rvituccigmuphdportfolio.weebly.com · Web viewThroughout the history of schooling in the United States, teachers have served as the providers of the information students learn. It

Running head: TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Teacher Evaluation Laws:

Conflict Between Summative and Formative Assessments

Robin Vitucci

George Mason University

Robin,

You did a nice job describing some of the teacher evaluation options. You need to work

on expectations of academic writing. I’ve noted a few in the text. One of the most

important is to make sure all paragraphs are a minimum of three sentences. There is an

expectation that each sentence will present a somewhat complex set of ideas that need

multiple sentences to build the logic of the argument. In addition, there are places in the

paper where I would expect to see citations and I noted those. You will need to make

APA6th edition your best friend. I have indicated some of the things to watch for.

Finally, and this is very important also, is to avoid the words prove or proven. Unlike

court cases where compelling, or the preponderance of, evidence is thought to prove

something beyond a reasonable doubt, proof is a very high standard in empirical research.

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

In the scholarly world if someone asserts that a study proves something, it means there is

no contrary evidence anywhere. Thus, if I write that DCPS’ IMPACT evaluation system

proves the efficacy of value added assessments, all you need to do is find one relatively

solid study to the contrary and you can demolish my argument. I caution students to

avoid proof, prove, and proven.

My comments are intended to give you some guidance in the event you want to

revise this and use it elsewhere in your doc program. Other than not discussing the impact

of Bill Sanders on Tennessee’s Value Added system, the content is excellent. There is

work to be done stylistically. Independent Study Grade = A

2

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Introduction

Throughout the history of schooling in the United States, teachers have served as

the providers of the information students learn. It has been widely said, by current

President Barack Obama as well as countless others, that a quality teacher is the most

important in-school factor affecting student achievement (U.S. Department of Education,

2011). If this assertion is correct, Iit follows, then, that assessing teacher performance is a

key way to ensure that all students have a high-quality teacher in their classroom. How to

properly evaluate a teacher has been at the forefront of many education laws over the past

several decades, leading to much debate over what the right policies are and how to best

use those policies to improve teacher performance. In examining a history of teacher

evaluations in the United States, as well as in-depth analyses of several individual

evaluation systems, it seems that states have had a difficult time integrating policies into

law that are in line with both the intended purposes of improving teacher performance

and making appropriate personnel decisions.

Background

History of Evaluations

Teacher evaluation has existed in some form for at least a century. However, two

major events over the past 60 years have contributed to the focus on teacher evaluations

that exists today. One, the advent of teachers unions in the 1950s allowed for collective

bargaining of issues including teacher evaluations (Borthwick, Cohodes, Sennette, &

Touhey, ). And two, the Nation at Risk report published in 1983 explicitly demanded

higher competencies for teachers and implicitly demanded a system to assess teacher

performance (National Commission on Excellence in Education). Ideas of good teaching

3

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

practice were based on norm-referenced measures of student achievement, and

evaluations were based on observable behaviors that supported those assessments

(Danielson & McGreal, 2000).

Over the past several decades, there has been an increase of and improvements in

education research, causing a change in how teachers teach and demanding a need for

change in how teachers are evaluated (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Few studies have

been conducted to examine evaluation policies on a national level, and each state (and

even district) has its own system, so it is difficult to see what works the best and what

strategies can make for the most successful academic environment.

However, it is clear from research that there are some proven effective strategies

that states and districts can use to have successful and fair evaluation systems (Mathers,

Olivia, & Laine, 2008). Ensuring that reliable measuring systems are available is one way

a state can support its efforts. Additionally, evaluations must mean something. This does

not mean that they have to be directly tied to high-stakes impacts such as job security, but

can be done through connections with meaningful professional development. Providing

teachers with multiple formative assessments throughout the year can also give them

tools they need to improve their practice, and it can give them feedback to adjust any

areas of concern before a summative judgment is made.

Recently, federal legislation and accompanying state policies have led to an

increase and renewed focus on teacher evaluations. Teacher quality has become an issue

of great concern, and ensuring that there is a good teacher in every classroom has been on

the agenda of the past several presidents. These laws have been the impetus for many

sweeping changes across the country in education reform.

4

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Congress passed and President Bush signed into law Public Law 107-110, known

as No Child Left Behind, on January 8, 2002 (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002).

Receipt of full federal education funding became determinant on adherence to the law.

