• Code of Ethics
• Evaluation
• Future Teachers
• Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements
• Mentoring & Peer Assistance
• National Board Certification
• Professional Development
• State Board News
• Supporting New Teachers
• Teacher Tool Kit
• Teaching License

Evaluation

Watch this page for essential resources on evaluation.  Meanwhile, KNEA offers this outline of important considerations.

• KNEA believes evaluation is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
  • Local associations and school districts have a responsibility to negotiate a meaningful evaluation provision into the negotiated agreement.
• What constitutes a quality evaluation should be a provision in negotiated agreement.
  • The process should focus on improvement, not punishment.
  • It should be clear and understandable to all parties.
  • It contains balance. Both teachers and administrators must work together to improve the quality of instruction and the quality of an individual's performance.
• For help – contact your UniServ Director or KNEA.

Student Data and Teacher Evaluation - It's Not That Simple!

Few would challenge the claim that teachers make a difference for student learning.  Many, however, question the connection between defining "teacher effectiveness" by looking at student test scores or using them to evaluate teachers.

Since the Kansas Individual Data on Students (KIDS) system will soon make it possible to connect student data to individual teachers (even though both will be identified only by randomly generated ID numbers), it is important to understand the problematic nature of simplistic application of that possibility.

KNEA is in the process of developing more detailed resources to help you respond to this issue.  In the meantime, we hope that the following information will provide some immediate assistance.

BACKGROUND

For years, measurement experts have cautioned against using student achievement test scores for measuring teacher performance.  As early as 1974, Gene Glass pointed out that such use is invalid and unreliable.

More recently, states and school systems have begun using various "value-added" statistical models that use student test scores to assess teacher effectiveness.  The state of Tennessee has the longest history in this arena, but even there, William Sanders, who developed the first model, acknowledged statistical difficulties that would have to be overcome for a value-added model to be accurate.

Another researcher, Ray Fenton, raised this concern: "My friends who are statisticians tell me, if the N is 50, generalizing may be OK. If it is less than 30, don't do it."  [N refers to the number of students whose scores are used to evaluate an individual teacher.]

THE CURRENT SCENE

Most recently, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality released a series of reports that provide the most up to date information about evaluating teachers and the strengths and weaknesses of using student achievement data to evaluate teachers.  NCCTQ is a collaborative effort between ETS, the Educational Testing Service, Learning Point Associates and Vanderbilt University and funded by the US Department of Education.

In short, they raise the following concerns about using student test scores to evaluate teachers:

• It assumes perfect alignment between the test and the curriculum.
• It assumes that the tests reflect improvement, which standardized tests often do not.
• It assumes test performance = student knowledge and skills, even though test performance is often affected by other influences [motivation, attitude, test taking skills, etc.].
• It averages test scores across all students in a classroom.
• It assumes that teachers are solely accountable for student learning, ignoring the influences of families, peers, the school and school system, etc.
• Drawing conclusions about individual teachers based on student test scores is not valid since teachers are not randomly assigned to schools and students are not randomly assigned to teachers.

[See A Practical Guide, April, 2009, pages 5 and 6, referenced below, for a more detailed description of the section above.]

That said, there are potential positive uses for student data linked to individual teachers:

• Teachers can use the data for formative assessment purposes, to help with instructional decisions prior to a summative assessment.t
• Teachers and schools can use the data to identify areas for professional development.
• Teachers and schools can use the data to identify groups of students with specific needs that should be addressed.

QUESTIONS TO ASK WHEN DEVELOPING PROCEDURES FOR  USING STUDENT DATA FOR TEACHER EVALUATION

1. Are all of the data valid and reliable?  How do you know?

2. How are "fairness variables" (ethnicity, SES, mobility, language proficiency, etc.) controlled?

3. Does consistent data exist over time, or is this one-time data?

4. Are the tests from which data is derived aligned with the local curriculum and instructional materials?  How do you know?

5. Have all of the students on whom data is collected attended class long enough for reliable data to exist?

6. Do multiple data sources exist to support conclusions about student performance and teacher performance?

7. What data will be used for teachers who teach subjects for which reliable testing data is not gathered?

8. What data will be used to assess student performance on district academic objectives or outcomes which are not subject to norm- or criterion-referenced assessments?

HELPFUL RESOURCES

Here is an annotated bibliography of several helpful resources you can find on the NCCTQ website:

Improving Instruction Through Effective Teacher Evaluation: Options for States and Districts.  February 2008.  Carrie Mathers, Michelle Oliva, Sabrina Laine.  This brief discusses the measures used in teacher evaluation and focuses on their strengths, limitations, and current use. It underscores aspects of evaluation policies currently aligned with best practices and illuminates areas in which policymakers can improve evaluation rules, regulations, and implementation-thereby improving teacher instruction and student performance.

Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: A Research Synthesis.  June 2008.  Laura Goe, Courtney Bell, Olivia Little.  This research synthesis examines how teacher effectiveness is currently measured and provides practical guidance for how best to evaluate teacher effectiveness. It evaluates the research on teacher effectiveness and the different instruments used to measure it. In addition, it defines the components and indicators that characterize effective teachers, extending this definition beyond teachers' contribution to student achievement gains to include how teachers impact classrooms, schools, and their colleagues as well as how they contribute to other important outcomes for students.
The findings are presented along with related policy implications. In addition, the synthesis describes how various measures have been evaluated, explains why certain measures are most suitable for certain purposes (high-stakes evaluation versus formative evaluation, for instance), and suggests how the results of the study might be used to inform the national conversation about teacher effectiveness.

Methods of Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness.  March 2009.  Laura Goe and Andrew Croft.  This brief is intended to help regional centers and state policymakers as they consider evaluation methods to clarify policy, develop new strategies, identify effective teachers, or guide and support districts in selecting and using appropriate evaluation methods for various purposes.

A Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness.  April 2009.  Olivia Little, Laura Goe and Courtney Bell.  This guide offers a definition of teacher effectiveness that states and districts may adapt to meet local requirements. In addition, the guide provides an overview of the many purposes for evaluating teacher effectiveness and indicates which measures are most suitable to use under different circumstances. The guide also includes summaries of various measures, such as value-added models, classroom observations, analysis of classroom artifacts (e.g., lesson plans and student work) and portfolios. The summaries include descriptions of the measures, along with a note about the research base and strengths and cautions to consider for each measure.