ElizaBeth McCay, Editor

Teacher Evaluation

The education reform movement signified by standards and accountability applies not just to students and schools, but also to teachers. Increasingly, policy-makers and educators realize teacher quality matters. Teachers are the providers of the new education standards. In fact, the most significant source of achievement variation is teacher quality. (NCES, 1999). Therefore, policy-makers, educators and parents are seeking new ways to hold teachers accountable for their teaching.

The two overriding purposes of teacher evaluation in today’s education climate are accountability and professional development. Accountability serves the summative purpose of assessing performance against defined standards and criteria. Summative evaluation is a summary of and conclusions from the evaluation data that occurs at the end of the evaluation cycle. This summative evaluation can be used for personnel decisions such as tenure, continued employment and salary increases. The professional development prong is the formative evaluation. A formative evaluation should work with teachers on an ongoing basis to collect and analyze data and to provide feedback to improve teacher performance. Evaluation also serves several secondary purposes: (1) to recognize and reinforce outstanding teaching; (2) to provide direction for staff development; and (3) to unify teachers and administrators. (Danielson and McGreal), 2000).

Traditional teacher evaluation is under attack due to the demand for teacher accountability and recent education research. Traditional teacher evaluation usually involves classroom observations by an administrator followed by a conference with the teacher. Traditional evaluation is flawed for the following reasons: (1) the limited sample size; (2) “the limited focus of any given observation;” (3) “the artificial nature of scheduled observations” and (4) its failure to reflect teacher responsibilities outside the classroom. (Stronge, 1997). Also, it is unrealistic to expect principals to have subject or pedagogical knowledge of all teaching areas. (Mertler, 1999). These deficiencies in teacher evaluation have led to dissatisfaction and mistrust with the traditional evaluation procedures. According to the School and Staffing Survey less than half of teachers are satisfied with the procedure for performance evaluation. (NCES, 1994). Moreover, traditional evaluation results in most teachers being rated similarly high. (Manatt, 1999). “Seventy years of empirical research on teacher evaluation shows that current practices do not improve teachers or accurately tell what happens in classrooms.” (Peterson, 2000). Most importantly, traditional evaluation fails to address any bona fide purpose of teacher evaluation, except satisfying a board policy or state law. Therefore, traditional evaluation is not effective.

Based on: (1) the dissatisfaction and deficiencies with the traditional evaluation system; (2) the research on evaluation practices and the effects of teacher quality on student achievement; and (3) the political era of education accountability, a new evaluation system is emerging. Although exact evaluations procedures vary, some common elements exist in the emerging new teacher evaluations. First, new teacher evaluations are focused on student learning and performance. Under the traditional evaluation system, focus was placed on the process of teaching rather than the outcome of teaching. New evaluation places heavy emphasis on the teaching outcome of student learning while also including the teaching process. Second, multiple criteria are examined and analyzed in modern evaluation rather than relying solely on administrator observations to evaluate teachers. Third, new teacher evaluation is based on a defined set of standards, domains and criteria. These standards may be established by state law, state regulation or local policy. Many school divisions adopt standards from a national organization such as the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) which develops model standards and assessments for new teachers. A fourth common component of the new evaluation system is the mandate to train administrators in teacher evaluation. Also, new evaluation systems differentiate between novice and experienced teachers or according to the professional needs of the teacher. Lastly, under the new evaluation system, teachers play a more active role in their own evaluations and communication comes from all directions, not just from the administrator to the teacher.

Those involved in education delivery and policy-making recognize the need for a new teacher evaluation system, but differ on how to design such a system.

The number of stakeholders in teacher evaluation has increased dramatically over the last decade. Business and industry want teacher evaluations that ensure a quality workforce that is competitive in the global economy. Teacher universities have a stake in teacher evaluation at the front and back end of teaching. Universities must teach the standards by which the future teachers will be evaluated but also want feedback to ensure their teacher preparation programs are sufficiently preparing teachers. In fact, in Colorado school administrators send feedback to state universities on the quality of the teachers the university produced, including the amount of remediation necessary. Parents continue to have an interest in teacher evaluation to ensure the highest potential achievement for their children. Voters and legislators also want to ensure that tax dollars are being used responsibly. Recently, teachers have also become more vested in the evaluation of other teachers, instituting such programs as peer review. Likewise, administrators facing evaluation at the school level are also interested in teacher evaluation.

All of these audiences or stakeholders have different uses and types of information for teacher evaluation. Below is a brief overview of differing perspectives for evaluating teachers:

Differentiated System. Some researchers advocate the use of different procedures, criteria and timelines for evaluating different groups of teachers. Under this system, novice teachers would receive more frequent evaluation and support while experienced teachers would be evaluated on a multi-year cycle. Experienced teachers would conduct self-directed programs of professional growth during the non-evaluation years. (Danielson, 2001 and Manatt, 1997).

Teacher’s Choice. Some research proposes allowing teachers to choose, from a list of options, data to present for evaluation. While a certain number of data sources must be used, the teacher may pick from the approved data sources. (Peterson, et. al, 2001). This perspective has garnered favor from teacher groups and others who recognize that not all data sources are available for all teachers and there may be more than one way to demonstrate good teaching. Moreover, this method of evaluation solves the problem of teacher acceptance of data sources. (Peterson, Wahlquist and Bone, 2000).

