Does Value-Added Work Better in Elementary than Secondary Grades?

Posted on June 17, 2013 by coreeducation

Value-added methodology is being applied to the evaluation of teachers in tested grades and subjects, but the vast majority of the research on value-added measures focuses on elementary schools only. Secondary grades differ from elementary grades in ways that are meaningful for the validity and reliability of value-added measures for secondary teachers.

In a new report, “Does Value Added Work Better in Elementary than Secondary Grades?”, Carnegie Panelist Doug Harris, Associate Professor of Economics and University Endowed Chair in Public Education at Tulane University, addresses the question, how do differences between elementary and secondary schools affect the validity and reliability of value-added for teacher evaluation?

Following is the introduction to the report:

There is a growing body of research on the validity and reliability of value-added measures, but most of this research has focused on elementary grades. This is because, in some respects, elementary grades represent the “best-case” scenario for using value-added. Value-added measures require annual testing and, in most states, students are tested every year in elementary and middle school (grades 3-8), but in only one year in high school. Also, a large share of elementary students spend almost all their instructional time with one teacher, so it is easier to attribute learning in math and reading to that teacher.^[1]

Driven by several federal initiatives such as Race to the Top, Teacher Incentive Fund, and ESEA waivers, however, many states have incorporated value-added measures into the evaluations not only of elementary teachers but of middle and high school teachers as well. Almost all states have committed to one of the two Common Core assessments that will test annually in high school, and there is little doubt that value-added will be expanded to the grades in which the new assessments are introduced.^[2] In order to assess value-added and the validity and reliability of value-added measures, it is important to consider the significant differences across grades in the ways teachers’ work and students’ time are organized.

As we describe below, the evidence shows that there are differences in the validity of value-added measures across grades for two primary reasons. First, middle and high schools “track” students; that is, students are assigned to courses based on prior academic performance or other student characteristics. Tracking not only changes our ability to account for differences in the students who teachers educate, but also the degree to which the curriculum aligns with the tests. Second, the structure of schooling and testing vary considerably by grade level in ways that affect reliability in sometimes unexpected ways. The problems are partly correctable, but, as we show, more research is necessary to understand how problematic existing measures are and how they might be improved.

In conclusion, the fact that secondary students are often placed in different tracks or groupings based on various factors such as students’ previous academic records means that the way value-added evaluations function is different than is the case for primary students, who are usually grouped heterogeneously. This, combined with the fact that primary students often take standardized state tests that can be used to show year over year gains means that value-added is generally stronger for primary than secondary, where sequential courses sometimes have little overlapping content. However, other factors at the secondary level such as higher number of students and growing prevalence of standardized tests for secondary students could strengthen the value-added measure at the secondary level.

For more information, please visit: http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/value-added/grades/

Choosing the Right Battles: Secretary Duncan’s speech at AERA

Posted on June 9, 2013 by coreeducation

Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently gave a speech to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California. His remarks addressed the issue of testing, specifically with Common Core implementation becoming ever more imminent.

Here are some excerpts from the speech:

Introduction:

With federal support, 44 states plus DC are part of two large state consortia that are designing a new generation of assessments to better measure the higher-order thinking skills so vital to success in a knowledge-based, global economy.

A sea-change is underway in the state of assessment in the U.S. that few predicted in 2009. As Linda Darling-Hammond noted recently, “The question for policymakers has shifted from, ‘Can we afford assessments of deeper learning?’ to, ‘Can the United States afford not to have such high-quality assessments?’”

On Standardized Tests:

I think we can generally agree that standardized tests don’t have a good reputation today—and that some of the criticism is merited. Policymakers and researchers have to listen very carefully—and take very seriously the concerns of educators, parents, and students about assessment.

Many current state assessments tend to focus on easy-to-measure concepts and fill-in-the-bubble answers. Results come back months later, usually after the end of the school year, when their instructional usefulness has expired.

And today’s assessments certainly don’t measures qualities of great teaching that we know make a difference—things like classroom management, teamwork, collaboration, and individualized instruction. They don’t measure the invaluable ability to inspire a love of learning.

