The time of reckoning has arrived: winners of the Race to the Top competition have entered the season where they must make good on their promises to link teacher evaluation with student performance. This process is not easy, given the volatile debates that are taking place nation-wide surrounding this issue.
There are several other hurdles to be cleared in addition to educator push-back and lack of a general consensus of how to best formulate and use “value-added” measures. For non-core subjects that do not have standardized exams associated, evaluating a teacher’s influence on achievement is a murky issue. Additionally, states that created “relatively broad laws that established [teacher evaluation] systems, which in some cases were designed to boost the states’ chances in the [Race to the Top] competition” must now set specific evaluation requirements based on those laws.
New York has made news lately with the court proceedings between the state board of regents and the largest teachers’ union, New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), with allegations that the board has overstepped its bounds and ignored existing law with regard to the “weight” given to each component in the teacher evaluation system and what those components should be.
Delaware has asked for a one-year extension from the US Department of Education to devise its evaluation system, which the state wants to be demanding, yet consistent and fair across tested and untested subjects alike. The request was granted, but the state was advised that the Department may withhold $13.8 million of the state’s $100 million dollar grant if Delaware does not meet the revised timetable.
Georgia too was granted a one-year extension in piloting its evaluation system, which allows districts flexibility to devise evaluations for teachers in non-tested subjects (with state approval, of course). Florida has launched an interesting “mini-Race to the Top,” encouraging districts to propose new assessments in non-tested subjects for “extra” grant money; three districts have so far taken up the challenge.
In the realm of teacher certification, Rhode Island has asked for more time to craft a model for tying teachers’ right to certification to their receiving positive evaluations. They were given more time, but like Delaware were informed that up to $18 million in grant money could be withheld if the state does not meet its revised obligations.
All of this puts into sharp relief the many moving parts and colliding interests that are inextricably tied up in crafting teacher evaluation systems. Michael Johnston, a state senator for Colorado, summed it up well: “It’s not going to be that a light suddenly switches on and that fixes it. It’s an improvement process, not a fix-it process…”
Core Education is pleased to support states and districts in the development of teacher evaluations that are part of an integrated system for teacher effectiveness. For more information, see www.CoreEducationLLC.com/evaluation.php
