A new study by the National Council on Teacher Quality says that Boston principals aren't doing their job in evaluating teachers and that teachers are being given tenure and allowed to teach without anyone giving them a very serious look.
Most school systems have a clearly spelled out evaluation procedure. It defines how often a teacher has to be evaluated (i.e. non-tenured teacher every year, tenured every other year etc.); whether there must be a pre-visit conference between the evaluator (usually the principal) and the teacher; the number of classroom visits, whether they have to be announced or not; the dates by which they have to be completed; how soon a post visit conference must be held; whether or not a written evaluation must be presented to the teacher at least so many hours before that conference. Also the items that can be referred to in the evaluation are limited by an agreement between the teachers union and the school district. There is also a date by which the evaluator must submit his/her final evaluation and recommendation to the central office, and that evaluation needs to be reviewed in a conference with the teacher.

Teacher evaluations have rarely been good. Teachers don't like them because they make them nervous and often provide limited help. Principals don't like them because they take up too much time and are often constrained by union contract as to what can be included.
I know of some principals who were extremely conscientious about doing timely and thoughtful evaluations but I was not one of them. I think elementary principals have an easier time organizing evaluations, while High school principals have department chairs and other administrators to help. Middle schools as usual are somewhere between the two.
Besides good pedagogy, each evaluator has to be familiar with the subject matter being taught. For an elementary principal this ranges from first to fifth grade reading, writing, math, social studies, science, art, physical education, music, special education, and sundry other disciplines.
Secondary evaluators often are subject matter specialist but must deal with their subject at a number of grade levels.
Finally we have formative evaluations which are during the process and are supposed to be helpful in improving the teacher's work in specified areas, and the summative evaluation at the end of the year which spells how successful that teacher has been in improving in those areas. The summative evaluation usually has an either/or conclusion-either recommended for rehire or not. If the recommendation is for rehire even with some areas not addressed, the tenured teacher usually has at least a year of before any evaluation. If the recommendation to not rehire, then a whole new procedure begins which usually involves three years of observation and evaluation.

I'm feel the procedure itself just feels overwhelming.

I have said more than once in this blog that the issue is not getting rid of horrible teachers but rather helping average teachers become above average. True, seeing a badly performing teacher come back year after to year with a salary bump may be be disheartening, but s/he makes up a very small percentage of teachers.

We need to make it clear to the teaching profession and to the public that teaching is demanding and challenging, and crucial to the continued progress of our nation. It is not "now you are a teacher" but a process of development and growth, and only those who understand this and are willing to undertake these demands should be engaged in teaching.
The profession needs to attract high quality students to be trained in education and to have school systems recruit, assess, and support successful teachers over the years.
This involves improving our schools of education, accessing alternative routes to certification, providing mentoring and other supports for new ( 3 years) teachers, and delivering general and teacher specific professional development throughout their teaching years.

Each of these elements must be addressed diligently, and not be an item on a checklist.

Evaluations are crucial in the first three years of a teachers career, and should be done cooperatively with subject matter specialist and the principal. We must make the end of year three a barrier that only those truly committed to excellence and capable of it should pass.
If we are diligent here then after that evaluations should be tied to professional development. A core of successful experienced colleagues would become the observers and feedback providers. This would change the nature of evaluations away from the punitive and frightening to the helpful and supportive.

Principals would like this because it limits and focuses their efforts of making certain only good teachers make it into the profession for the long run. Teachers would like it because they would be receiving constructive feedback from colleagues who have been down that same road. Education would like it because it would produce very good teachers who are continuously learning and growing.
There would have to be a shared trust that colleagues would identify the really horrible teachers who may have slipped by the 3rd year barrier, or who for some reason have gone down hill, and would be invested in getting them away from kids.

We need to step out of the box in all matters relating to public education. We need to make it a serious business that people are proud to be part of, and give them the preparation and continued support they need to succeed. If they succeed then by definition our kids succeed.