teacher evaluation presentation mississippi
TRANSCRIPT
Taking Control of the Mississippi Teacher Evaluation Framework
John Cronin, Ph.D. – Senior Director of Education ResearchNorthwest Evaluation Association
You can view and download this presentation at:
http://www.slideshare.net/JFCronin/teacher-evaluation-present-41205047
Percent of students who say they do not receive their state accountability test results.
37%
Make Assessment Matter: Students and Educators Want Tests that Support Learning (2014). –Portland, OR. NWEA and Grunwald Associates LLC.
It’s good to learn from others
What NWEA supports
• The evaluation process should focus on helping teachers improve.
• The principal or designated evaluator should control the evaluation.
• Tests should inform principal decision-making and not be the deciding factor in an evaluation.
• Multiple measures should be used.
Ultimately – the principal should
decide
• Evaluation inherently involves judgment – not a bad thing.
• Evidence should inform and not direct their judgment.
• The implemented system should differentiate performance.
• Courts respect the judgment of school administrators relative to personnel decisions.
Effective teaching and professional job performance
Evidence of professional
responsibilities
Evidence of student learning
Evidence of professional
practice
The evaluation of teaching by classroom observation and use of artifacts
The evaluation of the teacher’s effectiveness in making progress toward their goals and fulfilling the responsibilities of a professional educator.
The evaluation of a teacher’s contribution to student learning and growth
A simple framework for teacher evaluation
Effective teaching and professional job performance
Evidence of professional
responsibilities
Evidence of student learning
Evidence of professional
practice
MSTAR-= Domains 1-4• Planning• Assessment• Instruction• Learning Environment
M-STAR Domain 5: Professional practices and responsibilities
Individual Growth or Student Learning Objectives - 30%Schoolwide Growth – 20%
A simple framework for teacher evaluation –Mississippi
Distinguishing teacher effectiveness from
teacher evaluation
• Teacher effectiveness – The judgment of a teacher’s ability to positively impact learning in the classroom.
• Teacher evaluation – The judgment of a teacher’s overall performance including:
– Teacher effectiveness
– Common standards of job performance
– Participation in the school community
– Adherence to professional standards
What teacher effectiveness infers
• Evidence of Learning – A claim that the improvement in learning (or lack of it) reflected on one or more tests is caused by the teacher.
• Evidence of good practice – That the observers ratings or conclusions are reliableand associated with behaviors that cause improved learning in the classroom.
Purposes of summative evaluation
• Make an accurate and defensible judgment of an educator’s job performance.
• Provide ratings of performance that provide meaningful differentiation across educators.
• Help educators focus on their students and their practice.
• Retain your top educators.
• Dismiss ineffective educators.
The greatest tragedy of this century in
education so far, was the number of
young, talented teachers who lost their
positions in the last recession.
Employment of Elementary Teachers
2007-2012
1538000 1544270 1544300
1485600
1415000
1360380
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
NUMBER OF TEACHERS
Source: (2012, May) Bureau of Labor Statistics – Occupational Employment Statistics Numbers exclude special education and kindergarten teachers
The elementary school teacher workforce shrunk by 178,000 teachers (11%) between May, 2007 and May, 2012.
The impact of seniority based layoffs on
learning
Source: Boyd, L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wycoff, J. (2011). Center for Education Policy. Stanford University.
In a simulation study of implementation of a layoff of 5% of teachers using New York City data, reliance on seniority based layoffs resulted would:
• Result in 25% more teachers laid off.
• Teachers laid off would be .31 standard deviations more effective (using a value-added criterion) than those lost using an effectiveness criterion.
• 84% of teachers with unsatisfactory ratings would be retained.
Elements of a teacher’s score
M-STAR –
supervisor’s
evaluation
School-wide
Growth
Student Growth
Percentile or
Student Learning
Objective
Teacher observation as a part of
teacher evaluation
Systematic observation of teacher performance is a central part of every state’s teacher evaluation plan.
