Guest Post: Seeking Common Ground on Teacher Evaluations
EWA asked some of the education reporters who joined us at our
66th National Seminar (held at Stanford University in May) to
contribute blog posts from the sessions. Today’s guest blogger is
Debbie Cafazzo of the Tacoma News-Tribune. Stream
sessions from National Seminar in your browser, or subscribe via
RSS or
iTunes. For more on teacher evaluations, visit EWA’s
Story Starters online resource. We also recently held a
seminar for journalists on this issue at the University of
Chicago, and we’ll be sharing content from the event in the
coming weeks.
Linda Darling-Hammond, a professor of education at Stanford
University, has been on a quest for the quintessential
teacher evaluation system for decades. She started
researching the subject in the mid-80s. Back then, she said, it
was like “searching for a needle in a haystack.”
Two factors caused the movement to take off in recent years: the
federal government’s “Race to the Top” grant competition and its
efforts to allow states waivers from provisions of the No Child
Left Behind act.
Both federal initiatives rewarded states that tried to strengthen
evaluation systems. She said there was consensus among educators
that a fleeting classroom visit, a look at how the teacher is
dressed and a scan of classroom bulletin boards isn’t the best
way to sort out who’s doing an exemplary job.
Roadblocks to getting it right include principals with too many
teachers to evaluate, as well as principals who lack expertise
for all the content areas they are asked to evaluate,
Darling-Hammond said.
Her new book, “Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really
Matters for Effectiveness and Improvement,” offers examples of
states and districts that are getting it right.
The best start is to begin with a set of standards: “When
feedback occurs around standards, teachers get better.”
She emphasizes the importance of having teachers demonstrate upon
entry to the profession that they’re ready to teach. And teachers
need authentic professional development – not “spray and pray
workshops” – to keep them moving on the right track.
“If we do it well, it enhances the teaching profession,” she
said. “If we do it well, we send a message that teachers are
professionals who are doing important work.”
Ray Salazar, an English teacher in Chicago since 1995 and blogger
at The White
Rhino, observes that teacher evaluations have gone from “a
private conversation between a teacher and a principal” to a
public conversation that includes “anybody and everybody.”
The result: added tension, but also an opportunity to make needed
changes.
In Chicago, the 1980s-style checklist of strengths and weaknesses
is out, and a new framework based on the
Danielson model is in. (Darling-Hammond endorsed the model,
calling it “thoughtful,” but said there are also other good ones
out there.)
Elements include planning and prep, classroom environment,
instruction and professional responsibility.
The national conversation about evaluation systems is helping
define good teachers. But Salazar’s kids at Hancock High know how
they define them: “A good teacher believes that even the student
in the back of the class, with his head down, can succeed. … Good
teachers react quickly when they notice that a student is
struggling.”
Salazar’s students believe they need to have a voice in teacher
evaluations as well.
Good evaluations can help bad teachers either improve or make a
choice to leave the profession.
Doing what’s best for students is not enough, Salazar said. You
also have to do what’s manageable for teachers.
“We have to get feedback at regular intervals … that are
thoughtful, that are from a person who can engage with teachers
at different performance levels, and really help them improve
their craft,” Salazar said.
David Steele is chief information and technology Officer for
Hillsborough County Public Schools in Florida. The district won a
$100 million grant over seven years from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation to
develop a new teacher induction and mentoring system, as well
as to pursue other goals including improving teacher and
principal evaluations.
Hillsborough is investing “tremendous effort” in supporting first
and second-year teachers, Steele indicated. Last year, 94 percent
of the district’s first-year teachers returned.
The district aligns professional development with evaluations.
Evaluations include not only principal observations, but also
peer evaluators for every teacher. Each peer evaluator works with
about 20 teachers.
The district uses the Danielson framework, and it has worked with
the University of Wisconsin on its value-added measurement
system. It counts for 40 percent of a teacher’s evaluation.
Steele said the district’s value-added system uses more than one
type of test: “We don’t want to get to where evaluations are
based on one test on one day.”
Steele also believes it’s important for observers in the
classroom to be properly trained. Those in his district receive
50 hours of training before they are allowed to do their first
teacher observation.
Finally, the district wants to revamp its compensation system to
reward great teachers earlier in their careers. Steele said it’s
important to do the work with teachers, not to teachers.
“It’s all about student achievement,” Steele said. “Effective
teachers drive student achievement.”
The practice of incorporating value-added measures into teacher
evaluations has grown quickly in recent years, generating
significant controversy. Such measures utilize a
statistical method that involves tracking student growth on
standardized tests to gauge teachers’ impact on student
learning.
For the first time this year, 10 percent of Salazar’s evaluation
will include a value-added measurement, using a reading test
connected to Common Core State Standards. Value-added measures
can be part of an evaluation, Salazar said, but they shouldn’t be
all of it: “There’s too many nuances to teaching to be able to
say this one assessment is going to determine if I keep my job or
what my reputation as an educator is.”
Steele said that over-interpreting, or over-using value-added
measures is just as bad as not using student results at all. He’s
critical of a Florida law that forces officials to set overly
rigid targets for teacher ratings.
Darling-Hammond said lots of studies show value-added isn’t
reliable for many teachers. Value-added scores can be one measure
among multiple measures, but shouldn’t be used alone, she
said.
Darling-Hammond said many state tests only measure student
performance against a grade-level standard, and measure low-level
skills. Putting too much reliance on those tests forces teachers
to focus too heavily on those skills, to the detriment of
higher-level skills, she argued.
Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter?
Email EWA public editor Emily Richmond at erichmond@ewa.org.
Follow her on Twitter: @EWAEmily.
Have a question, comment or concern for the Educated Reporter? Contact Emily Richmond. Follow her on Twitter @EWAEmily.