Hoping to gather lessons from recent teacher-evaluation reforms, a new report by Bellwether Education Partners analyzes four years of teacher-evaluation data from seventeen states and D.C. It is more a policy analysis than an empirical study. Keeping that in mind, these are the four key findings: First, states have largely moved away from binary ratings of teachers to four- and five-tier ratings. Second, states are using more extensive protocols for teacher observations, like the Charlotte Danielson framework that provides more detailed, formative feedback. Third, overall, districts are not factoring student growth into evaluation ratings. Many states vaguely mandated the inclusion of value-added models, but didn’t specify how or when districts should use growth in teacher evaluations. Further, some states allow district administrators to change certain teachers’ growth ratings from the state, causing very uneven implementation. In Delaware, for example, 12 percent of teachers statewide in 2012–13 were deemed “unsatisfactory” but eligible for an upgrade to a higher “satisfactory” label; the percentage of teachers subsequently receiving such an upgrade ranged widely from 32 to 90 percent across districts. Fourth, districts in the seventeen states studied generally don’t use evaluation results to inform staffing decisions. Only a tiny percentage of teachers are let go because of results—and most aren’t rewarded, financially or otherwise, for excellent ratings. In short, the analysts find that states have made some changes to the evaluation instruments themselves, but have done next to nothing with the results. Going forward, Bellwether recommends that states give evaluation systems a chance to gain traction before weakening them.
SOURCE: Chad Aldeman and Carolyn Chuong, “Teacher Evaluations in an Era of Rapid Change: From 'Unsatisfactory' to 'Needs Improvement',” Bellwether Education Partners (August 2014).
