Full Steam Ahead for New Teacher & Principal Evaluations

I don't know if you have caught recent pieces in the Boston Globe, but in the next 1-2 years evaluations of principals and teachers in the Commonwealth are going to look different. Very different.

As part of its Race to the Top application, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education laid out a vision that is very much aligned with the national conversation about teacher quality. This conversation, one led by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, is really the next phase of accountability for improved student outcomes. It makes the case that no longer can teachers be evaluated using merely a "checklist" instrument where performance is rated simply as "satisfactory" or "not satisfactory." Rather, teacher and principal performance should be measured against professional standards and then differentiated into distinct levels. Furthermore, the best teachers should be recognized and rewarded accordingly and the lowest rated teachers should be replaced. The same is true for principals.

While differentiating teacher performance into distinct categories is nothing new (see the work of Charlotte Danielson and the Framework for Teaching, which has been in existence since 1998), the significant piece in this new vision is the use of the results of student assessments (e.g., MCAS scores) as a gauge of teacher effectiveness. This is truly the flashpoint on the issue.

DESE has detailed its Proposed Regulations on the Evaluation of Educators and is inviting public comment on them before the DESE Board of Education votes on their approval on June 28. The overwhelming majority of these regulations is based on current research and best practices. They envision a system where teachers would be evaluated against four major standard areas: Curriculum, Planning, and Assessment; Teaching All Students; Family and Community; and Professional Culture. Each of these standards contains indicators that detail a proficient performance. Using a rubric, evaluators would rate teacher performance in one of four categories: Exemplary, Proficient, Needs Improvement, or Unsatisfactory. The overall rating in a teacher's summative evaluation would have major implications. For example, a teacher would not be granted professional status without an overall rating of proficient or exemplary. A teacher with a needs improvement or unsatisfactory rating would be required to complete a "Directed Growth Plan" to address deficiencies within 90 days. If the teacher was non-tenured, he/she could be dismissed at any time.

The regulations also detail that "student performance measures shall be a significant factor in the summative evaluation." So for ELA, math, and science teachers, the expectation that aggregate MCAS scores and median student growth percentiles would be used as a measure is laid out. But what about the the 10th grade social studies teacher? Or the 5th grade art teacher? How do you measure their effectiveness in terms of student performance measures?

The regs state that "By September 2013, each district shall adopt a district-wide set of student performance measures for each grade and subject that permit a comparison of student performance gains." Furthermore, it states that each district shall have at least two measures per grade and subject area and these measures must be used to determine if the educator is having a "low, moderate, or high impact on student learning."

So what does this all mean?

With the exception of MCAS, the state is truly putting the onus on the local districts to figure out what type of assessments could be used for the purpose of demonstrating growth. This will have HUGE implications for a given district's assessment system and teacher assessment literacy. These new regs state that districts will determine the type of assessments that will be used as evidence of a teacher's effectiveness. Shouldn't these assessments be considered "high stakes" as well? These assessments should be fair, valid, and reliable. They should be collaboratively developed and evaluated.

These assessments should be performance-based, measuring a set of student outcomes and skills in an authentic way.

This doesn't sound like the traditional Scantron-based midterm or final exam to me...

If this is do be done, and done well, two things need to happen. First (as stated in the regs), all of this needs to be negotiated. I believe that this is a good thing, as without teacher ownership, none of this will work. Second, districts will have to make an investment in the degree of time and training in student assessment that is offered to teachers. If student performance measures are going to be used, this will be the heart of creating fair and credible evaluations of teachers and principals.