1. Taking Control of the Mississippi Teacher Evaluation
Framework
John Cronin, Ph.D. – Senior Director of Education Research
Northwest Evaluation Association
You can view and download this presentation at:
http://www.slideshare.net/JFCronin/teacher-evaluation-present-41205047

2. Percent of students who say
they do not receive their state
accountability test results.
37%
Make Assessment Matter: Students and Educators
Want Tests that Support Learning (2014). –
Portland, OR. NWEA and Grunwald Associates LLC.

3. It’s good to learn from others

4. What NWEA supports
• The evaluation process should focus on
helping teachers improve.
• The principal or designated evaluator
should control the evaluation.
• Tests should inform principal decision-
making and not be the deciding factor in
an evaluation.
• Multiple measures should be used.

5. Ultimately – the principal should
decide
• Evaluation inherently involves
judgment – not a bad thing.
• Evidence should inform and not
direct their judgment.
• The implemented system should
differentiate performance.
• Courts respect the judgment of
school administrators relative to
personnel decisions.

6. Effective teaching
and professional
job performance
Evidence of
professional
responsibilities
Evidence of
student
learning
Evidence of
professional
practice
The evaluation of teaching
by classroom observation
and use of artifacts
The evaluation of the
teacher’s effectiveness in
making progress toward
their goals and fulfilling the
responsibilities of a
professional educator.
The evaluation of a
teacher’s contribution to
student learning and
growth
A simple framework for teacher evaluation

7. Effective teaching
and professional
job performance
Evidence of
professional
responsibilities
Evidence of
student
learning
Evidence of
professional
practice
MSTAR-= Domains 1-4
• Planning
• Assessment
• Instruction
• Learning Environment
M-STAR Domain 5:
Professional practices and
responsibilities
Individual Growth or
Student Learning Objectives
- 30%
Schoolwide Growth – 20%
A simple framework for teacher evaluation –
Mississippi

8. Distinguishing teacher effectiveness from
teacher evaluation
• Teacher effectiveness – The judgment of a teacher’s
ability to positively impact learning in the classroom.
• Teacher evaluation – The judgment of a teacher’s
overall performance including:
– Teacher effectiveness
– Common standards of job performance
– Participation in the school community
– Adherence to professional standards

9. What teacher effectiveness infers
• Evidence of Learning – A claim that the
improvement in learning (or lack of it)
reflected on one or more tests is caused by
the teacher.
• Evidence of good practice – That the
observers ratings or conclusions are reliable
and associated with behaviors that cause
improved learning in the classroom.

10. Purposes of summative evaluation
• Make an accurate and defensible
judgment of an educator’s job
performance.
• Provide ratings of performance that
provide meaningful differentiation across
educators.
• Help educators focus on their students
and their practice.
• Retain your top educators.
• Dismiss ineffective educators.

11. The greatest tragedy of this century in
education so far, was the number of
young, talented teachers who lost their
positions in the last recession.

12. Employment of Elementary Teachers
2007-2012
1538000 1544270 1544300
1485600
1415000
1360380
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
NUMBER OF TEACHERS
Source: (2012, May) Bureau of Labor Statistics – Occupational Employment Statistics
Numbers exclude special education and kindergarten teachers
The elementary school
teacher workforce shrunk by
178,000 teachers (11%)
between May, 2007 and May,
2012.

13. The impact of seniority based layoffs on
learning
Source: Boyd, L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wycoff, J. (2011). Center for Education Policy.
Stanford University.
In a simulation study of implementation of a layoff of 5%
of teachers using New York City data, reliance on seniority
based layoffs resulted would:
• Result in 25% more teachers laid off.
• Teachers laid off would be .31 standard deviations more
effective (using a value-added criterion) than those lost
using an effectiveness criterion.
• 84% of teachers with unsatisfactory ratings would be
retained.

14. Elements of a teacher’s score
M-STAR –
supervisor’s
evaluation
School-wide
Growth
Student Growth
Percentile or
Student Learning
Objective

15. Teacher observation as a part of
teacher evaluation
Systematic observation of teacher performance
is a central part of every state’s teacher
evaluation plan.