The purpose of the law was to guarantee a high level of academic achievement for all

students in America’s public schools. One way to do this was through targeting teacher

quality. According to the law, every teacher of a major content area had to attain “highly

qualified” status. Concurrently, the law also demanded improved student performance

and required annual testing of students in grades 3-8 in reading and math, and once in

each of elementary, middle, and high school in science.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) put a focus on accountability for schools, teachers,

and students (Dee & Jacob, 2010). Schools faced sanctions and even closings for their

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which measures how students and groups of students

perform on the required state tests. Because these tests were so high-stakes for schools,

determining which teachers produced students who could pass the tests became

increasingly important for policy-makers.

In February 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act, which included over $4 billion for a new competitive grant program

called Race to the Top (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The goal of the program

was for states to create plans to address four key reform areas, including “building data

systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals

about how they can improve instruction” (2009). Additionally, to be eligible to apply for

a grant a state could not have a legal barrier in place to prevent the use of linking student

achievement data or student growth to teachers for the purposes of evaluations.

5

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Applicants were selected based on their proposed reform plans, and recipients have been

working on designing and implementing new evaluation systems as pledged in their

applications.

Models to define good teaching

Since Because teacher evaluations have become more prominent, various people

and organizations have developed models to examine teacher practice. One popular

model used in reform efforts throughout the country is known as the Charlotte Danielson

model, named after its creator (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Danielson developed an

entire process for school districts to follow in creating an evaluation system, from

developing committees, scheduling meetings, determining procedures and evaluative

criteria, creating an instrument, and implementation.

The Danielson model uses four domains for examining teacher practice, with 22

components spread among those domains. The domains include: Planning and

Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities.

Those domain titles alone show that this model looks not only at what the teacher does

when she is speaking with students, but also looks at how she prepares for her class

through her knowledge of the content and of her students and their needs, how she creates

a respectful and organized atmosphere, and how she deals with parents and the

community at large. This model addresses teaching as a complex and broad-reaching

profession.

Teachers are rated on each of the components by trained observers. Part of the

process includes teacher reflection, so teachers can learn from looking at their own

practice rather than just by what someone else tells them about it. Danielson says that her

6

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

model can be used for different purposes, but the main goal should be to enhance teacher

practice (Danielson Group, 2011).

Another relatively new method to measure teacher performance is called value-

added (Glazerman et al., 2010). These models aim at differentiating between levels of

performance, as many school districts have been giving most teachers the same high

rating. Value-added looks at achievement of individual students and links that to a

teacher’s performance. Usually this involves using the students’ standardized tests scores

and compares each student’s beginning of the year performance with his end of the year

results. Out-of-classroom factors, such as school-wide elements or a student’s own

background, are given statistical weight to adjust the data to be specifically targeted at the

teacher’s role.

Much research has been done on the controversial topic of value-added models.

Value-added scores do not necessarily identify who are the weakest teachers; the scores

identify which students did not perform as well on tests (Economic Policy Institute,

2010). Teachers have been shown to vary greatly from one year to the next, likely

because they are being measured on different groups of students every year. Students are

also impacted by many factors outside of their teachers, and while although the score

attempts to take into account some of those factors, it does not always account for factors

such as summer learning loss in low income students, other teachers (both previous and

concurrent), and school factors such as tutoring or materials.

Nonetheless, many recent evaluation systems incorporate this value-added

measurement and look at test scores to measure teacher performance. Some proponents

suggest that value-added data is a good measure because unlike the school-wide

7

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

accountability measure from NCLB, value-added measures each individual student on a

yearly basis, which then can be pinpointed to an individual teacher (Koretz, 2008). The

data also takes into account some out-of-class factors. While they cannot capture

everything that happens outside the classroom, it is still an advantage over other models

that take nothing into account other than the test score. However, most research will

argue that value-added should not be the sole criteria in any evaluation, but merely one of

several measures.

Ultimately, many states are choosing to use a combination of these two methods –

allowing a percentage of the evaluation to be a reflection of value-added scores and

another percentage to be from observations or other Danielson-type performance

measures. Which method a state or district chooses depends on what their purpose is in

having an evaluation system, whether that purpose is the stated goal of the law or simply

the intent of the legislators.

Purposes of Evaluations

Evaluations can be used for two main purposes (Mathers, Oliva & Laine, 2008).

Formative evaluations are used to improve teaching through feedback on performance

and finding corresponding professional development. Summative evaluations are used to

support employment decisions such as salary, tenure, and dismissals.

An evaluation system based on both of these simultaneously can be tricky.

