Moderators
Delegates
Recent Caucuses
Search
Judging teachers
With pressure from Race to the Top, Illinois lawmakers passed a bill requiring all school districts to incorporate student performance data "as a significant factor" in teacher and principal evaluations by 2016. What type of student performance data do you think should be included in teacher evaluation? What else, besides data, should be used to judge teachers?
This is very treacherous terrain. How do we measure the ethical development of students? What about empathy, creativity, and a willingness to learn difficult and challenging content? A portfolio process helps to address some of these concerns and incorporates our need to also focus on standard academic skills, but it is not the magic bullet many so-called reformers desire.
How do you judge a school in a community that is besieged by violence and poverty? What about the fact that the Department of Education is giving out competitive grants that are not funded in a way to ensure that all states can receive additional funds? So much for not leaving children behind!
Ultimately, a competitive model of education where there are winners and losers is designed to overlook and reinforce the social inequalities that our children face. Instead we must challenge and eradicate those inequalities.
We need a new model for judging school success. We need a model that uses evaluations as a diagnostic tool instead of a bludgeon to punish schools. When a school is not performing well, it provides an opportunity to diagnose all of the variables that complicate learning and teaching outcomes in that community. A diagnostic approach provides schools with additional resources, peer mentoring and self evaluation methods to challenge and transform that school’s culture and practice. It is hard complicated work that will not succeed without patience, perseverance and a many, many more resources.
It is quite apparent that nationally there is a growing dissatisfaction with how states and school districts evaluate their teachers. Most district evaluation systems fail to identify weaker teachers and teaching and fail to provide useful information to teachers on how to improve their classroom practice. In a number of districts, teacher evaluation is still conducted by principals with little or no formal training using observational tools or “checklists” that are outdated and do not effectively assess classroom instruction.
These weaknesses are one reason the federal Race to the Top competition is encouraging states like Illinois to improve their teacher evaluation systems by, among other things, incorporating data on student performance into the assessments of individual teachers. New legislation in Illinois—the Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010—requires that standards-based teacher evaluation systems with a student achievement indicator be implemented throughout the state. Other states like Florida are moving even more aggressively to tie teacher tenure and compensation to performance-based assessments of teaching.
Illinois and other states are to be commended for taking on their broken teacher evaluation systems, yet the path forward on how to fix these systems is less than clear. Measuring teacher “value added” is more difficult than many advocates suggest and many states—including Illinois—lack the data systems that can connect individual student achievement gains to specific teachers and classrooms. Yet while many states are moving to link teacher evaluation to student performance, the majority will still continue to base half or more of teacher evaluations on other measures of effectiveness besides student test scores.
What might these other measures look like and how useful are they? In Chicago we are beginning to learn just that. The Excellence in Teaching Pilot, introduced in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) in 2008, represents a particularly ambitious district-led effort to improve teacher evaluation. The pilot has adapted the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching to create a new evaluation tool that principals can use to assess teaching practice. The pilot evaluation tool is the proposed replacement to a simple checklist that has been used in CPS for the last 30 years. As part of the pilot, extensive training and supports has been provided for participating principals in using the new evaluation tool.
Over that last 18 months, my colleagues at the Consortium on Chicago School Research (CCSR) have been studying the Excellence in Teaching pilot, which is currently being implemented in 44 Chicago elementary schools. In the first phase of the evaluation, CCSR has focused much of its attention on whether the new evaluation tool is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing teaching. We were able to get at this by employing a study design that uses “matched” observations of where external observers and school administrators conduct classroom observations at the same time and then rate the teachers independently.
Among the study’s initial findings are that the new evaluation tool can reliably identify low-quality teaching—with principals and observers generally rating teachers in similar ways. However, to fully realize the potential of this new tool, ongoing training and support for principals on the use of tool is crucial. CPS provided ongoing professional development and support for principals in the first year of the pilot; yet a number of principals still struggled to rate some areas of instruction (e.g. student engagement in learning) consistently. Principal turnover and the need for extensive training as the initiative expands to all schools pose particular challenges going forward for CPS.
