Observation that develops rather than grades

Most teachers experience it as assessment and perform accordingly.

Classroom observation in this sector is frequently tied to quality assurance, which means teachers deliver a lesson designed to be observed. It is a well-rehearsed performance, everybody knows it, and it produces almost no information about ordinary practice.

Developmental observation requires the observer to have no role in employment decisions, an agreed focus chosen by the teacher, and a conversation rather than a form. Under those conditions teachers show real lessons, including the parts that are not working, which is where the value is.

Peer observation achieves much of this at lower cost, particularly when it is reciprocal and framed around a question the observing teacher wants answered for their own practice.

Where observation must serve assurance, it should be named as that and kept separate from development, since one relationship cannot carry both and the assurance function will win.

The other reason peer observation works is that the observing teacher learns more than the observed one. Watching somebody handle a mixed class, or manage a difficult correction, transfers technique in a way that description cannot, and the arrangement costs a school only the timetabling.