Rossow and Tate focus their legal analysis on summative evaluations because they feel

those are the only legally binding types of evaluations (2003). Mathers, Oliva, & Laine

suggest that formative evaluations will first determine what a teacher needs in order to

improve, and summative evaluations will then support the decision on whether the

8

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

teacher has improved (2008). Both are needed in order to properly assess how a teacher is

performing and how she addresses areas of need (or how she is rewarded for areas of

success). Simply determining which teachers are “bad” and removing them does nothing

to improve the quality of existing teachers and gives those bad teachers no chance to

improve prior to dismissal.

The Danielson and similar models focus on the formative side of evaluations.

Looking at how a teacher is performing in a variety of areas and providing each teacher

with the particular development she needs is the key function of the Danielson model.

Value-added data looks at outcomes of how students performed and ties it with the

teacher. This inherently seems like another formative evaluation, to determine in what

areas students are struggling and identify the teacher that might need support in that area.

However, an examination of how states have incorporated various methods into their

evaluation laws and policies shows that many states and districts have recently begun to

muddle these processes into both formative and summative evaluations.

Case Studies

Since Because legal requirements around obtaining federal education funding

have been changing recently, it seems clear that teacher evaluation systems must change

as well. Each state operates under its own laws, and from 2008-2011, over half of the

states (32 plus the District of Columbia) made some changes to their teacher evaluation

policies (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011). With Race to the Top provisions it

is likely more will follow. Twenty-three states require student learning, determined by

student growth or value-added measures, to be a major component of teacher evaluation

systems.

9

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

The following case studies look at the teacher evaluation laws and policies of two

districts and two states. All have made some changes to their systems over the past

several years, due to new teacher contracts, No Child Left Behind requirements, or

conditions for Race to the Top funding. Examining how these policies have taken into

account both formative and summative evaluation needs can provide insight into how

current laws are affecting how teachers are assessed and what the results of those

assessments are.

Cincinnati, OH

Ohio was awarded $400 million for education funding in the second round of

Race to the Top in 2010 (Ohio Department of Education, 2012). Following the state’s

proposal under that grant for a new teacher evaluation system, the State Board of

Education adopted the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) in 2011. This system,

which will be implemented by the 2013-2014 school year, will require 50% of a teacher’s

evaluation to be based on student growth measures through value-added data.

In Ohio, the Cincinnati Public School District will provides an interesting case

study into the application of the new law because it has had its own successful teacher

evaluation system in place for many years. In 1997, the Cincinnati Federation of

Teachers signed a contract with the district Board of Education and included a provision

to implement a new teacher evaluation system (Cincinnati Public Schools). The union

and district formed several committees to determine what defined “good teaching” and

how they would measure it. The group decided on the Danielson framework and its four

domains for assessing teaching. The system was piloted in 10 schools in 1999-2000. Over

the next several school years the Teacher Evaluation System (TES) was implemented in

10

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

more schools and further refined. Today it is seen as a leading model of evaluation in not

only improving teacher performance but also improving student achievement.

This is not a stand-alone system; Cincinnati also implemented a Peer Assistance

and Evaluation Program to provide teachers with a mentor and provide struggling

teachers with an opportunity for an intervention to target their needs of improvement.

Additionally, Cincinnati developed a career ladder to advance teachers through five

different levels based on their performance.

Under TES, all teachers undergo annual assessments, and teachers at defined

intervals in their career (first year, fourth year, and every fifth year after that) participate

in Comprehensive Evaluations. The yearly assessment includes one classroom

observation, and the Comprehensive Evaluations are comprised of at least four

observations spread throughout the year. After several revisions, the system ultimately

contains 16 standards under the four domains.

Teachers receive a final score at the end of the year for each of the four domains.

A poor evaluation for a first or fourth year teacher could lead to a non-renewal of their

contract, and a consequence of a poor evaluation for tenured teachers could loss of

eligibility for promotion or tenure protection but little risk of termination (Taylor and

Tyler, 2011). This system is an example of using summative and formative data in a low-

stakes situation to support teachers and use quantifiable evidence. There is something

behind the results of an evaluation, which can provide teachers with a high level of

investment, but there is not a risk that test scores will be used to harm teachers.

A study conducted in 2011 concluded that teacher participation in TES improved

mid-career teachers’ effectiveness in increasing student achievement in math (Taylor and

11

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

& Tyler, 2011). Achievement continued to increase beyond the evaluation year,

indicating a possible link in participation in the evaluation process with student and

teacher improvement. An explanation for this link could be that teachers appreciated the

feedback and adjusted their practice based on what they learned.