If performance ratings aren’t
differentiated, then all
differentiation comes from
test data.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Low High
Principal Rating Student Growth Percentile Schoolwide Growth
Why differentiating ratings is
important
Ineffective (Growth
Measures)Developing (Growth Measures) Effective (Growth Measures) Highly Effective (Growth Measures)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
In
eff
ecti
ve (
Ob
servati
on
al)
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 2 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 2 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
4 3 5 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
5 3 6 8 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18
6 3 6 8 10 11 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21
7 3 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23
8 3 7 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
9 3 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28
10 3 8 11 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30
11 3 8 11 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32
12 4 8 12 14 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34
13 4 9 12 14 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36
14 4 9 12 15 17 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38
15 4 9 13 15 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 40
Develo
pin
g (
Ob
servati
on
al)
16 4 9 13 16 18 20 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42
17 4 9 13 16 19 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44
18 4 10 14 17 19 21 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46
19 4 10 14 17 20 22 24 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 48
20 4 10 14 17 20 22 24 26 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 49
21 4 10 14 18 21 23 25 27 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 51 51
22 4 10 15 18 21 23 26 27 29 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 52 53
23 4 10 15 18 21 24 26 28 30 31 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 54
24 4 11 15 19 22 24 27 29 31 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 46 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56
25 4 11 15 19 22 25 27 29 31 33 34 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58
26 4 11 16 19 23 25 28 30 32 34 35 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59
27 4 11 16 20 23 26 28 30 32 34 36 37 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61
28 4 11 16 20 23 26 29 31 33 35 37 38 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 52 53 54 55 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62
29 4 11 16 20 24 26 29 31 34 35 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 64
30 4 11 16 20 24 27 30 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 65
Eff
ecti
ve (
Ob
servati
on
al)
31 4 11 17 21 24 27 30 32 35 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 58 59 60 61 61 62 63 63 64 64 65 66 66 67
32 4 11 17 21 25 28 30 33 35 37 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68
33 4 12 17 21 25 28 31 33 36 38 40 42 43 45 46 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 69
34 4 12 17 21 25 28 31 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 70 71
35 4 12 17 22 25 29 32 34 37 39 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 67 68 68 69 70 70 71 72 72
36 4 12 17 22 26 29 32 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 50 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 66 67 68 69 69 70 71 72 72 73 74
37 4 12 17 22 26 29 32 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 49 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 68 69 70 71 71 72 73 74 74 75
38 4 12 18 22 26 30 33 36 38 40 43 45 46 48 50 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 69 70 71 72 73 73 74 75 75 76
39 4 12 18 22 26 30 33 36 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 52 54 55 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 71 72 73 74 75 75 76 77 77
40 4 12 18 23 27 30 33 36 39 41 44 46 48 50 51 53 55 56 57 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 73 74 75 76 77 77 78 79
41 4 12 18 23 27 31 34 37 39 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57 58 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 75 76 77 78 78 79 80
42 5 12 18 23 27 31 34 37 40 42 45 47 49 51 53 54 56 58 59 60 62 63 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 76 77 78 79 80 80 81
43 5 12 18 23 27 31 34 37 40 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 58 60 61 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 79 80 81 82 82
44 5 12 18 23 28 31 35 38 41 43 46 48 50 52 54 56 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 81 82 83 84
45 5 13 19 24 28 32 35 38 41 44 46 48 51 53 54 56 58 60 61 63 64 66 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 82 83 84 85
Hig
hly
Eff
ecti
ve (
Ob
servati
on
al)
46 5 13 19 24 28 32 35 39 41 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 70 71 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 83 84 85 86
47 5 13 19 24 28 32 36 39 42 45 47 49 52 54 56 58 59 61 63 64 66 67 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 85 86 87
48 5 13 19 24 29 32 36 39 42 45 47 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 87 88
49 5 13 19 24 29 33 36 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 66 67 69 70 71 73 74 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 89
50 5 13 19 24 29 33 37 40 43 46 48 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 90
51 5 13 19 25 29 33 37 40 43 46 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69 70 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
52 5 13 19 25 29 33 37 41 44 47 49 52 54 56 58 61 62 64 66 68 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
53 5 13 19 25 30 34 37 41 44 47 50 52 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 68 70 72 73 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
54 5 13 20 25 30 34 38 41 44 47 50 53 55 57 60 62 64 66 67 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
55 5 13 20 25 30 34 38 41 45 48 50 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 71 73 75 76 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
56 5 13 20 25 30 34 38 42 45 48 51 54 56 58 61 63 65 67 69 70 72 74 75 77 78 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
57 5 13 20 25 30 35 38 42 45 48 51 54 56 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 74 76 78 79 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
58 5 13 20 26 30 35 39 42 46 49 52 54 57 59 62 64 66 68 70 72 73 75 77 78 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
59 5 13 20 26 31 35 39 43 46 49 52 55 57 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 83 85 86 88 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
60 5 13 20 26 31 35 39 43 46 49 52 55 58 60 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 84 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
The New York Evaluation Matrix
New York Teacher Ratings
Value-Added Local Assessment
Principal Observation
Ineffective 4216 1347 306
Developing 8337 4334 1793
Effective 51660 36508 41953
Highly Effective 51080 52132 48503
4%
7%
44% 44%
1% 5%
39%
55%
0% 2%
45%
52%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective
New York Teacher Ratings by Component
Value-Added Locat Assessment Prinicpal Observation
“The (Race to the Top teacher evaluation) changes, already under way in some cities and states, are intended to provide meaningful feedback and, critically, to weed out weak performers. And here are some of the early results:
In Florida, 97 percent of teachers were deemed effective or highly effective in the most recent evaluations. In Tennessee, 98 percent of teachers were judged to be “at expectations.” In Michigan, 98 percent of teachers were rated effective or better.”