Schools today give lots of tests, sometimes too many. It’s a serious problem if students’ formative experiences and precious time are spent on assessments that aren’t supporting their journey to authentic college- and career-readiness.

In short, I agree with much of the critique of today’s tests. Now, the essential question is where do we go from here?

Despite the flaws of today’s tests, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t believe that the problems of assessing student growth are so unsolvable that we should take a pass on measuring growth—or bar the consideration of student progress in learning from teacher evaluation.

Standardized assessments are still a needed tool for transparency and accountability across the entire education system. We should never, ever return to the days of concealing achievement gaps with school averages, no-stakes tests, and low standards.

The fact is that no one is more damaged by weak accountability measures than our most vulnerable students. We must reliably measure student learning, growth, and gain.

On Teacher Evaluations:

I have said repeatedly and consistently that teacher evaluation should never, ever be based only on test scores. Just as Campbell urged, it should always include multiple, albeit imperfect measures, like principal observation or peer review, performance-based assessments, student work, student surveys, and parent feedback.

I’m not just giving lip service to using multiple measures for accountability. I’ve always been convinced it is the best way to go.

All 35 states we have approved for waivers to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are required to use multiple measures to evaluate teachers, and 33 of the states are including individual student growth.

States with waivers are also including multiple indicators for school accountability. Twenty-seven states are using their flexibility to include measures that go far beyond the reading, math, and graduation rates required under No Child Left Behind in their accountability systems.

On the U.S. in comparison to global benchmark testing:

The U.S. should never adopt the practice of high-performers who use high-stake tests to track students. I absolutely reject that mindset. But we can learn a great deal about how to do assessment from our high-performing competitors.

Whether it is Singapore’s PSLE and GCE assessments, China’s GaoKao college entrance exam, the French “bac,” South Korea’s CSAT, Germany’s Abitur, or the British A-levels, assessments linked to high standards propel good instruction and higher-order learning around the world.

In virtually all of these high-flying systems, teachers and students spend lots of time preparing and studying for these gateway assessments. In fact, rigorous assessments actually take more time to complete than today’s bubble tests, many of which just measure basic skills.

Yet test preparation for assessments in these nations is not so much time out from learning but rather part of the learning process itself. It provides valuable learning opportunities and feedback for instruction.

High-performing countries tend to have assessments that are worth teaching to—and that is a core aim of the Race to the Top Assessment competition.

On Testing for Common Core:

The next generation of assessment systems includes diagnostic or formative assessments, not just end-of-the-year summative assessments. The two state consortia must assess student achievement of standards, student growth, and whether students are on-track to being college and career-ready. And the new assessment systems must be effective, valid, and instructionally useful.

As I listen and meet with teachers across the country, I never hear them say that they want to get rid of assessments—or give up on assessing student growth in their classrooms.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of teachers hunger for good assessments that ask students to demonstrate what they have learned—whether it is writing a persuasive essay, solving complex problems, or working collaboratively.

The new assessments from the consortia will be a vast improvement on assessment as it is done today.

The PARCC consortium, for example, will evaluate students’ ability to read complex texts, complete research projects, excel at classroom speaking and listening assignments, and work with digital media.

The Smarter Balanced consortium will assess students using computer adaptive technology that will ask students questions pitched to their skill level, based on their previous answers. And a series of optional interim evaluations during the school year will inform students, parents, and teachers about whether students are on track.

The use of smarter technology in assessments will also change instruction in ways that teachers welcome.

Technology makes it possible to assess students by asking them to design products or experiments, to manipulate parameters, run tests, and record data. Problems can be situated in real-world environments, where students perform tasks or include multi-stage scenarios and extended essays.

I have no doubt that Assessment 2.0 will help educators drive the development of a richer curriculum at the state, district, and local level, differentiated instruction tailored to individual student needs, and multiple opportunities during the school year to assess student learning.

As I have said before, I believe this new generation of assessments—combined with the adoption of internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards—is an absolute game-changer for American education.

