Ever wonder how teachers get evaluated in Indiana? It's not all ISTEP testing.

1. Sample Teacher Evaluation Plan
Example of distribution of measurements for summative
teacher evaluations under the proposed recommendations.
50-67%: Teacher
Evaluation Rubric
Subjective and
observational measures.
Based on 3 domains:
1. purposeful planning
2. effective instruction
3. teacher leadership
33-50%: Objective Measures
 IGM: Individual Growth Model* (ISTEP) (must
weigh more than any other objective measure)
 SWL: School-wide Learning* (at least 5%)
 SLO: Student Learning Objectives
 TLO: Targeted Learning Objectives
 Student Portfolio Assessments
 End-of-Course Exams (local- or teacher-created)
* required by rule
SAMPLES:
School A:
 65% TER
 20% IGM
 10% SLO
 5% SWL
School B:
 50% TER
 30% IGM
 15% SLO
 5% SWL

2. Teacher Evaluation
 Indiana law requires teacher evaluation plans to include
multiple measures to assess teacher performance.
Corporations locally determine which multiple measures are
included AND at what percentage of inclusion. At a minimum,
evaluation plans must include at least 50% of the total evaluation
for multiple observations of teacher practice (determined by the
Teacher Evaluation Rubrics or TER) and “objective measures of
student performance.” Additionally, grade levels and content areas
with individual growth model data (IGM) must include IGM as one objective measure.
 Some recent reports have incorrectly stated that TNTP’s recommendations would require 33%-50% of
evaluations to be comprised solely of ISTEP+ results. Corporations may locally determine the exact weight of
ISTEP+ scores as an “objective measure” of the overall summative teacher evaluation.
 What is “Significantly Inform?” Indiana law requires objective measures of student performance to “significantly
inform” a teacher’s evaluation rating, but there is no definition of “significantly inform.” TNTP recommends defining
“significantly inform” to include specific ranges, not specific numbers. These ranges would increase the consistency
and comparability of evaluation plans across the state while ensuring corporations retain local control in determin-
ing the exact percentage that objective measures would “significantly inform” their local teacher evaluations.
 The 33-50% recommendation for “objective measures” is simply a set of guardrails for local decision makers.
- According to the DOE, the majority of Indiana schools already use 33-50% of objective measures for summative
teacher evaluations. The impact on school corporations would be minimal. For many school corporations,
adopting this definition of “significantly inform” would not affect their current practices and policies.
- Each school corporation would have the flexibility to determine the specific percentage within these ranges
that is best for its schools, educators and students. Because objective measures are to be based on more than
just high stakes testing assessments (e.g. ISTEP+), school corporations will also have the flexibility to determine
what additional metrics and assessments should be used to make up the objective measures portion of the local
evaluation rating.
 The IDOE claims there is no correlation between the weight of objective measures, ISTEP+ results and teacher
performance. How does this support or refute TNTP’s recommendations?
- The IDOE’s analysis answers the wrong question and lacks the necessary data to test the MET study’s
conclusions. The IDOE’s analysis suggests that the weight of objective measures have an impact on student
learning – NOT an impact on the accuracy of a teacher’s evaluation, which is what the MET study concluded.
Even if the IDOE’s analysis were adjusted to look at accuracy, the data set provided with the SBOE meeting
materials lacks a valid student growth variable, which would be needed to test the MET study’s conclusions.
 What is the MET Study? The MET study demonstrates that when objective measures are weighted
appropriately (33-50%) in a teacher’s evaluation, teacher evaluations with this measure can more
accurately predict (not cause) an individual teacher’s impact on student gains in the future. Ultimately,
this weighting of objective measures would result in closer alignment between student growth and
individual teacher performance – or more accurate teacher evaluation ratings.
Additional Questions? Check out the TNTP memo found at ww.in.gov/sboe/2607.htm and reference
page 14, which outlines the recommended ranges for “significantly inform” and the variety of objective
measures that weigh into that range.
DID
YOU
KNOW