It may not be obvious at first blush, but the political fight happening in New York right now over teacher evaluations has implications for Ohio. Governor Cuomo has proposed increasing the weight of a student’s test scores to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation, made possible by a proposed decrease in the weight of a principal’s observations. Ohio Governor John Kasich hasn’t proposed any significant changes to teacher evaluations this year, but consider this: both Ohio and New York do a poor job of objectively evaluating teachers who don’t have grade- and subject-specific assessments, both states allow the unfair option of shared attribution, and stakeholders in each are questioning whether teacher evaluations give rise to extra hours of assessments that aren’t meaningful for students. This leads to a big question: Is there a way to fix these problems?
Enter Educators 4 Excellence (E4E) and their alternative teacher evaluation framework. E4E is an organization comprised of former and current teachers. Its mission is to magnify teacher voices in policy and legislative arenas where educator views are often overlooked—despite the fact that ensuing decisions significantly impact the day-to-day lives of teachers. E4E supports teacher evaluations that are “fair and rigorous,” and the organization published a paper in 2013 that made suggestions for how to improve the evaluation system in New York. In light of Governor Cuomo’s proposed reforms, they’ve recommended an alternative framework—which just so happens to solve most of the issues with Ohio’s system. The framework looks like this:
[[{"fid":"114195","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default"}}]]
The framework includes two pathways. The first is for teachers who have a grade- and subject-specific state assessment, such as a fifth-grade math teacher or an eighth-grade English language arts teacher. In Ohio, this pathway could also include teachers who do not have a state assessment but do have, under current law, options from the Ohio Department of Education’s list of approved vendor assessments. Since both state assessments and ODE’s approved vendor assessments are subject- and grade-specific, these teachers’ scores include a measure of student growth that is calculated via test scores.
The second pathway is for teachers without a valid grade- and subject-specific assessment. There isn’t a clear way to evaluate teachers in subjects like music, physical education, or art. Without state or other valid assessments that can be used to measure student growth, districts are left to decide between student learning objectives or shared attribution. Neither of these options is ideal, since student learning objectives add more hours of testing and more local administrative burden, and shared attribution holds teachers responsible for subjects that they don’t teach and test scores they can’t directly impact. E4E’s proposed pathway for these teachers replaces student learning objectives and shared attribution with an evaluation by a peer or independent evaluator, and also adds student surveys. (These methods will be discussed in more detail below).
While no evaluation system will ever be perfect, E4E’s framework offers a real chance at a fair, rigorous, and meaningful evaluation for all teachers, whether in New York or Ohio. Here’s a brief summary of some of the best aspects of the framework:
Equal weighting works
The pathway that includes student growth as measured by test scores only weights that growth at 35 percent of the teacher’s total score. Undoubtedly many will argue that this percentage is too low. However, a policy brief from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project examining various ways to weight teacher evaluation systems found that, of the four options they considered, the most reliable model was one that gave equal weight to gains on state tests, student surveys, and observations. In other words, a model with multiple measures that attributes only 33 percent of an evaluation score to state tests will produce the most consistent results for the same teachers from year to year. Furthermore, an equally weighted model is better at predicting gains on tests of higher-order thinking skills than a model that heavily emphasizes state test scores.
To be fair, E4E’s framework is not perfectly equally weighted. And the MET’s equally weighted model includes student surveys—which one pathway of E4E’s framework does not include. That being said, there’s no reason that Ohio can’t alter the framework to fit its needs.
The importance of a second evaluator
One promising aspect of E4E’s framework is that it requires a second evaluator. While the percentage of the overall score attributed to a second evaluator is dependent on which pathway is used, both paths require that teachers be evaluated by either a peer or independent evaluator. This has some important implications: It lessens the burden on principals by sharing the evaluation workload; it decreases the chance for subjectivity and bias that is present with only one evaluator; it gives highly effective teachers a leadership opportunity; and it strengthens peer and mentoring relationships within a school building. The previously mentioned policy brief from the MET project argues that adding another observer increases evaluation reliability significantly more than having the same observer score an additional observation. Some Ohio cities already use peer assistance and review, but districts could choose to exclusively use independent evaluators instead. In fact, Ohio Revised Code already allows for observations to be conducted by someone other than a principal, as long as that person meets certain criteria and has successfully passed ODE-sponsored training. It wouldn’t be a stretch for Ohio to move toward including a second evaluator, whether that’s a trained and highly effective peer or an independent evaluator (perhaps an instructional coach, a curriculum director, or an assistant principal).
Empowering principals
Another great thing about E4E’s framework is that it adds an extra set of eyes (and therefore reliability) to the evaluation process without diminishing the authority of the principal. In both pathways of the framework, a principal’s observations account for 45 percent of the teacher’s score. This is key because it allows for context and growth: Who better to determine teachers’ strengths and areas for growth—and consequently whether or not they should be considered effective—than the instructional leader who sees them every day and is responsible for the overall achievement of the building’s student population? As one teacher pointed out in an E4E press conference, “Principals are the instructional leaders of their schools. To diminish their role in the evaluation process diminishes their ability to manage their school.” Indeed, if we expect principals to lead their schools effectively, we must allow them to evaluate and assign ratings to the teachers that they manage—to do anything less is to silence their voices, to question their authority, and to remove an aspect of local control that is vital to understanding the entire picture of a teacher’s performance.
Student surveys matter
In the United States, students have very little voice in regard to their educational experience. Despite the fact that policies are targeted at improving student achievement and experience, policymakers rarely seek out the thoughts and ideas of the very population they intend to help. E4E’s teacher evaluation framework offers a way to change this by making student surveys worth 20 percent of the evaluation score for teachers who do not have a valid subject- or grade-specific assessment. Some would argue that student surveys are a poor substitute for student growth as measured by assessment. An additional policy brief from the MET project, however, shows that student surveys actually produce more consistent results than classroom observations or achievement gain measures. In fact, student survey results are predictive of student achievement gains. If survey results are predictive of achievement gains, it makes sense to use them as a substitute where student achievement measures are unavailable. Student surveys also offer unique, targeted feedback for teachers with regards to strengths and weaknesses—feedback that is arguably more powerful than test scores or a principal’s constructive criticism, since it comes directly from the individuals most affected by the teacher’s effectiveness. While student surveys certainly shouldn’t make up a majority of a teacher’s evaluation score, they are an important measure. One could even argue that student surveys should be part of both framework pathways—not just the pathway of teachers without a valid and specific assessment.
***
The good news is that Ohio already allows districts to use certain aspects of E4E’s model, such as student surveys or peer evaluations. The bad news is that these are only options for districts that choose to use the alternative teacher evaluation framework—and districts can’t choose to use both options in significant percentages. If states like Ohio and New York want to improve their teacher evaluation systems, E4E’s framework offers an excellent example (created by teachers!) of how it can be done.