In May 2011, on the heels of Race to the Top and prior to OTES, the union and

district in Cincinnati announced a new evaluation system for the teachers in the district

(Cincinnati Public Schools, 2011). The existing TES structure will become one of three

evaluation components. The Comprehensive Evaluation component from TES will use

multiple measures of student growth, and advancement and increase in pay will be tied

with receiving positive evaluations on this measure. This evaluation will continue to be

used every five years as in TES.

The new evaluations will be an Annual Evaluation and a Performance Review

Evaluation. Here, the 50% student growth piece required in the Race to the Top funding

will be included. The Annual Evaluation will occur yearly, except those years when the

other evaluations are conducted. Teachers will have structured discussions with

principals and a checklist of responsibilities used to address any areas of concern. The

Performance Review Evaluation will be tied to salary increases and includes a teacher

reflection paper, goals for student achievement, and two observations.

This system is being piloted in the 2011-2012 school year and will undergo

review and revision before full implementation. It is unclear how the new evaluations

will affect the district’s proven success with the existing evaluation system. Because the

initiative has the support of both the union and the school district, it is likely there will be

a continuation of the strengths of the program. Additionally, since Cincinnati pushed

12

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

forward with a new policy before the state implemented its new system, it seems as

though the district has positioned itself as a leader in the state and wants to continue that

role as the new reforms shape education in the state. However, using value-added data for

both formative and summative evaluations may prove to be harmful to teachers.

New Haven, CT

The New Haven Federation of Teachers and the New Haven Public Schools

agreed to a new contract in 2009 that was hailed as a landmark agreement with the city

and the union to work on serious reform efforts (Bailey, 2009). Tying teacher evaluations

to student achievement was among the benefits and initiatives included in the contract.

After several months of meetings between the two parties, the committee released

recommendations for the new system. The stated purpose of the system is to

enable deep individualized development for teachers, ensure that development is aligned to student learning goals, enable embedded and professional evaluation and coaching for all teachers, and be bound by the consequential recognition of both outstanding and poor performance (New Hampshire Public Schools, 2010).

These goals are to be met through measuring student learning, assessing teacher

practice and professional values, teacher development, and peer validation of judgments.

Team-based professional development was stated as the highest priority to achieve

student achievement goals. Parallel reforms were also planned and introduced with new

contract, including administrator development and evaluation, professional communities,

and a commitment to providing resources and time to teachers and administrators to

allow for their participation in the new programs (New Haven Public Schools, 2010).

Student growth in New Haven is a measurement that shows what impact a teacher

had on student learning (The New Teacher Project, 2012). This model describes student’s

13

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

growth in relation to their peers rather than in relation to the impact a particular teacher

had on their learning. There is no factoring for student background or characteristics as in

value-added models. A median growth percentile is used to rate a teacher’s

effectiveness. For teachers in non-tested grades or subject areas, Student Learning

Objectives are used, where a goal is set and growth is measured at a later point in time to

determine if the student was successful in meeting the goal.

This system differs from what New Haven previously had in place in several

ways (New Haven Public Schools, August 2010). Using student growth as a measure in

assessments was a new process in New Haven. This is tied with administrators requiring

frequent feedback to their teachers through a detailed performance rubric. Combining

summative and formative assessments into one process seemed to be a function of

appeasing both the district and the union in what each felt was important.

Each teacher will meet regularly with her instructional manager through frequent

conferences and check-ins. Teacher performance will be rated on a scale of one to five in

student learning and on a scale of one to five in combined instructional practice (80%)

and professional values (20%). Final scores will be determined through the following

matrix (New Hampshire Public Schools):

5=Exemplary, 4=Strong, 3=Effective, 2=Developing, 1=Needs Improvement

14

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

From this matrix it is clear that student growth is important but low student

growth will not on its own place a teacher in the lowest rankings if true quality

instructional practice and professional values are displayed. This method can help

teachers overcome the challenges of using test scores to measure performance.

Teachers who are developing and in need of improvement will be offered targeted

professional development, and those in the needs improvement category who do not

improve will be subject to sanctions (New Haven Public Schools, August 2010). All

teachers, however, are given a role in professional development (New Haven Public

Schools, 2010). From novice to expert, development is tied to what a teacher both needs

and wants.

After the system’s first year of implementation, 34 teachers (out of 1,846) left the

district (Bailey, 2011). These teachers (about half were tenured and half were not) either

resigned or retired; none were fired. A total of 75 teachers were labeled as poor

performers at some point during the year. Almost 40% of those improved to a higher

category by the end of the year, and 20% did not improve but kept their jobs. Seventy-

five percent of the district’s teachers were given a score of 3 or better. Both the union

president and the district superintendent praised the program as supporting teachers and

helping the district.