When the two consortia roll out their new assessments in the 2014-15 school year, they will be a work in progress. I’m sure not everything will go according to schedule. There will be glitches. There will be mistakes. But we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Assessment 2.0 will need lots of work to get to version 2.1 and 2.2. I expect that states and districts will improve implementation as they learn from pilots and field tests. And teachers will play an absolutely critical role in telling us what works and what doesn’t work.

In conclusion, I think policymakers, school leaders, educators, and researchers must remain open and committed to dramatically improving assessment.

Conclusion:

And we must also remain open to what our best research shows about high-quality assessment—even when the results are unexpected.

In the long run, I believe that Assessment 3.0 will include assessments that do even more to personalize learning, and will accelerate the shift from seat-based learning to competency-based learning.

For the full text of the speech, please visit:

http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/choosing-right-battles-remarks-and-conversation

New White Paper on Technology and SLOs from Core Education’s President

Posted on May 30, 2013 by coreeducation

Download a new white paper written by Core Education’s president, Kimberly Fleming, PhD: https://www9.performancematters.com/?page_id=1308

Following is from the press release about the white paper:

Over the last 15 years, Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) have gained tremendous momentum in K-12 education. In several states, including Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, these measurable instructional goals for students are now being used in teacher evaluations as well. To help state and district leaders develop a coherent infrastructure to manage, administer and report SLOs, Performance Matters recently announced the publication of a new white paper titled, “Technology Considerations for a Successful Student Learning Objectives Program.”

In the paper, author Kimberly Fleming, Ph.D., discusses SLOs, infrastructure requirements, and recommendations to prepare for a full-scale SLO implementation. Fleming is president and founder of Core Education, LLC, an educational consulting firm focused on educator effectiveness.

“Most states and districts place a great deal of emphasis on the development of SLOs,” said Fleming. “However, little emphasis is typically given to building the technology infrastructure to support the SLO implementation, or to managing crucial tasks that must be accomplished for thousands or tens of thousands of SLOs to be implemented with fidelity. As more states turn to SLOs to measure student growth and use the results to calculate effectiveness ratings for educators, there is a rapidly growing need for technology tools that can help educators streamline the SLO process.”

One such tool is the new SLO Module from Performance Matters. The module is available as a stand-alone product, or may be integrated with the company’s web-based assessment and data management system or FASTe (Formative Action System for Teacher Effectiveness).

Using the SLO Module, districts can easily create, manage and monitor SLOs. Educators can build or select the SLO assessment, choose the growth algorithm, and set the target score for each student or group. Educators can then access the results from the pre- and post-assessments under each SLO. With the tool’s automatic calculations, they can easily see whether or not each student met the SLO, as well as the overall percentage of students achieving the SLO by class or by course. The SLO Module ensures accurate mathematical calculations, which can be used to group educators into the appropriate ratings category — such as Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective — on the SLO portion of their annual performance reviews.

“SLOs hold great promise for improving student achievement and focusing educator growth,” said Fleming. “They provide an opportunity for educators to participate in their own evaluations and for student growth to be incorporated into educator evaluations in non-tested grades and subjects. To support a successful SLO initiative, it is critical that state and district leaders develop a robust technology platform and data infrastructure that can support their information management needs while maximizing staff time and resources.”

To order a free copy of the white paper, visit https://www9.performancematters.com/?page_id=1308 and fill out the online form. Be sure to include “White Paper Request” in the comments section of the form.

Feedback from Educators Is a Key Resource for Continuous Improvement

Posted on May 27, 2013 by coreeducation

Aspen Institute’s Education & Society Program recently released a new report entitled, “Evaluating Evaluations: Using Teacher Surveys to Strengthen Implementation” by Ross Wiener of the Aspen Institute and Kasia Lundy of The Parthenon Group.

Apple and other high-performing companies use employee surveys to drive continuous improvement. The report asks why schools couldn’t also use surveys to evaluate educator evaluations? “Evaluating Evaluations” includes practical advice for system leaders who want to use teacher evaluation systems to improve instruction, elevate the teaching profession, and create a culture of continuous improvement.

