Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Ohio Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Policy
  • Commentary
    • Ohio Gadfly Newsletter
    • Ohio Gadfly Blog
    • Events

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: A Look “Under the Hood” of Teacher Evaluation in 10 Sites

Danyell Lewis
6.19.2012

It’s essential that great policies are not just created but also effectively articulated to those who must execute them. Policy implementation means putting theory into practice, wherein many logistic and technical complications can arise. This has happened in the case of teacher evaluation and accountability policies. Addressing these implementation issues is critical to education reform; as a result, the education reform organizations ConnCAN, 50Can, and Public Impact address questions and obstacles that arise in teacher evaluation in their May 2012 report, “Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: A Look ‘Under the Hood’ of Teacher Evaluation in 10 Sites”.

While many school districts have stuck with the same ambiguous methods of teacher evaluations, the report examines ten sites that include states, school districts, a charter school network, and a graduate school program (Delaware; Rhode Island; Tennessee; Hillsborough County, FL; Houston, TX; New Haven, CT; Pittsburgh, PA; Washington, DC; Achievement First; and the Relay Graduate School of Education in New York City). These institutions are all trying more rigorous, comprehensive approach to teacher evaluations; therefore, the report specifically focuses on their evaluation practices.

The authors consider the ways to measure student achievement and the value of nonacademic measures, like student perception and personal growth. For example, applying value-added measures for only math and science creates a problem for evaluating non-math and science teachers. Delaware is making use of multiple measures: state-defined metrics, approved internal school metrics, and growth goal measures. This combination of measures can compensate one assessment’s strength with another’s weakness. Achievement First, a charter network of twenty schools, uses lower weights for test performance in ungraded subjects, but includes student character development and quality instruction input in its evaluations. These are only a few strategies being used, in what the authors suggest are not perfect systems, but ones that show the way forward. 

Readers probably won’t find an end-all be-all solution to teacher evaluation in this report. What you will find is a starting place—to brainstorm which methods best fit your objectives. We can learn a lot from these innovators. After all, an abstract idea isn’t much to the world, but when it is put into action it has potential, and that’s a start. 

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: A Look “Under the Hood” of Teacher Evaluation in 10 Sites
By Daniela Doyle and Jiye Grace Han
ConnCAN, 50Can, and Public Impact
March 2012

Tags: 50CAN Achievement First ConnCAN Connecticut Delaware Hillsborough County Houston Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Rhode Island Texas Washington
+7 More Show Less

Danyell Lewis was a research and policy intern in Fordham’s Columbus office. She was a 2012 graduate of the University of Dayton, receiving a B.S. in Psychology. Born and raised in Dayton, Ohio, Danyell pursued a Master's of public administration with a focus on education policy at the Ohio State University. 

View Full Bio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]