Source: New York Times (2013, March 30). Curious Grade for Teachers: Nearly all Pass. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/education/curious-grade-for-teachers-nearly-all-pass.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Results of Georgia Teacher Evaluation
Pilot
1% 2%
75%
23%
Evaluator Rating
ineffective
Minimally Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Florida District
Highly Effective
Effective Needs Improvement
Developing Unsatisfactory VA Score Florida Ranking
Ranking
1 44.4% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 60.7% 39.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 81.2% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
6 37.3% 54.2% 1.7% 0.0% 6.8%
7 81.3% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
8 41.7% 55.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0%
9 52.2% 47.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
10 27.0% 66.2% 1.4% 0.0% 5.4%
11 7.1% 72.6% 9.5% 10.7% 0.0%
Teacher Evaluation Ratings in Eleven Florida
Schools - 2013
Florida District
Highly Effective
Effective Needs Improvement
Developing Unsatisfactory VA Score Florida Ranking
Ranking
1 44.4% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.39 109 1
2 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.37 121 2
3 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.14 2802 9
4 60.7% 39.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.14 2797 8
5 81.2% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.16 2831 10
6 37.3% 54.2% 1.7% 0.0% 6.8% 0.12 880 5
7 81.3% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.22 402 3
8 41.7% 55.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% -0.34 3274 11
9 52.2% 47.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.16 664 4
10 27.0% 66.2% 1.4% 0.0% 5.4% 0 1764 6
11 7.1% 72.6% 9.5% 10.7% 0.0% -0.08 2445 7
Teacher Evaluation Ratings in Eleven Florida
Schools - 2013
Bill and Melina Gates Foundation (2013, January). Ensuring Fair and Reliable
Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Projects Three-
Year Study
Observation by Reliability coefficient(relative to state test value-added gain)
Proportion of test variance explained
Principal – 1 .51 26.0%
Principal – 2 .58 33.6%
Principal and other administrator .67 44.9%
Principal and three short observations by peer observers
.67 44.9%
Two principal observations and two peer observations
.66 43.6%
Two principal observations and two different peer observers
.69 47.6%
Two principal observations one peer observation and three short observations by peers
.72 51.8%
Reliability of a variety of teacher observation
implementations
Elements of a teacher’s score
M-STAR –
supervisor’s
evaluation
School-wide
Growth
Student Growth
Percentile or
Student Learning
Objective
The importance of calibrated measures
• Produce rankings of student growth. A teacher’s SGP is the median of that teacher’s students.
• Do not introduce controls for factors outside a teacher’s control that may influence growth.
• Advances a claim of causation – that the teachers ranking is based on learning caused.
• Can be applied to as few as 20% of the teachers in a school system (Whitehurst, 2013).
Student Growth Percentiles
• Poverty rate of students in the classroom.• Language development of students.• Special education status of students.• Prior disciplinary record of students.• Student attendance.• Non-random assignment of students to teachers.• Class size.• Gender.
Factors that may influence a
teacher’s growth percentile
Baker B., Oluwole, J., Green, P. (2013). The legal consequences of mandating high stakes decisions based on low quality information: Teacher evaluation in the Race to the Top Era. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Vol 21. No 5.
• They do not support claims of causation.• They do not control for external factors, outside the
teacher’s control, that may impact growth.• If teachers or students improve as a group, it will not
be reflected in SGP data.