16. If performance ratings aren’t
differentiated, then all
differentiation comes from
test data.

17. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Low High
Principal Rating Student Growth Percentile Schoolwide Growth
Why differentiating ratings is
important

18. Ineffective
(Growth
Measures)
Developing (Growth Measures) Effective (Growth Measures) Highly Effective (Growth Measures)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Ineffective(Observational)
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 2 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 2 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
4 3 5 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
5 3 6 8 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18
6 3 6 8 10 11 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21
7 3 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23
8 3 7 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
9 3 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28
10 3 8 11 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30
11 3 8 11 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32
12 4 8 12 14 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34
13 4 9 12 14 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36
14 4 9 12 15 17 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38
15 4 9 13 15 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 40
Developing(Observational)
16 4 9 13 16 18 20 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42
17 4 9 13 16 19 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44
18 4 10 14 17 19 21 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 46 46
19 4 10 14 17 20 22 24 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 48
20 4 10 14 17 20 22 24 26 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 38 39 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 49
21 4 10 14 18 21 23 25 27 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 51 51
22 4 10 15 18 21 23 26 27 29 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 42 43 44 44 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 52 53
23 4 10 15 18 21 24 26 28 30 31 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 54
24 4 11 15 19 22 24 27 29 31 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45 46 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56
25 4 11 15 19 22 25 27 29 31 33 34 36 37 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58
26 4 11 16 19 23 25 28 30 32 34 35 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 51 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 59
27 4 11 16 20 23 26 28 30 32 34 36 37 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61
28 4 11 16 20 23 26 29 31 33 35 37 38 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 52 53 54 55 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62
29 4 11 16 20 24 26 29 31 34 35 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 64
30 4 11 16 20 24 27 30 32 34 36 38 40 41 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 65
Effective(Observational)
31 4 11 17 21 24 27 30 32 35 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 58 59 60 61 61 62 63 63 64 64 65 66 66 67
32 4 11 17 21 25 28 30 33 35 37 39 41 43 44 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68
33 4 12 17 21 25 28 31 33 36 38 40 42 43 45 46 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 69
34 4 12 17 21 25 28 31 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 63 64 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 70 71
35 4 12 17 22 25 29 32 34 37 39 41 43 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 67 68 68 69 70 70 71 72 72
36 4 12 17 22 26 29 32 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 50 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 66 67 68 69 69 70 71 72 72 73 74
37 4 12 17 22 26 29 32 35 38 40 42 44 46 48 49 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 68 69 70 71 71 72 73 74 74 75
38 4 12 18 22 26 30 33 36 38 40 43 45 46 48 50 52 53 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 69 70 71 72 73 73 74 75 75 76
39 4 12 18 22 26 30 33 36 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 52 54 55 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 71 72 73 74 75 75 76 77 77
40 4 12 18 23 27 30 33 36 39 41 44 46 48 50 51 53 55 56 57 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 73 74 75 76 77 77 78 79
41 4 12 18 23 27 31 34 37 39 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 55 57 58 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 75 76 77 78 78 79 80
42 5 12 18 23 27 31 34 37 40 42 45 47 49 51 53 54 56 58 59 60 62 63 64 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 76 77 78 79 80 80 81
43 5 12 18 23 27 31 34 37 40 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 58 60 61 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 79 80 81 82 82
44 5 12 18 23 28 31 35 38 41 43 46 48 50 52 54 56 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 81 82 83 84
45 5 13 19 24 28 32 35 38 41 44 46 48 51 53 54 56 58 60 61 63 64 66 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 82 83 84 85
HighlyEffective(Observational)
46 5 13 19 24 28 32 35 39 41 44 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 70 71 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 83 84 85 86
47 5 13 19 24 28 32 36 39 42 45 47 49 52 54 56 58 59 61 63 64 66 67 69 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 85 86 87
48 5 13 19 24 29 32 36 39 42 45 47 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 87 88
49 5 13 19 24 29 33 36 40 43 45 48 50 53 55 57 59 61 62 64 66 67 69 70 71 73 74 75 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 89
50 5 13 19 24 29 33 37 40 43 46 48 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 66 68 69 71 72 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 90
51 5 13 19 25 29 33 37 40 43 46 49 51 54 56 58 60 62 64 65 67 69 70 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
52 5 13 19 25 29 33 37 41 44 47 49 52 54 56 58 61 62 64 66 68 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
53 5 13 19 25 30 34 37 41 44 47 50 52 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 68 70 72 73 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
54 5 13 20 25 30 34 38 41 44 47 50 53 55 57 60 62 64 66 67 69 71 72 74 75 77 78 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
55 5 13 20 25 30 34 38 41 45 48 50 53 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 71 73 75 76 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
56 5 13 20 25 30 34 38 42 45 48 51 54 56 58 61 63 65 67 69 70 72 74 75 77 78 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
57 5 13 20 25 30 35 38 42 45 48 51 54 56 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 74 76 78 79 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
58 5 13 20 26 30 35 39 42 46 49 52 54 57 59 62 64 66 68 70 72 73 75 77 78 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 89 90 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
59 5 13 20 26 31 35 39 43 46 49 52 55 57 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 83 85 86 88 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
60 5 13 20 26 31 35 39 43 46 49 52 55 58 60 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 84 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
The New York Evaluation Matrix

