With news that 7 teachers in Florida, with the support of the National Education Association, are suing the Florida State Education Department, the issue of how to evaluate teachers is again making headlines. The teachers in Florida assert that their due process and equal protection rights are being violated because they were given evaluation scores based on students other than their own—students with different teachers, in different grades, and in different schools.
The source of this confusing situation is the fact that the standardized tests which are linked with teacher evaluation systems do not take place in every grade. One of the litigants was given an unsatisfactory score despite being chosen as teacher of the year by her colleagues. This teacher, Kim Cook, teaches first grade, and the state education department in Florida chose to evaluate her based on 4th and 5th graders, who do take a state of Florida standardized test.
Another source of confusion concerns teachers of older students in classes for which there are no standardized tests. These “non-tested” subjects include art, music, science, health and social studies. School districts are currently contemplating methods by which they could evaluate these teachers, thereby avoiding lawsuits similar to those in Florida.
A researcher at the Value-Added Research Center, a research evaluation firm and contractor located at the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Wisconsin Center for Education Research, offers summaries of three proposed models for evaluation that fairly include teachers in non-tested grades and subjects:
Under option 1, states expand the number of grades and subjects in which students are assessed annually. This model’s costs would come from procuring and administering commercially available standardized exams in those subjects. The development and administration of new data systems also add to the cost.
Under model 2, states would convene educators to develop assessments in the non-tested grades and subjects. Costs here would come from hiring facilitators to train educators on the process of developing the tests, the actual test development, and the cost of a platform to host the assessments so that districts can administer them.
Finally, under model 3, states would implement student learning objectives, a particular kind of goal in which each teacher sets growth goals with his or her principal, and selects a way of measuring growth on those based on some examination of student work. (For a discussion of the research on SLOs and some of the tradeoffs associated with using them, see this blog item.) This option, the paper notes, has fewer direct costs associated with procuring or developing tests, but higher indirect costs to provide districts, principals, and teachers with guidance and training on how to craft and score the SLOs.
For more information on the lawsuit in Florida, please visit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/teachers-in-florida-sue-state-claiming-job-evaluation-system-is-unfair/2013/04/16/32fbb400-a6c4-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html
For more on the teacher evaluation models and their costs, download the report at the following link:
https://aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform/Cost%20of%20Implementation%20Draft%2003.13.13.docx
Core Education, LLC is pleased to support states and districts in the design and implementation of evaluation systems that include teachers in non-tested grades and subjects.
