scholarly journals Putting teachers evaluation systems on the map: An overview of state’s teacher evaluation systems post–Every Student Succeeds Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Close ◽  
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley ◽  
Clarin Collins
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Growth State ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Present Information ◽  
Value Added Models ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

The Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA) loosened the federal policy grip over states’ teacher accountability systems. We present information, collected via surveys sent to state department of education personnel, about all states’ teacher evaluation systems post–ESSA, while also highlighting differences before and after ESSA. We found that states have decreased their use of growth or value-added models (VAMs) within their teacher evaluation systems. In addition, many states are offering more alternatives for measuring the relationships between student achievement and teacher effectiveness besides using test score growth. State teacher evaluation plans also contain more language supporting formative teacher feedback. States are also allowing districts to develop and implement more unique teacher evaluation systems, while acknowledging challenges with states’ being able to support varied systems, as well as incomparable data across schools and districts in effect.

scholarly journals Policies and practices of promise in teacher evaluation: The introduction to the special issue

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Value Added Models ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act ◽  
Policies And Practices

This introduction to the special issue on “Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation,” (1) presents the background and policy context surrounding the ongoing changes in U.S. states’ teacher evaluation systems (e.g., the decreased use of value-added models (VAM)s for teacher accountability purposes); (2) summarizes the two commentaries and seven research papers that were peer-reviewed and ultimately selected for inclusion in this special issue; and (3) discussess the relevance of these pieces in terms of each paper’s contribution to the general research on this topic and potential to inform educational policy, for the better, after the federal government’s passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2016).

scholarly journals Declining Morale, Diminishing Autonomy, and Decreasing Value: Principal Reflections on a High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation System

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noelle A Paufler
Keyword(s):  
Student Achievement ◽  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems ◽  
District Culture

Since the adoption of teacher evaluation systems that rely, at least in part, on controversial student achievement measures, little research has been conducted that focuses on stakeholders’ perceptions of systems in practice, specifically the perceptions of school principals. This study was conducted in a large urban school district to better understand principals’ perceptions of evaluating teachers based on professional and instructional practices as well as student achievement (i.e., value-added scores). Principals in this study strongly expressed concerns regarding: (a) the negative impact of the teacher evaluation system on district culture and morale; (b) their lack of autonomy in evaluating teachers and making staffing decisions; and (c) their perceived lack of value as professionals in the district. Examining the implications of teacher evaluation systems, per the experiences of principals as practitioners, is increasingly important if state and local policymakers as well as the general public are to better understand the intended and unintended consequences of these systems in practice.

Value-Added Model (VAM) Scholars on Using VAMs for Teacher Evaluation After the Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Matthew Ryan Lavery ◽  
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley ◽  
Tray Geiger ◽  
Margarita Pivovarova
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Federal Initiatives ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

Background/Context The Race to the Top federal initiatives and requirements surrounding waivers of No Child Left Behind promoted expanded use of value-added models (VAMs) to evaluate teachers. Even after passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) relaxed these requirements, allowing more flexibility and local control, many states and districts continue to use VAMs in teacher evaluation systems, suggesting that they consider VAMs a valid measure of teacher effectiveness. Scholars in the fields of economics, education, and quantitative methods continue to debate several aspects of VAMs’ validity for this purpose, however. Purpose The purpose of this study was to directly ask the most experienced VAM scholars about validity of VAM use in teacher evaluation based on the aspects of validity described in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and found in a review of high-quality peer-reviewed literature on VAMs. Participants We invited the 115 scholars listed as an author or coauthor of one or more of the 145 articles published on evaluating teachers with VAMs that have been published in prominent peer-reviewed journals between 2002 and implementation of ESSA in 2016. In this article, we analyze data from 36 respondents (12 economists, 13 educators, and 11 methodologists) who rated themselves as “experienced scholars,” “experts,” or “leading experts” on VAMs. Research Design This article reports both quantitative and qualitative analyses of a survey questionnaire completed by experienced VAM scholars. Findings Analyses of 44 Likert-scale items indicate that respondents were generally neutral or mixed toward the use of VAMs in teacher evaluation, though responses from educational researchers were more critical of VAM use than were responses from economists and quantitative methodologists. Qualitative analysis of free response comments suggests that participants oppose exclusive or high-stakes use of VAMs but are more supportive of their use as a component of evaluation systems that use multiple measures. Conclusions These findings suggest that scholars and stakeholders from different disciplines and backgrounds think about VAMs and VAM use differently. We argue that it is important to understand and address stakeholders’ multiple perspectives to find the common ground on which to build consensus.