19. New York Teacher Ratings
Value-Added Local
Assessment
Principal
Observation
Ineffective 4216 1347 306
Developing 8337 4334 1793
Effective 51660 36508 41953
Highly Effective 51080 52132 48503

20. 4%
7%
44% 44%
1% 5%
39%
55%
0% 2%
45%
52%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Ineffective Developing Effective Highly Effective
New York Teacher Ratings by Component
Value-Added Locat Assessment Prinicpal Observation

21. “The (Race to the Top teacher evaluation) changes, already
under way in some cities and states, are intended to
provide meaningful feedback and, critically, to weed out
weak performers. And here are some of the early results:
In Florida, 97 percent of teachers were deemed effective
or highly effective in the most recent evaluations. In
Tennessee, 98 percent of teachers were judged to be “at
expectations.” In Michigan, 98 percent of teachers were
rated effective or better.”
Source: New York Times (2013, March 30). Curious Grade for Teachers: Nearly all Pass.
Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/education/curious-grade-for-teachers-nearly-
all-pass.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

22. Results of Georgia Teacher Evaluation
Pilot
1% 2%
75%
23%
Evaluator Rating
ineffective
Minimally Effective
Effective
Highly Effective

23. Florida
District
Highly
Effective
Effective Needs
Improvement
Developing Unsatisfactory VA Score Florida
Ranking
Ranking
1 44.4% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
4 60.7% 39.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 81.2% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
6 37.3% 54.2% 1.7% 0.0% 6.8%
7 81.3% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
8 41.7% 55.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0%
9 52.2% 47.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
10 27.0% 66.2% 1.4% 0.0% 5.4%
11 7.1% 72.6% 9.5% 10.7% 0.0%
Teacher Evaluation Ratings in Eleven Florida
Schools - 2013

24. Florida
District
Highly
Effective
Effective Needs
Improvement
Developing Unsatisfactory VA Score Florida
Ranking
Ranking
1 44.4% 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.39 109 1
2 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.37 121 2
3 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.14 2802 9
4 60.7% 39.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.14 2797 8
5 81.2% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.16 2831 10
6 37.3% 54.2% 1.7% 0.0% 6.8% 0.12 880 5
7 81.3% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.22 402 3
8 41.7% 55.6% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% -0.34 3274 11
9 52.2% 47.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.16 664 4
10 27.0% 66.2% 1.4% 0.0% 5.4% 0 1764 6
11 7.1% 72.6% 9.5% 10.7% 0.0% -0.08 2445 7
Teacher Evaluation Ratings in Eleven Florida
Schools - 2013

25. Bill and Melina Gates Foundation (2013, January). Ensuring Fair and Reliable
Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Projects Three-
Year Study
Observation by Reliability coefficient
(relative to state test
value-added gain)
Proportion of test
variance
explained
Principal – 1 .51 26.0%
Principal – 2 .58 33.6%
Principal and other administrator .67 44.9%
Principal and three short
observations by peer observers
.67 44.9%
Two principal observations and
two peer observations
.66 43.6%
Two principal observations and
two different peer observers
.69 47.6%
Two principal observations one
peer observation and three short
observations by peers
.72 51.8%
Reliability of a variety of teacher observation
implementations

26. Elements of a teacher’s score
M-STAR –
supervisor’s
evaluation
School-wide
Growth
Student Growth
Percentile or
Student Learning
Objective

27. The importance of calibrated measures

28. • Produce rankings of student growth. A teacher’s SGP
is the median of that teacher’s students.
• Do not introduce controls for factors outside a
teacher’s control that may influence growth.
• Advances a claim of causation – that the teachers
ranking is based on learning caused.
• Can be applied to as few as 20% of the teachers in a
school system (Whitehurst, 2013).
Student Growth Percentiles

29. • Poverty rate of students in the classroom.
• Language development of students.
• Special education status of students.
• Prior disciplinary record of students.
• Student attendance.
• Non-random assignment of students to teachers.
• Class size.
• Gender.
Factors that may influence a
teacher’s growth percentile
Baker B., Oluwole, J., Green, P. (2013). The legal consequences of mandating high stakes decisions
based on low quality information: Teacher evaluation in the Race to the Top Era. Education Policy
Analysis Archives. Vol 21. No 5.