Connecticut had two failed bids for Race to the Top funding in 2010 and 2011

(Reitz, 2011), but submitted an application for an NCLB waiver in February 2012

(Center on Education Policy, 2012). As part of that waiver, the state would require use of

student test scores as part of teacher evaluations. That same month, the Connecticut State

Board of Education endorsed guidelines for a new teacher evaluation policy that would

15

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

require 45% of a teacher’s performance rating to be based on students’ performance on

standardized tests or other similar local indicators (Associated Press, 2012).

Connecticut is looking at the New Haven model as a possible guide for

implementing the new state policy (Bailey, 2012). While although the model uses student

test scores as a major factor in a system that can ultimately impact a teacher’s job, it has a

combination of targeted development and observed performance assessments that make it

appear to be one of the stronger policies that allow for combining summative and

formative evaluations. Both the union and district support the policy to support and

protect teachers and to evaluate them effectively to ensure all students have quality

teachers.

Louisiana

In May 2010, the Louisiana state legislature adopted a law establishing a new

teacher evaluation system in the state (Louisiana Department of Education, 2010). Pre-

existing law required teachers to be evaluated every three years; the new law changed

that to require yearly assessments. The new system is to be phased in to all schools in the

state by the 2012-2013 school year.

Governor Jindal stated at the time of adoption that this new law would help to

identify teachers who needed support and provide them with “targeted professional

development” (2010). The State Superintendent stated the goal slightly differently, saying

that it would “provide teachers…with a constructive analysis that informs and improves

the outcome of their efforts” (2011). Merge with prior paragraph

The outcomes the Superintendent spoke of seem to be student test scores,

evidenced by the fact that teacher evaluations will now be determined 50% on a value-

16

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

added model that is based on student academic growth (2010). The remaining 50% will

come from the traditional methods used in the prior mode, including observations and

peer reviews. The calculation of student growth, according to the law, will be based on

predicting how much students will learn over one year’s time and then measuring actual

performance using standardized tests.

Louisiana currently has two value-added models districts can use to help structure

their systems (Act 54, 2012). One is the Teacher Preparation Program Assessment

Model, which evaluates teacher preparation programs using value-added data. The other,

the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), is already in existence in 80 schools across

the state and uses value-added data to evaluate and support teachers. The TAP System is

a national model based on multiple career paths, ongoing professional development,

instructionally focused accountability, and performance-based pay (TAP System, 2012).

This goal of model is to raise student achievement through a system of supports for

teachers. TAP schools in general have been shown to improve student growth,

particularly in high needs schools (National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, 2011).

In Louisiana, TAP seems to be an effective tool to help student achievement

(National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, 2007). TAP schools achieved the same

level of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the NCLB requirements in 2004-2005 as

other schools in the state; however, the TAP schools had more high-needs students. The

following year, TAP schools surpassed non-TAP schools in the state in making AYP.

The new teacher evaluation law in Louisiana, while suggesting the use of TAP

value-added methods, does not also require the accompanying programs and supports that

come along with TAP. The Louisiana Federation of Teachers, one of the few groups in

17

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

the state that did not support the new evaluation law (Louisiana Department of Education,

2010), disliked it for favoring value-added but suggested TAP as an alternative to

because it combines data with real supports such as mentoring (Mooney, 2011). The

problem, then, is not the fact value-added is used, but how it is used.

TAP uses value-added data to determine what teachers need for instructional

improvement and provide them with “best practices” to help with that improvement (TAP

System, 2012). Critics of value-added have said that the main problem with using that

type of data is that it is “unstable,” “imprecise,” and “the research base is currently

insufficient” (Economic Policy Institute, 2010, p. XX). Researchers have concluded that

this data is generally not causal and will not provide the connections claimed by

supporters.

Schools and districts in Louisiana may still use TAP, but the 50% value-added

scores will outweigh any of the other policies or practices that are in the system. The law

will require the use of value-added to measure teachers for both formative and summative

purposes. TAP focuses more on the formative, helping teacher to improve. Even if value-

added data is not the best way to determine true student growth, using that data to support

teacher improvement has still been shown to help student achievement. However,

translating that value-added approach to summative uses seems to go against much

research and best practices.

In 2012, Governor Jindal signed education reform law that will translate the

value-added data of the teacher evaluation law into summative use (LaCoste, 2012).