Mapping America’s teacher evaluation plans under ESSA

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Close ◽  
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley ◽  
Clarin Collins
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Local Control ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Teacher Evaluations ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Teacher Observations ◽  
Student Learning Objectives ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

In 2016, the federal government proposed and adopted the Every Student Succeeds Act, which retracted the federal government’s prior control over states’ teacher evaluation systems, permitting more local control. Kevin Close, Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, and Clarin Collins collected information from states to determine the degree to which states were shifting away from the value-added models (VAMs) that were ascendant under No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top and to understand what kinds of evaluation methods they are employing instead. States do appear to be moving slowly away from VAMs, continuing to use teacher observations, and incorporating student learning objectives as growth measures. Local control and more formative use of teacher evaluations also appear to be on the rise.

scholarly journals Moving forward while looking back: Lessons learned from teacher evaluation litigation concerning Value-Added Models (VAMs)

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Paige
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Value Added Models ◽  
Evaluation Policies ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) appears to offer states and districts discretion to develop teacher evaluation policies, including those that may use Value Added Models (VAMs). While scholars are discussing this flexibility, limited attention has been paid to the potential role of the law in connection with the future use of VAMs in evaluation policy. While VAMs may be declining in use, several states require or permit them, making the continued assessment relevant. Moreover, given that VAMs were at the center of numerous high-profile lawsuits, assessing litigation outcomes in the context of ESSA is a useful exercise, particularly for jurisdictions that may use (or contemplate their use) of VAMs. Toward this end, this paper applies legal research methods and a law and policy framework to review lawsuits concerning VAMs to distill key principles for state and local policymakers.

scholarly journals Learning from what doesn’t work in teacher evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Close ◽  
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Teacher Ratings ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems ◽  
Value Added Measures

Recent lawsuits reveal common mistakes plaguing current teacher evaluation systems. Drawing on arguments in court documents for prominent cases, the authors find that evaluation systems using value-added measures (VAM) suffer from a) inconsistent and unreliable teacher ratings, b) bias toward and against teachers of certain types of students, c) easy opportunities for administrators to game the system, and d) a lack of transparency. They urge others to engage with these (and other) arguments to design better, more valid, more useful, and ultimately more defensible teacher evaluation systems.

Learning from Teacher Observations: Challenges and Opportunities Posed by New Teacher Evaluation Systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Hill ◽  
Pam Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Instructional Practice ◽  
New Teacher ◽  
Teacher Observation ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Teacher Observations ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Observation Instruments ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems ◽  
New Teacher Evaluation

In this article, Heather C. Hill and Pam Grossman discuss the current focus on using teacher observation instruments as part of new teacher evaluation systems being considered and implemented by states and districts. They argue that if these teacher observation instruments are to achieve the goal of supporting teachers in improving instructional practice, they must be subject-specific, involve content experts in the process of observation, and provide information that is both accurate and useful for teachers. They discuss the instruments themselves, raters and system design, and timing of and feedback from the observations. They conclude by outlining the challenges that policy makers face in designing observation systems that will work to improve instructional practice at scale.

State and Local Efforts to Investigate the Validity and Reliability of Scores from Teacher Evaluation Systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 116 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinne Herlihy ◽  
Ezra Karger ◽  
Cynthia Pollard ◽  
Heather C. Hill ◽  
Matthew A. Kraft ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Evaluation ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Achievement Data ◽  
State Education ◽  
Performance Domains ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Teacher Evaluation Systems

Context In the past two years, states have implemented sweeping reforms to their teacher evaluation systems in response to Race to the Top legislation and, more recently, NCLB waivers. With these new systems, policymakers hope to make teacher evaluation both more rigorous and more grounded in specific job performance domains such as teaching quality and contributions to student outcomes. Attaching high stakes to teacher scores has prompted an increased focus on the reliability and validity of these scores. Teachers unions have expressed strong concerns about the reliability and validity of using student achievement data to evaluate teachers and the potential for subjective ratings by classroom observers to be biased. The legislation enacted by many states also requires scores derived from teacher observations and the overall systems of teacher evaluation to be valid and reliable. Focus of the Study In this paper, we explore how state education officials and their district and local partners plan to implement and evaluate their teacher evaluation systems, focusing in particular on states’ efforts to investigate the reliability and validity of scores emerging from the observational component of these systems. Research Design Through document analysis and interviews with state education officials, we explore several issues that arise in observational systems, including the overall generalizability of teacher scores; the training, certification, and reliability of observers; and specifications regarding the sampling and number of lessons observed per teacher. Findings Respondents’ reports suggest that states are attending to the reliability and validity of scores, but inconsistently; in only a few states does there appear to be a coherent strategy regarding reliability and validity in place. Conclusions There remain a variety of system design and implementation decisions that states can optimize to increase the reliability and validity of their teacher evaluation scores. While a state may engage in auditing scores, for instance, it may miss the gains to reliability and validity that would accrue from periodic rater retraining and recertification, a stiff program of rater monitoring, and the use of multiple raters per teacher. Most troublesome are decisions about which and how many lessons to sample, which are either mandated legislatively, result from practical concerns or negotiations between stakeholders, or, at best case, rest on broad research not directly related to the state context. This suggests that states should more actively investigate the number of lessons and lesson sampling designs required to yield high-quality scores.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document