In spite of some well-publicized controversies, performance-based teacher evaluations have maintained a strong presence in most states. A new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) examines the policy landscape of teacher and principal evaluations, as well as various states’ successes in using evaluations to inform teacher practice and administrative decisions.
As of 2015, twenty-seven states require annual evaluations for all teachers, and forty-five require annual evaluations for all new, probationary teachers. Forty-three states require objective measures of student achievement to be included in teacher evaluations; seventeen use student growth as the “preponderant” criterion for evaluations; and an additional eighteen count growth measures as “significant” criteria.
Despite these new policies, however, a “troubling pattern” lingers on from the evaluation systems of yesteryear: The overwhelming majority of teachers are still labeled as “effective” or “highly effective.” NCTQ notes this could be the result of several factors, including the fact that few states utilize multiple observations and multiple observers—which is problematic because many principals are either unable or unwilling to “make distinctions about teacher skills” when conducting observations. In addition, Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)—which are required or allowed by twenty-two states—fail to effectively differentiate teacher performance. According to NCTQ, these objectives are often a poor measure of teacher performance because teachers either lack the data and assessment training to select the best achievement goals or are indirectly incentivized to set low goals. (The other problem is that managers won’t give bad reviews to staffers they can’t fire, which is still the case in the vast majority of schools.)
Thirty-four states also require annual evaluations for all principals. Despite this majority, many principal evaluation policies lack important features. For instance, policies in twenty-two states do not identify who is responsible for conducting principal evaluations, and only twenty-seven states actually require principal evaluators to receive training. Most worrisome, there are ten states where teachers—but not principals—can be dismissed based on evaluation results. Given the monumental importance of effective school leadership, it’s inexcusable that only teachers would be held accountable for their evaluation ratings.
NCTQ labels Delaware, Florida, and Louisiana as “leading the nation” in using evaluations to shape teacher training, professional development, improvement planning, compensation, and accountability.
NCTQ rounds out its report with some solid recommendations, which include aligning teacher and principal evaluations and focusing on incentivizing states that are willing to implement evaluation policies rather than “twisting the arms” of unwilling states. The federal government ought to keep these suggestions in mind when it considers doling out the next round of federal waivers.
SOURCE: Kathryn M. Doherty and Sandi Jacobs, “State of the States 2015: Evaluating Teaching, Leading, and Learning,” The National Council on Teacher Quality (November 2015).
