Data from states that have recently begun using teacher evaluations aligned with student performance suggest that the numbers can be deceiving. Very high percentages of teachers are receiving “effective” or higher scores on their teacher evaluations—above 97% in Florida, Michigan, and Tennessee. Depending on whom you talk to, this can mean a number of different things.
Randi Weingarten of the AFT hopes that people will begin to respect the teaching profession more because the numbers are showing that most teachers are good teachers. “Maybe this information will debunk the myth about bad teachers,” she said.
Along these same lines, some others look at the actual numbers of teachers who leave voluntarily, will be forced to enter training programs, or will be fired based on their low ratings, and argue that the teacher evaluation systems are doing their job well. In Michigan, Dr. Joseph A. Martineau, executive director of Michigan’s Bureau of Assessment and Accountability, said that even with all the system’s flaws, many of which will be corrected under new legislation, the 0.8 percent of teachers deemed ineffective last year translated to nearly 800 teachers who will be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. “There’s a possibility, a real possibility, that students will have a more effective teacher,” he said.
Some education reformers are saddened by the results, feeling that reform of teacher evaluation systems that include student performance data will have little impact if the ratings systems are not more rigorous. “It is too soon to say that we’re where we started and it’s all been for nothing,” said Sandi Jacobs, vice president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a research and policy organization. “But there are some alarm bells going off.”
Still others argue that it is truly too early to judge the new systems. Because of the oft changing testing systems within states (and another change coming next year in most states as a result of Common Core implementation), the student data to which the ratings are tied to are often up for debate. “We have changed proficiency standards 21 times in the last six years,” Jackie Pons, the schools superintendent for Leon County, Fla., said. In the county, 100 percent of the teachers were rated “highly effective” or “effective.” “How can you evaluate someone in a system when you change your levels all the time?” Mr. Pons asked.
Furthermore, as the new evaluation systems are so new in most states, school and district leaders are often loath to be the first to bring the hammer down on their underperforming teachers. Instead, these leaders are more likely to adjust the ratings system such that more teachers fall under the effective rankings. In Alachua County, Florida, district officials originally set scores relatively high, but when only 78 percent of teachers were deemed highly effective or effective, and when they saw how lenient other districts were, they set them much lower. Ultimately, 99.4 percent of teachers were rated effective or highly effective.
Over half of the states in the US have now begun incorporating teacher evaluations that employ a mixture of student performance and observation of teachers. Some states have done this more on their own, but many have jumped on board in order to comply with federal standards in order to receive Race to the Top grant money. Even as some states move forward, many are skeptical of these types of teacher evaluations, leading to situations such as that in Montgomery County, Maryland. MCPS may sue its own state education board in order to block a statewide move to incorporate student data in teacher evaluations. MCPS currently employs a system that uses observations by principals as well as by other veteran teachers.
It is possible that looking at a school system like Washington DC Public Schools, which has employed teacher evaluation systems tied to student data for three years, may provide a glimpse into the future for the other states who are employing similar systems.
If you listen to DPCS leadership, early numbers that included higher percentages of underperforming teachers (2% ineffective and only 82% effective or above) spurred higher rates of teacher turnover (400 fired and hundreds of others leaving voluntarily). Now, more effective teachers have been brought in, and the numbers of underperforming teachers have decreased (only 1% ineffective and 89% effective or above). Of course, this message is only acceptable if you first give credibility to any system that connects teacher performance to standardized test data and second, believe that the ratings systems have not simply been altered to corroborate DCPS’ human capital strategy.
In short, it seems that until there is more uniformity and accountability in the way that student performance data is used to create teacher ratings, teacher evaluations may mean about as much as they always have.
For more information on states like Florida which have recently released data on teacher evaluations, please visit this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/education/curious-grade-for-teachers-nearly-all-pass.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-share