Lastly, there are significant future challenges in using the new evaluation tool for high-stakes decisions. Inconsistencies in the way that principals rate some areas of instruction and differences in severity across principals pose major challenges for using the tool to make consequential decision about teachers. For example, having a principal who is a severe rater might have detrimental effects on the careers of borderline teachers in that school. On the other hand, lenient principals might keep teachers who should otherwise be removed due to low performance. These ongoing difficulties suggests that policy makers in Chicago and elsewhere should move cautiously as they implement new evaluation systems and ensure the availability of proper support for teachers and principals in implementing the Danielson-based tool and other new measures of teacher effectiveness.
Have you ever spent so much time on a lesson you were confident that your students would pass, yet there are always those few students failing no matter how well you teach? EXACTLY... Teachers have different learning styles. So while some portion of the class understands a lesson, the other portion are struggling to grasp the concept. There is little a teacher can do to help the student's learning problem, but there could be things they can do to help the situation by recommending the student to tutors, study groups and giving the student extra time.
Teachers could be evaluated on how the student progresses from the first day to the last. For example have a pre- and post-tests where students would get tested on the first day of school and another one on the last day of school. This would show student progression from day one to the final day. However, some students are bad test takers, so this shouldn't be the only way they are judged.
Azairian Cartman, 11th grade
Dusable Leadership Academy
As a student at Roberto Clemente, I can say that teachers should not be evaluated on how well their students do on a test or on their grades. Not every student learns the same way and has the self motivation to do good in school like other students. Personally, I feel that some of my teachers are great but my grade and test scores does not reflect them as a teacher. A good teacher is one that offers up their extra time to help you and is one that encourages and gives you advice whenever they notice there is something wrong. Part of what teachers should be evaluated on is how much their students trust them because building trust with a student is what will help them stay in school and more committed to class.
Diana Carreno, 12th grade
Roberte Clemente High School
As a student I do not know where to start with this question. From past experience CPS has been preparing us for life through standardized tests. I'm really in between on judging teachers on students' performances. When I was in 7th grade I had just transferred to Scott Joplin Elementary. The school I came from was Chares Deneen which is currently being turned around. The 4 years I spent at Deneen the school was on academic probation. During 7th grade I had a great math teacher named Ms. Williams. She encouraged me to come to tutoring before and after school. This helped me a lot my math score jumped from a 49 to 89. This is great for looking at my teacher but I don’t think teachers should be evaluated by student performances. Although I had a 40 point jump in math someone in my class received a 4% on the test. That one student could maybe have caused my old teacher to get fired if we based it off of student’s performances. When based on my improvements she is good teacher. I agree with Diana’s post. Teacher’s need to be celebrated for when they go above and beyond because that is what always makes a real difference.
James Alford, 12th grade
Kenwood Academy
Just as teaching itself is both art and science, so too is the process of evaluating teachers. While there are certainly exceptions, the system has not worked effectively either to give teachers good feedback on how they can improve classroom practice, to identify critical professional development needs, to celebrate exceptional teachers, or to identify weak teachers. The notion that a teacher's evaluation (or that of a principal) should depend in some way on his or her ability to impact student learning makes intuitive sense. At the same time, and as Jackson Potter, Chris and several of the student participants point out, understanding student growth and learning is complicated and doesn't necessarily take into account all of the things we want and expect teachers to accomplish in the classroom. This reality prompts a number of observations.
First, while most agree there are no easy answers for how to measure student growth (current standardized tests were not meant for this purpose, and plenty of courses and grades do not even take such tests), it is healthy for teachers and administrators to be talking about what they expect of their students and classrooms, and how they will know if they've made progress against those goals. The changes underway are prompting these conversations, and that is a positive shift in thinking and discussion.