Teachers must maintain “highly effective” status for five out of six years in order to keep

tenure, they will lose tenure after becoming “ineffective” for one year, and they may be

18

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

terminated after two consecutive years of “ineffective” ratings. Aiming to eliminate

automatic tenure, this new law is controversial because of its use of value-added for

summative purposes (Mooney, 2012). As these new law is implemented over the next

school year and beyond, Louisiana will surely be under critical eyes to determine the

effectiveness of this bold system.

Tennessee

Tennessee received over $500 million in federal funding under Race to the Top in

2010 (Tennessee Government, 2011a). The resulting First to the Top Act included

provisions for, among other things, annual evaluations of teachers and principals. The

new teacher evaluation system, by law, must be comprised of 50% student achievement

measures and 50% “other criteria” which is mainly based on classroom observation data.

The following summer, in June 2011, the state Board of Education approved a

teacher evaluation process. The 50% “student achievement” criteria was decided to be

based 35% on student growth measured by a value-added system and 15% from other

student achievement data (Morrow, 2011). Additionally, teachers will be observed four

times a year under the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) system, which has been

used in the state for several years. All teachers received annual evaluations beginning in

the 2011-2012 school year (Tennessee Government, 2011b).

In 1988, The Tennessee Department of Education, the state Board of Education,

and the state Higher Education Commission all released documents describing goals for

the state’s educational future (Sanders & Horn, 1994). How teachers were to be held

accountable for their roles in education became an issue for the state legislature, and they

included an outcome-based system in the Education Improvement Act of 1991. The

19

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) was thus instituted as a statistical

way to show how teachers impact the achievement of their students. The system has been

used statewide since 1993. The Education Improvement Act required teacher evaluations

to be based on data from periods of between three to five years, so no one year of data

could be the sole factor in the calculation.

After NCLB required new accountability for states, Tennessee removed TVAAS

from its accountability criteria but continued to use value-added data for diagnostic

purposes (Office of Education Accountability, 2004). In the new system under the First to

the Top law, called the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) (Tennessee

Department of Education, 2011a), the 35% student growth data for most teachers comes

from TVAAS, again bringing value-added into summative evaluations. Teachers from

untested grades or subject areas are evaluated using school-wide test scores (Schelzig,

2012).

Teacher evaluation data in Tennessee will now affect tenure for the first time,

requiring teachers to receive a score of 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1 to 5) for two consecutive

years before being granted tenure (Tennessee Department of Education, 2011b). Teachers

can lose tenure status by receiving rankings of a 1 or a 2 for two consecutive years.

Value-added and other test scores are a significant part of that calculation, which

researchers have stated is not appropriate for determining job security (Economic Policy

Institute, 2010).

The 50% “other criteria” of the evaluation system is comprised of a cycle of

observations. This requirement of providing teachers with constant feedback and time for

self-reflection seems to show that the policies of the evaluation law were in line with the

20

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

legislative desire to improve teacher quality. The TAP observation system has been

shown to promote student achievement, and professional development is based on

teacher’s needs.

At the midpoint of the first year of implementation in DATE, teachers were

already asking for changes in the system and requested to make the first year a pilot year

and not have evaluation results end in negative consequences (Schelzig, 2012). The

Tennessee Educators Association made comments about the system and wanted to ensure

that details were worked out and that there were more options available for the “other

criteria” category. The TEA did not fight the use of TVAAS data to measure teachers but

officials did speak out against the use of school-wide data to measure teachers whose

students were not tested.

It remains to be seen if the 50/50 weighting is a magical formula that both

supports teachers and holds them accountable, and it seems likely that the end of the first

year will bring to light positive and negative aspects of the system and whether or not the

legislature will act to make any changes in the system. The value-added and student test

score comprising half of the evaluation for summative purposes could possibly impact

teachers negatively due to the stated problems with reliability of data. Continuation of the

TAP system and observation data for formative purposes can counteract some of those

issues.

Conclusion

Teacher evaluations, when tied with targeted professional development, have

been proven in many placesbeen used to support teachers and offer them valuable

feedback to improve their practice and in turn improve student achievement. Recent

21

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

reforms in laws and policies have shifted evaluations into more summative uses to

determine a teacher’s standing, tenure, or pay. Since Because many of these reforms are

still in their infancy, it is unclear as to whether or not they will in fact prove be effective

in the long-term.

