lesson content and progression, and individual student needs and circumstances. Standardised observation checklists cannot account for these contextual variations, yet they fundamentally shape what constitutes effective practice in a particular classroom. Beyond these practical limitations lies a conceptual problem: teaching is inherently complex practice involving simultaneous decision-making across multiple dimensions, intuitive responses based on extensive experience, strategic thinking about learning progression, and adaptive expertise that adjusts to student needs (Kennedy, 2016). Breaking complex practice into observable components for checklist evaluation misses the integration and judgement that defines expertise. A reductionist approach cannot capture what makes teaching effective. ## Alternative approaches to teacher development Rather than relying on snapshot observations against standardised checklists, teacher development can focus on learning outcomes. The MET Project (2013) demonstrated that evaluation should emphasise long-term learning progression evidence, incorporate multiple assessment data points, include student engagement and motivation indicators, and provide evidence of retention and transfer. This outcome-focused approach addresses the gap between surface performance and genuine learning. Collaborative professional learning offers another approach. Lesson study, instructional coaching partnerships, professional learning communities, and action research projects allow teachers to examine their practice collectively. These models enable teachers to discuss pedagogical decision-making rationale, address student learning challenges and successes, set professional learning goals, and develop instructional improvement strategies through authentic professional dialogue rather than defensive evaluation. Evidence-based reflection complements these approaches. Teachers analyse student work and assessment patterns, engage in self-reflection on practice, and set goals for development based on actual learning evidence. This approach acknowledges that teachers themselves are capable of identifying areas for improvement when provided with robust data about student learning rather than external judgements about their observable behaviours. ## References Campbell, D. T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change. *Evaluation and Program Planning*, 2(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X Goodhart, C. A. E. (1984). *Problems of monetary management: The UK experience*. In *Monetary theory and practice* (pp. 91-121). Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1975) Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. *Harvard Educational Review*, 83(2), 371-384. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.83.2.d11511403715u376 Kennedy, M. M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. *Journal of Teacher Education*, 67(1), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115614617 MET Project. (2013). *Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project's three-year study*. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.