30. • They do not support claims of causation.
• They do not control for external factors, outside the
teacher’s control, that may impact growth.
• If teachers or students improve as a group, it will not
be reflected in SGP data.
Issues with Student Growth
Percentiles
Whitehurst, G. J. (2013). Teacher value- added: Do we want a ten percent solution? The
Brown Center Chalkboard, April 24. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Retrieved October 2, 2014, from www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/
posts/2013/04/24-merit-pay-whitehurst

31. Why controls matter
Differences among value-added
models
Los Angeles Times Study
Los Angeles Times Study #2

32. Why test design matters
In 2014 the 8th grade Mississippi math test provided
nearly double the information function for students
performing one standard deviation above the mean as
students at the mean and four times the information as
compared with those one standard deviation below.

33. Tests are not equally accurate for all
students
California STAR NWEA MAP

34. Issues in the use of growth and value-added
measures
“Among those who ranked in the top
category on the TAKS reading test, more
than 17% ranked among the lowest two
categories on the Stanford. Similarly
more than 15% of the lowest value-added
teachers on the TAKS were in the highest
two categories on the Stanford.”
Corcoran, S., Jennings, J., & Beveridge, A., Teacher Effectiveness on High and Low
Stakes Tests, Paper presented at the Institute for Research on Poverty summer
workshop, Madison, WI (2010).

35. What Makes Schools Work Study -
Mathematics
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
-10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Year2
Year 1
Value-added index by teacher
Data used represents a portion of the teachers who participated in Vanderbilt
University’s What Makes Schools Work Project, funded by the federal Institute of
Education Sciences

36. -12.00
-11.00
-10.00
-9.00
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
AverageGrowthIndexScoreandRange
Mathematics Growth Index Distribution by Teacher - Validity Filtered
Q5
Q4
Q3
Q2
Q1
Each line in this display represents a single teacher. The graphic
shows the average growth index score for each teacher (green
line), plus or minus the standard error of the growth index estimate
(black line). We removed students who had tests of questionable
validity and teachers with fewer than 20 students.
Range of teacher value-added
estimates

37. Elements of a teacher’s score
M-STAR –
supervisor’s
evaluation
School-wide
Growth
Student Growth
Percentile or
Student Learning
Objective

38. Benefits and risks around the use of
school-wide growth
• Benefits
• Encourages collaboration
• Increases focus on language development and
mathematics
• Risks
• Not a valid measure of job performance
• Believed to be unfair by teachers in these
subjects.

39. “What aggravates teachers most is that 40 to 50 percent
of their evaluation is based on "student achievement"
— but it's not always their own students who are being
measured.
For example, fourth- and fifth-grade teachers are rated
partly on their students' FCAT scores. But the FCAT is not
given until third grade. So if you teach a lower grade,
then your "student achievement" score is based on the
scores of older students at your school. Similarly,
teachers of subjects that don't even appear on the
state's standardized test are being evaluated, at least in
part, on FCAT scores.”
Krueger, C. Solochek, J., and Sokol, M. (2012, October 19)
VAM, the new teacher evaluation system, stirs concern,
confusion. Tampa Bay Times.

40. The actual proportion of
teachers for which student
growth can be measured
through the typical state
assessment.
25%

41. • Are a contract negotiated between the principal and teacher
around student results.
• Do not produce rankings that compare teacher results across
settings
• Do not introduce controls to account for factors that may
influence growth that are outside the teachers influence.
• Do not advance a claim of causation – teacher competence is
demonstrated by fulfillment of the contract
Student Learning Objectives

42. • Do not provide evidence of teacher effectiveness.
• Teachers using SLOs may be evaluated against less
rigorous criteria than teachers evaluated by value-added
methods.
• Goals are not consistent in difficulty.
• Goals are not consistent across teachers.
Student Learning Objectives

43. Employing value-added methodologies, Jackson
found that teachers had a substantive effect on
non-cognitive outcomes that was independent
of their effect on test scores
Source: Jackson, K. (2013). Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores and Teacher
Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina. Northwestern
University and NBER
Non-cognitive factors

44. • Lowered the average student absenteeism by 7.4 days.
• Improved the probability that students would enroll in
the next grade by 5 percentage points.
• Reduced the likelihood of suspension by 2.8%
• Improved the average GPA by .09 (Algebra) or .05
(English)
Source: Jackson, K. (2013). Non-Cognitive Ability, Test Scores and Teacher
Quality: Evidence from 9th Grade Teachers in North Carolina. Northwestern
University and NBER
Non-cognitive factors

45. Solving a problem sometimes creates
others

46. Suggested reading
Baker B., Oluwole, J., Green, P. (2013). The legal
consequences of mandating high stakes decisions based
on low quality information: Teacher evaluation in the
Race to the Top Era. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
Vol 21. No 5.