States and districts across the country are now using value-added models to

measure teacher performance on both formative and summative levels. The use of value-

added data to measure teacher performance for summative purposes has been highly

debated and contested. The data offers a measurable and calculated way to objectively

look at how a teacher is doing, but many researchers suggest it is not accurate and should

not be used in making decisions about a teacher’s job. Nonetheless, many states seem to

be embracing the idea of using test scores as a key piece in an evaluation due to its ease

and seeming objectivity.

In order to help teachers improve, formative evaluations are necessary. Teachers

need to know where they are doing well and where they need support, and they need to

be given that support to improve their performance. Formative evaluations, such as

observations using the Danielson model or the TAP system, offer vital feedback to

teachers in a continuous cycle to give them time and opportunities to improve. Making

decisions on pay, tenure, or removal without first giving a teacher a formative evaluation

is not a clear way to ensure all students have good teachers. Teachers will simply be

replaced by new teachers who, even if trained prepared well or inherently skilled, will

still come in in with the same similar preparation, teach the same students, and undergo

the same evaluation process. This could create a cycle of hiring and firing without really

attempting to support the existing workforce.

22

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Because federal laws continue to place great financial incentives on states to

accept reforms, most states are obligated to work within the system. Many districts, like

Cincinnati or New Haven, might develop systems that work for their teachers and

students, but they will face restrictions or provisions by their state based on acceptance of

federal funding. Because schools cannot stop running in order to “test” new programs,

students are used as subjects in examining different ways to evaluate teachers.

In order to reduce harm to students, policy makers on federal and state levels

should look to research and proven scientifically based examples to see what has worked

and apply that to new systems. Research on the use of value-added data already shows

that we should be careful in using that information for summative purposes. Another

place to look for guidance is at an international level. While Whereas other systems are

difficult to replicate in light of economic, political, and cultural differences, research

shows that it is important to have teacher input in developing a system and to have a

diverse set of criteria to use in evaluating a teacher (Isore, 2009). There are mixed results

on evaluations based on criteria such as student assessments, showing that there is no

research basis for the way the United States has gravitated towards this measure.

Overall, states have had a difficult time integrating policies into law that are in

line with the intended purpose of improving teacher performance and student

achievement. Many of the evaluation systems being designed and implemented today

have not been in existence long enough to have significant data to show what is effective

and what is not. However, it seems likely that the use of student achievement data for

both formative and summative evaluations is counter to the goal of improving teacher

23

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

quality. Teachers need true support opportunities in order to grow and be successful in

helping students learn.

References

Act 54 Louisiana (2012). Value-Added Q&A. Retrieved from http://www.act54.org/qa-value-added.html

Associated Press (2012, February 10). Conn. endorses new teacher evaluation methods. CTpost.com. Retrieved from http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Conn-endorses-new-teacher-evaluation-methods-3252498.php

Bailey, M. (2009, October 14). After teacher vote, Mayo seeks “grand slam.” New Haven Independent. Retrieved from http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/after_teacher_vote_mayo_seeks_grand_slam/

Bailey, M. (2011, September 13). New Haven, Connecticut evaluation system forces out 34 teachers. New Haven Independent. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/new-haven-connecticut-eva_n_960131.html

Bailey, M. (2012, Jan. 30). Will state copy city’s school reform? New Haven Independent. Retrieved from http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/new_conncan_chief/

Borthwick, E., Cohodes, S., Sennette, J. & Touhey, A. (n.d.). History of Teacher Evaluation Models in American Public Education. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://a100educationalpolicy.pbworks.com/f/TEM+History+Section.pdf

Center on Education Policy (2012), NCLB/ESEA waiver watch. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/page.cfm?FloatingPageID=21

Cincinnati Public Schools (2011, May 18). CPS, teachers craft groundbreaking evaluation system: New components link student achievement to advancement, pay. News Release. Retrieved from http://www.cps-k12.org/media/releases/May11TES.pdf

Cincinnati Public Schools (2012). History of the Teacher Evaluation System. Retrieved from http://www.cps-k12.org/employment/tchreval/TESHistory.htm

Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.

24

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Danielson Group (2011). The framework for teaching. Retrieved from http://www.danielsongroup.org/Default.aspx

Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The impact of No Child Left Behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Paper on Economic Activity. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2010_fall_bpea_papers/2010fall_Dee.pdf

Economic Policy Institute (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. The Economic Policy Institute: Washington, DC: Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H., Linn, R. L., …& Shepard, L. A.

Ellett, C. D., & Garland, J. S. (1987). Teacher evaluation practices in our largest school districts: Are they measuring up to ‘state-of-the-Art’ systems? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 69-72.

Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.