While substantial progress has been made over the last several years in establishing meaningful teacher evaluation systems, Wiener and Lundy argue that the effort will have failed unless these more rigorous evaluations produce system-wide improvements in teacher effectiveness within the next five years. Surveys are a critical component of well-designed continuous improvement systems and are commonly used in high-performing organizations in education, business, and other sectors. Of course surveys aren’t a silver bullet, but surveys can generate direct feedback from teachers on what’s working and what’s not, in new evaluation systems.

“Evaluating Evaluations: Using Teacher Surveys to Strengthen Implementation” uses case studies from Aspire Public Schools and other school systems, as well as Apple and other private-sector companies, to make the case for teacher surveys and to establish guidelines for using surveys to improve results. In a relatively quick and cost-efficient way, surveys can build employee engagement, provide actionable data on implementation, and support reciprocal accountability between principals and teachers.

Following is a link to the report: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/evaluating-evaluations-using-teacher-surveys-strengthen-implementation

Following is a link to an op-ed by the authors in Education Week: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/04/27/30weiner.h32.html?tkn=XTPFv93QcVrcQNGUzxuFsLzV1Nz8K%2B%2FZsG2%2F&cmp=clp-edweek

Getting the Best Teachers into the Toughest Jobs

Posted on May 14, 2013 by coreeducation

Even though it has been known for some time that teachers and principals play the largest role in student success, it is only recently that districts and schools have started making requisite changes to their strategic management of talent. This is the central contention of Allan Odden’s new report, Getting the Best People into the Toughest Jobs: Changes in Talent Management in Education, which delves into detail about how those changes began, just what those changes are, and how that process of change is progressing.

Allan Odden is the director of Strategic Management of Human Capital, professor emeritus of educational leadership and policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and co-director of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. His recently authored report was written for the Center for American Progress.

The executive summary states the following:

The issue of strategic talent management in education leapt onto the policy and practice agenda quite recently. Yet in a short time period, huge changes in policy and practice have occurred. From a set of disjointed policies and even-worse practices, a comprehensive and holistic view of strategic talent management in education is developing, supported by new and ambitious federal and state policies and rapidly changing local practices. Admittedly, policy design still needs significant calibration, and local implementation is far from complete. But the landscape of how teachers and principals—the education talent—are managed is dramatically changing. A once-haphazard mix of approaches is moving toward many more strategic systems that are designed to ensure that only effective teachers and principals are recruited, tenured, retained, and well-compensated—particularly in urban and poor rural communities.

This paper examines the evolving landscape of talent management in education, broken in five sections:

Section one: Talent management, or lack thereof, in education at the close of the 20th century
Section two: Educational change that began at the dawn of the 21st century
Section three: Rumblings of change that evolved into comprehensive new federal and state human-capital management policies and local practices
Section four: Rumblings of change that coalesced into a foundation of change across the country and the new world of talent management
Section five: Why the focus on talent evolved and quickly assumed such a prominent role in the nation’s education policy and practice agendas

In part, due to positive state and local response to federal requirements for new education programs such as Race to the Top, School Improvement Grants, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and No Child Left Behind waivers, states and districts are identifying and using new channels for recruiting better talent into the nation’s schools, especially high-poverty schools in urban and rural areas. States and school districts are also developing new ways of evaluating teachers—methods that use a measure of instructional practice and evidence of student learning, and in some cases student surveys on the academic environment. States and districts are then using these new metrics to determine whether or not to tenure teachers, as a condition for promotion, to implement new salary schedules, and for dismissal—instead of seniority.

Though there is steady progress toward designing and implementing all these new policies and practices across the country, there is also opposition, and the road forward will certainly be bumpy. To be successful, these initiatives need to solve some major challenges such as making the new evaluation systems affordable; ensuring that the scores that teachers receive on their evaluations derive from “cut” scores that are set at rigorous levels in order to accurately identify the most effective and most ineffective teachers; deciding where to put the toughest requirements for entering the teaching professions so the talent that flows from the new recruitment sources are not shut off; and embedding all this in an effective school improvement strategy that is linked to the new Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Among the recommendations is adjustment of entry standards to the profession to ensure that only the top talent meets the entry standards—based on rigorous assessments of content knowledge and by implementing a rigorous “bar exam,” which should assess both instructional expertise and impact on student learning—as well as standards for full professional license to be required of every novice teacher at some point after three to five years of teaching. This approach supports both traditional and alternative pathways into the profession, while also ensuring that only demonstrably effective teachers earn the full professional license and then tenure—whatever their pathway into the profession.