Second, no evaluation system should depend entirely on measures of student academic growth. As Jackson and several students point out, outstanding teachers are willing to take extra time with students, to motivate them beyond their studies, and to help shape their character. Thoughtful means to evaluate classroom practice (such as the Danielson Framework mentioned above) can and should be used to understand teacher performance and to help craft useful feedback.
Finally, while I feel differently about the value and use of competitive grants (and would point out that competitive Race to the Top dollars come only on top of signficant stimulus dollars for all states and schools), I share Jackson's view that we are overdue for a more sophisticated way of evaluating school success. We should look at a broad array of information to understand what is working and what is not at a school, and to ensure that schools do not narrowly focus on certain test results to the exclusion of building a climate and culture that stimulates and nurtures students and professionals alike, or at the cost of ensuring children have access to a rich array of courses and experiences.
Arne Duncan admits that our current standardized assessments are poor. He has asked for $350 million in federal funds for the development of new and "better tests." Yet, even with this admission, comes pressure from the top, even threats to deprive school districts like Chicago, of federal funding unless they agree to use these same bad tests as the main measure to evaluate and pay teachers. There are many great ways to evaluate teachers' performance besides test-and-punish formulas. It all begins with skilled school leaders and a school environment that values teachers as uses evaluation as a way to support them and build their capacity. Especially in our small schools, where teamwork and collaboration are so highly valued and where the loss or gain of 2 or 3 students can cause a wild fluxuation in scores, it is impossible to pin a student scores on a bubble test to the work of one teacher.
One of the biggest unintended consequences I see in using student test data to evaluate teachers is that it will discourage good teachers from taking jobs in struggling schools or neighborhoods. I strongly urge people to read the very thoughtful study on merit pay done by the Teacher Leadership Network, titled "Performance Pay for Teachers." You can access it at www.teacherleaders.org . Under "Resources" on that website, you can download the report by searching for "Pay for Performance Report". It reviews programs that have been used by various districts. It's especially valuable for describing programs that encourage and reward the kinds of increased skills, knowledge, and responsibilities that we'd all like to see advanced in schools. Rather than simply knee-jerk opposition, we need to strongly advocate for evaluation and recognition systems that are carefully designed to get positive results, instead of clumsy sledge-hammer approaches.
Clearly there are differences of opinion regarding this topic. Among the several concerns I have are:
will this encourage educators to teach to the test and place less emphasis on other essentials such as the arts or social/emotional development;
will this be a fair playing field for schools that have a large transient student population;
will this take into account other methods that teachers implement in order to improve student performance such volunteer tutoring and individual student modifications;
will it include a self-reflective component where teachers truly self-assess and monitor/modify their own progress;
and will it be a user-friendly and unbiased format that principals can realistically put into use and use effectively???
Student growth cannot merely be measured by standardized testing, just as teacher performance cannot be evaluated by using one-dimensional assessment tool. I certainly hope that educators are included in the development of this plan and teacher evaluation.
The factors by which students’ performance can and should be measured are innumerable. Many are intangible, but with far-reaching results. Some can not be measured with accurate quantifiable validity, but by subjective or narrative gauges. Recognizing, however, that a tool is required to indicate progress, it should include, but not be limited to, the following:
1) SMART goals for students
2) 360° evaluations for teachers
3) Professional development for teachers reflecting goals as outlined on annual evaluations
4) Continuing education of teachers (to keep abreast)
5) __% improvement towards AYP
6) __% improvements in regards to achieving ISBE standards
7) Improvements/reductions in factors affecting learning, e.g., homework turned in, home communication, “calm” classrooms, __% engaged, reduced disruptive behavior, and overall behavior in school attitude toward learning
8) Indicators of promotion of rigorous high expectations towards career readiness in the areas of work ethic, oral and written communication, attitude, and other defining metrics of a “good” employee
I also want to point out that there is mixed data regarding the cash incentive for student performance.