LaCoste, T. (2012, April 18). Gov. Jindal signs education reform bills into law. KATC.com. Retrieved from http://www.katc.com/news/gov-jindal-signs-education-reform-bills-into-law/

Isore, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working papers, 23, doi: 10.1787/223283631428

Koretz, D. (2008). A measured approach: Value-added models are a promising improvement, but no one measure can evaluation teacher performance. The American Educator, Fall, 18-27, 39.

Louisiana Department of Education (2010). Louisiana adopts value-added teacher evaluation model. Retrieved from http://www.louisianaschools.net/offices/publicaffairs/press_release.aspx?PR=1428

Louisiana Department of Education (2011). Louisiana educators engaging in the design and implementation of Act 54. Retrieved from http://www.doe.state.la.us/offices/publicaffairs/press_release.aspx?PR=1522

Mathers, C., Olivia, M., & Laine, S. (2008). Improving instruction through effective teacher evaluation: Options for states and districts. TQ Research & Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/publications/February2008Brief.pdf.

Mooney, K. (2011, November 2). Value-added teacher evaluation divides BESE candidates, draws union opposition. The Pelican Post. Retrieved from

25

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/11/02/value-added-teacher-evaluation-divides-bese-candidates-draws-union-opposition/

Mooney, K. (2012, February 1). Louisiana’s teacher evaluation system could remove tenure from autopilot. The Pelican Post. Retrieved from http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2012/02/01/louisianas-teacher-evaluation-system-could-remove-tenure-from-autopilot/

Morrow, M. (2011, June 20). ‘First to the Top’ teacher eval system approved. TN Report. Retrieved from http://tnreport.com/blog/2011/06/20/first-to-the-top-teacher-eval-system-approved/

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). Sate of the state: Trends and early lessons on teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies. Washington, DC.

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (2011). TAP Research Summary. TAP System. Retrieved from http://www.tapsystem.org/publications/tap_research_summary_0210.pdf

New Haven Public Schools (2010, April 15). NHPS Evaluation and Development System Recommendations, Retrieved from http://www.nhps.net/sites/default/files/NHPS_TEVALDEV_Overview_041510_Final_For_Board.pdf.

New Haven Public Schools (2010). Teacher Evaluation and Development – An Introduction to the Process, Retrieved from http://www.nhps.net/sites/default/files/1__NHPS_TEVALDEV_Introduction_-_Aug_2010.pdf

The New Teacher Project (2012). Teacher evaluation system comparative overview. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/tools/TNTP_Teacher+Evaluation+System+Comparative+Overview_TSLT+3.12.pdf

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 USC §6301 (2002).

Office of Education Accountability (2004). The Education Improvement Act: A progress report. Retrieved from http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/repository/RE/educimproveact.pdf

26

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

Ohio Department of Education (2012). Ohio Department of Education Race to the Top. Retrieved from http://www.education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODELanding.aspx?page=830

Reitz, S. (2011, December 15). Malloy: Connecticut denied ‘Race to the Top’ grant. The Hour Online. Retrieved from http://www.thehour.com/story/516255/

Rossow , L. F., & Tate, J. O. (2003). The Law of Teacher Education. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Sanders, W. L., and Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVASS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 200-311.

Schelzig, E. (2012, January 18). Teachers call for changes in Tennessee’s new evaluation system. The Commercial Appeal. Retrieved from http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/jan/18/teachers-call-changes-tennessees-new-evaluation-sy/

Solomon, L. C., White, J. T., Cohen, D., and Woo, D. (2007). The effectiveness of the teacher advancement program. National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.talentedteachers.org/pubs/effective_tap07_full.pdf

TAP System (2012). Retrieved from http://www.tapsystem.org/

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2011). The effect of evaluation on performance: Evidence from longitudinal student achievement data of mid-career teachers. NBER Working Paper Series.

Tennessee Department of Education (2011). Tennessee First to the Top, Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM), Implementing TEAM: Observations. Retrieved from http://team-tn.org/assets/educator-resources/Observations_QandA..pdf

Tennessee Department of Education (2011). Teacher Model. Retrieved from http://team-tn.org/teacher-model

Tennessee Government (2011). About Tennessee First to the Top. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/firsttothetop/about.html

Tennessee Government (2011). Educators overview: New teacher and principal evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/firsttothetop/docs/Educators_Overview.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2009), Race to the Top executive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

27

TEACHER EVALUATION LAWS

U.S. Department of Education (2011). Our future, our teachers: The Obama administration’s plan for teacher education reform and improvement, remarks by President Obama, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/our-future-our-teachers.pdf

28