For access to the full report, see: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/04/04/58474/getting-the-best-people-into-the-toughest-jobs/

Related video from the Center for American Progress is available at the following link: http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2013/03/26/58049/getting-the-best-people-into-the-toughest-jobs/

Reflections on the 2013 International Summit on the Teaching Profession

Posted on May 1, 2013 by coreeducation

Back in mid-March, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, hosted the third International Summit on the Teaching Profession. This particular summit focused on teacher quality, including professional standards and teacher appraisal. The past two took place in New York City at the invitation of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) composed a summary of his thoughts on the event. About the purpose of the event, he said, “The aim was to provide a venue in which the top officials involved in making policy for teachers and teaching in their countries could, aided by analyses provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Education International (EI), compare notes on strategy and implementation, and by so doing, further improve their own education systems. Nothing quite like this had ever happened before.”

Despite not having attended himself, his comments reflect conversations with several attendees. His goal in the comments was to address some of the differing opinions of those who attended.

It was broadly agreed that teacher evaluation and appraisal is very important and that it could be effective only in systems also designed to:

Make teaching an attractive profession,
Provide very high-quality initial teacher education,
Create a school management system in which teachers could act as autonomous professionals within a collaborative culture, and
Engage teachers in developing the evaluation system.

And that was frame with which OECD and EI opened the third summit.

This is a very sensible approach. It could potentially provide a roadmap leading to sound policy that would also provide an opportunity for all parties to claim victory, but it would have been too much to expect that it would relieve all the tensions with which the second summit ended.

In the eyes of several observers, no one at the table at the third summit was advocating that teacher evaluation and appraisal be used to weed out bad teachers. And everyone agreed that teachers both needed and wanted feedback. But, with that off the table, there was still tension between those who are most comfortable with the use of evaluation for professional growth and development, on the one hand, and those who see it as a vital tool in the design and implementation of tough-minded accountability systems on the other. And, in the middle were those who were naturally inclined to the position apparently so well articulated by Andreas Schleicher at the meeting, namely that teacher evaluation is best thought of as an important component of a much larger system built around a conception of teachers as highly capable professionals, not as cogs in a Tayloristic management design.

That vision assumes that the criteria against which teachers are being judged is not limited to student performance on basic skills in a narrow range of subjects but on their ability to help students succeed against the full range of outcomes now widely referred to as 21st century skills, many of which are difficult if not impossible to measure. In Tayloristic systems, everyone assumes that management will assess the workers in any way they see fit, usually according to fairly simplistic criteria; in professional environments, the direction of accountability is at least as much to one’s colleagues as to one’s superiors in the organizational structure. So who is to devise the criteria for judging teachers and who is to decide whether an individual teacher meets them? In blue collar environments, all workers are regarded as equal, if not interchangeable. But, in a professional environment, the professionals acquire increasing responsibility, authority and compensation as they demonstrate increasing competence and skill. Perhaps, as nations move toward conceptions of teachers and teaching grounded in the idea of teacher as professional, the idea of teacher evaluation and appraisal should be inextricably connected to the development of formalized career ladders for teachers.

The third summit did indeed address these and other issues. This made for some tough conversations. It became very clear that it was going to be hard to resolve these issues without some real trust among the parties, both at this table, and, by implication, within the countries represented.

For Tucker’s full comments, see: http://www.ncee.org/2013/04/tuckers-lens-the-2013-international-summit-on-the-teaching-profession/

For the summit website, see: http://www.teachersummit2013.org/

Following is a link to a blog post about the summit from the Education Department’s website: http://www.ed.gov/blog/2013/03/third-international-summit-on-the-teaching-profession-sitting-at-our-table/

Evaluation for Educators in Non-Tested Grades and Subjects

Posted on April 29, 2013 by coreeducation

With news that 7 teachers in Florida, with the support of the National Education Association, are suing the Florida State Education Department, the issue of how to evaluate teachers is again making headlines. The teachers in Florida assert that their due process and equal protection rights are being violated because they were given evaluation scores based on students other than their own—students with different teachers, in different grades, and in different schools.