Issues with Student Growth
Percentiles
Whitehurst, G. J. (2013). Teacher value- added: Do we want a ten percent solution? The Brown Center Chalkboard, April 24. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2013/04/24-merit-pay-whitehurst
Why controls matter
Differences among value-added
models
Los Angeles Times Study
Los Angeles Times Study #2
Why test design matters
In 2014 the 8th grade Mississippi math test provided
nearly double the information function for students
performing one standard deviation above the mean as
students at the mean and four times the information as
compared with those one standard deviation below.
Tests are not equally accurate for all
students
California STAR NWEA MAP
Issues in the use of growth and value-added measures
“Among those who ranked in the top
category on the TAKS reading test, more
than 17% ranked among the lowest two
categories on the Stanford. Similarly
more than 15% of the lowest value-added
teachers on the TAKS were in the highest
two categories on the Stanford.”
Corcoran, S., Jennings, J., & Beveridge, A., Teacher Effectiveness on High and Low
Stakes Tests, Paper presented at the Institute for Research on Poverty summer
workshop, Madison, WI (2010).
What Makes Schools Work Study -
Mathematics
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
-10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Year
2
Year 1
Value-added index by teacher
Data used represents a portion of the teachers who participated in Vanderbilt
University’s What Makes Schools Work Project, funded by the federal Institute of
Education Sciences
-12.00
-11.00
-10.00
-9.00
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
Ave
rage
Gro
wth
Ind
ex
Sco
re a
nd
Ran
ge
Mathematics Growth Index Distribution by Teacher - Validity Filtered
Q5
Q4
Q3
Q2
Q1
Each line in this display represents a single teacher. The graphic
shows the average growth index score for each teacher (green
line), plus or minus the standard error of the growth index estimate
(black line). We removed students who had tests of questionable
validity and teachers with fewer than 20 students.
Range of teacher value-added
estimates
Elements of a teacher’s score
M-STAR –
supervisor’s
evaluation
School-wide
Growth
Student Growth
Percentile or
Student Learning
Objective
Benefits and risks around the use of
school-wide growth
• Benefits• Encourages collaboration
• Increases focus on language development and
mathematics
• Risks• Not a valid measure of job performance
• Believed to be unfair by teachers in these
subjects.
“What aggravates teachers most is that 40 to 50 percent of their evaluation is based on "student achievement" — but it's not always their own students who are being measured.
For example, fourth- and fifth-grade teachers are rated partly on their students' FCAT scores. But the FCAT is not given until third grade. So if you teach a lower grade, then your "student achievement" score is based on the scores of older students at your school. Similarly, teachers of subjects that don't even appear on the state's standardized test are being evaluated, at least in part, on FCAT scores.”
Krueger, C. Solochek, J., and Sokol, M. (2012, October 19) VAM, the new teacher evaluation system, stirs concern,
confusion. Tampa Bay Times.
The actual proportion of teachers for which student growth can be measured through the typical state assessment.
25%
• Are a contract negotiated between the principal and teacher around student results.
• Do not produce rankings that compare teacher results across settings
• Do not introduce controls to account for factors that may influence growth that are outside the teachers influence.
• Do not advance a claim of causation – teacher competence is demonstrated by fulfillment of the contract
Student Learning Objectives
• Do not provide evidence of teacher effectiveness.• Teachers using SLOs may be evaluated against less
rigorous criteria than teachers evaluated by value-added methods.
• Goals are not consistent in difficulty.• Goals are not consistent across teachers.
Student Learning Objectives
Employing value-added methodologies, Jackson found that teachers had a substantive effect on non-cognitive outcomes that was independentof their effect on test scores
Source: Jackson, K. (2013). Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina. Northwestern University and NBER
Non-cognitive factors
• Lowered the average student absenteeism by 7.4 days.
• Improved the probability that students would enroll in the next grade by 5 percentage points.
• Reduced the likelihood of suspension by 2.8%
• Improved the average GPA by .09 (Algebra) or .05 (English)
Source: Jackson, K. (2013). Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores and Teacher Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina. Northwestern University and NBER
Non-cognitive factors
Solving a problem sometimes creates
others
Suggested reading
Baker B., Oluwole, J., Green, P. (2013). The legal consequences of mandating high stakes decisions based on low quality information: Teacher evaluation in the Race to the Top Era. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Vol 21. No 5.