The source of this confusing situation is the fact that the standardized tests which are linked with teacher evaluation systems do not take place in every grade. One of the litigants was given an unsatisfactory score despite being chosen as teacher of the year by her colleagues. This teacher, Kim Cook, teaches first grade, and the state education department in Florida chose to evaluate her based on 4^th and 5^th graders, who do take a state of Florida standardized test.

Another source of confusion concerns teachers of older students in classes for which there are no standardized tests. These “non-tested” subjects include art, music, science, health and social studies. School districts are currently contemplating methods by which they could evaluate these teachers, thereby avoiding lawsuits similar to those in Florida.

A researcher at the Value-Added Research Center, a research evaluation firm and contractor located at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Wisconsin Center for Education Research, offers summaries of three proposed models for evaluation that fairly include teachers in non-tested grades and subjects:

Under option 1, states expand the number of grades and subjects in which students are assessed annually. This model’s costs would come from procuring and administering commercially available standardized exams in those subjects. The development and administration of new data systems also add to the cost.

Under model 2, states would convene educators to develop assessments in the non-tested grades and subjects. Costs here would come from hiring facilitators to train educators on the process of developing the tests, the actual test development, and the cost of a platform to host the assessments so that districts can administer them.

Finally, under model 3, states would implement student learning objectives, a particular kind of goal in which each teacher sets growth goals with his or her principal, and selects a way of measuring growth on those based on some examination of student work. (For a discussion of the research on SLOs and some of the tradeoffs associated with using them, see this blog item.) This option, the paper notes, has fewer direct costs associated with procuring or developing tests, but higher indirect costs to provide districts, principals, and teachers with guidance and training on how to craft and score the SLOs.

For more information on the lawsuit in Florida, please visit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-in-florida-sue-state-claiming-job-evaluation-system-is-unfair/2013/04/16/32fbb400-a6c4-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html

For more on the teacher evaluation models and their costs, download the report at the following link:

https://aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform/Cost%20of%20Implementation%20Draft%2003.13.13.docx

Core Education, LLC is pleased to support states and districts in the design and implementation of evaluation systems that include teachers in non-tested grades and subjects.

Bill Gates on Teacher Evaluations

Posted on April 23, 2013 by coreeducation

Through the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has provided money for many different educational studies in recent years, Bill Gates has become an influential name in education.

It might be expected that Gates would support educational reforms more along the lines of the privatization-corporatization model as well as support reforms that involve technology, and that may be generally true, but in a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Gates calls for balanced teacher evaluations that incorporate factors beyond simply student test scores.

Gates first highlights what he sees as an over-zealous attitude by some states to develop standardized tests. For example, he mentions how “in one Midwestern state, for example, a 166-page Physical Education Evaluation Instrument holds teachers accountable for ensuring that students meet state-defined targets for physical education, such as consistently demonstrating ‘correct skipping technique with a smooth and effortless rhythm’ and ‘strike consistently a ball with a paddle to a target area with accuracy and good technique.’ I’m not making this up!”

Gates believes it is this over-zealous approach to standardized testing that has engendered the backlash against it: “This is one reason there is a backlash against standardized tests — in particular, using student test scores as the primary basis for making decisions about firing, promoting and compensating teachers. I’m all for accountability, but I understand teachers’ concerns and frustrations.”

In summary, Gates wants a teacher evaluation system that incorporates multiple measures, including standardized tests, and that actually helps teachers know how to make improvements. Gates predicts that teachers will be more supportive of such initiatives: “If we aren’t careful to build a system that provides feedback and that teachers trust, this opportunity to dramatically improve the U.S. education system will be wasted. The fact is, teachers want to be accountable to their students. What the country needs are thoughtfully developed teacher evaluation systems that include multiple measures of performance, such as student surveys, classroom observations by experienced colleagues and student test results.”

Following is the link to the op-ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-a-fairer-way-to-evaluate-teachers/2013/04/03/c99fd1bc-98c2-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

And a link to the Gates Foundation education page: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/US-Program/College-Ready-Education

Evaluating the new Teacher Evaluation Systems

Posted on April 17, 2013 by coreeducation

Data from states that have recently begun using teacher evaluations aligned with student performance suggest that the numbers can be deceiving. Very high percentages of teachers are receiving “effective” or higher scores on their teacher evaluations—above 97% in Florida, Michigan, and Tennessee. Depending on whom you talk to, this can mean a number of different things.

Randi Weingarten of the AFT hopes that people will begin to respect the teaching profession more because the numbers are showing that most teachers are good teachers. “Maybe this information will debunk the myth about bad teachers,” she said.

Along these same lines, some others look at the actual numbers of teachers who leave voluntarily, will be forced to enter training programs, or will be fired based on their low ratings, and argue that the teacher evaluation systems are doing their job well. In Michigan, Dr. Joseph A. Martineau, executive director of Michigan’s Bureau of Assessment and Accountability, said that even with all the system’s flaws, many of which will be corrected under new legislation, the 0.8 percent of teachers deemed ineffective last year translated to nearly 800 teachers who will be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. “There’s a possibility, a real possibility, that students will have a more effective teacher,” he said.

Some education reformers are saddened by the results, feeling that reform of teacher evaluation systems that include student performance data will have little impact if the ratings systems are not more rigorous. “It is too soon to say that we’re where we started and it’s all been for nothing,” said Sandi Jacobs, vice president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a research and policy organization. “But there are some alarm bells going off.”

Still others argue that it is truly too early to judge the new systems. Because of the oft changing testing systems within states (and another change coming next year in most states as a result of Common Core implementation), the student data to which the ratings are tied to are often up for debate. “We have changed proficiency standards 21 times in the last six years,” Jackie Pons, the schools superintendent for Leon County, Fla., said. In the county, 100 percent of the teachers were rated “highly effective” or “effective.” “How can you evaluate someone in a system when you change your levels all the time?” Mr. Pons asked.

Furthermore, as the new evaluation systems are so new in most states, school and district leaders are often loath to be the first to bring the hammer down on their underperforming teachers. Instead, these leaders are more likely to adjust the ratings system such that more teachers fall under the effective rankings. In Alachua County, Florida, district officials originally set scores relatively high, but when only 78 percent of teachers were deemed highly effective or effective, and when they saw how lenient other districts were, they set them much lower. Ultimately, 99.4 percent of teachers were rated effective or highly effective.

Over half of the states in the US have now begun incorporating teacher evaluations that employ a mixture of student performance and observation of teachers. Some states have done this more on their own, but many have jumped on board in order to comply with federal standards in order to receive Race to the Top grant money. Even as some states move forward, many are skeptical of these types of teacher evaluations, leading to situations such as that in Montgomery County, Maryland. MCPS may sue its own state education board in order to block a statewide move to incorporate student data in teacher evaluations. MCPS currently employs a system that uses observations by principals as well as by other veteran teachers.

It is possible that looking at a school system like Washington DC Public Schools, which has employed teacher evaluation systems tied to student data for three years, may provide a glimpse into the future for the other states who are employing similar systems.

If you listen to DPCS leadership, early numbers that included higher percentages of underperforming teachers (2% ineffective and only 82% effective or above) spurred higher rates of teacher turnover (400 fired and hundreds of others leaving voluntarily). Now, more effective teachers have been brought in, and the numbers of underperforming teachers have decreased (only 1% ineffective and 89% effective or above). Of course, this message is only acceptable if you first give credibility to any system that connects teacher performance to standardized test data and second, believe that the ratings systems have not simply been altered to corroborate DCPS’ human capital strategy.

In short, it seems that until there is more uniformity and accountability in the way that student performance data is used to create teacher ratings, teacher evaluations may mean about as much as they always have.

For more information on states like Florida which have recently released data on teacher evaluations, please visit this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/education/curious-grade-for-teachers-nearly-all-pass.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share

The "Core" of Education

Category Archives: Teacher Evaluation