Client Surveys/ 360° Feedback. Heavily used in the corporate world, some policy-makers suggest applying client surveys to schools and teachers. This approach allows teachers and administrators to gather information from a variety of people connected with the teacher’s performance. Students, fellow teachers, administrators and parents can provide feedback on teacher performance. Usually, input is provided by responses to surveys or questionnaires containing items about various teacher criteria or standards. To be effective, the questions must be something with which the respondent or “client” is familiar and has the ability to judge. This type of evaluation allows teachers to see their performance from many perspectives. The principal or other administrator must still make a judgment about the teacher but with 360° feedback, more comprehensive and objective data is available for the principal’s evaluation. Currently, only about one percent of schools divisions invite student and parent feedback. (Mathews, 2000).

Student Surveys. Student surveys are used consistently in higher education but not without criticism. Student surveys are the most controversial type of client feedback. Some educators are concerned about the reliability and validity of student ratings of teachers. First, some believe that students will not provide objective information. Others question the ability of students to take a global perspective over their own individual case. (Peterson, 2000). Another concern is the lack of accountability for the ratings. The anonymity necessary for student surveys simultaneously provides no consequences for negligent, false or malicious ratings. (Sproule, 2000). Moreover, others claim that teachers will not challenge students and grade inflation will result for fear of negative student evaluations.

Despite these concerns, research demonstrates that students of all ages can rate teachers consistently and reliably. (Mertler, 1999). Students can discriminate teacher performance in relation to their own learning. (Wilkerson, et al., 1999). Others argue that student surveys are an excellent data source as long as students are not asked to respond to things they have not observed or have no experience in. For example, it would be inappropriate to ask students about a teacher’s lesson plan as most students do not have the expertise to make such a judgment. However, an appropriate student question may be to rate “I know what I’m supposed to do in class.” Because students see the teachers regularly, they are best able to describe the accomplishment of education goals, rapport with the teacher, the elements of a classroom and communication between teacher and students. (Peterson and Bone, 2000). While teachers receive higher evaluation ratings from principals than students, recent research shows student reports are the most likely to predict accurately teachers who would raise criterion referenced and norm referenced test scores. (Mathews, 2000). One study concluded that “student ratings constitute better feedback than the ratings of [administrators or themselves] when the focus is student performance.” Wilkerson, et al., 1999). Student surveys are one way to measure teacher quality. While some believe student surveys should go into a summative evaluation, others argue it should be used only formatively by the teacher.

Although few school divisions nationwide use client surveys, evaluation researchers agree that client surveys should be part of the multiple criteria that constitute modern teacher evaluation. The first step in developing an effective client feedback system is to develop a survey that reflects the standards or criteria of the position. Next, the respondents or “clients” must be selected. Lastly, based on the client feedback, an action plan for professional improvement should be developed. In all client surveys, the process should be confidential. School divisions that do not want to conduct surveys about individual teachers but do want to receive client feedback may structure surveys to evaluate programs and buildings which could be used to provide action plans for the school as a whole.

Student Achievement Data. Policy-makers and educators have struggled with how to use student learning or achievement data to evaluate teachers. Some argue student achievement data, such as results on nationwide or statewide tests, should be a portion of teacher evaluations. Others urge caution in using such data because of all the factors besides the teacher that affect student performance on tests. However, recent research shows the effect of teacher quality on student achievement. One study found that when students had three consecutive highly effective teachers, their average scores rose from the 59th percentile to the 76th percentile. (Danielson, 2000). Moreover, the average scores of students with three consecutive ineffective teachers fell from the 60th percentile to the 27th percentile. (Danielson, 2000). While educators, policy-makers and parents agree that teacher quality affects student learning, they may not always agree on how to use student achievement data in teacher evaluations.

The Problems

The main concerns surrounding the use of student achievement data in teacher evaluations are (1) the reliability and validity of the data and (2) the collection, analysis and use of the data. First, many variables outside the control of the teacher factor into student achievement. For example, socioeconomic status, parental involvement and student mobility all play a part, in addition to teacher quality, in student performance on tests. Second, in order to use student achievement data responsibly, sophisticated data collection and analysis are necessary. Also, whether student achievement data should be used formatively or summatively is hotly debated.

The Solutions

Student achievement data can be used for teacher evaluation in responsible ways. For example, the Sanders’ Value-Added system measures the value a teacher adds to a student’s learning based on the student’s change in test scores over a year, and factors out other variables such as socioeconomic status. The value-added assessment is a statistical system for educational outcome assessment which uses data to account for differences in prior student achievement so that the impact a teacher has on student progress may be estimated. Sanders’ research found a strong correlation between individual teachers and student achievement gains despite a number of socioeconomic and environmental factors. (Allen, 1999). This value-added approach requires pre and post testing as well as significant technological and human resources to conduct the statistical analysis. The objections about using test data for evaluations are minimized as information management gets more sophisticated. (Gorman, 1999).

Most researchers advocate using student gains or growth rates rather than an absolute achievement standard for teacher evaluations. In particular patterns of student achievement gain or decline over time can be very useful for teacher evaluation. Such patterns increase reliability from a statistical point of and credibility from the teacher’s perspective. (Tucker and Stronge, 2000). Lastly, achievement data should be based on tests that are aligned with the curriculum teachers are required to teach. In Virginia, the Standards of Learning assessments are aligned with the curriculum teachers must teach. However, the tests must also be a valid measure of teacher performance. Perhaps the best practice is to use student achievement data as one part of a teacher evaluation process which is based on multiple criteria. (Tucker and Stronge, 2000).

Peer Review. Peer review is a process whereby teachers have a role in the evaluation and development of fellow teachers. In some peer review programs, teachers also are involved in making employment recommendations. This process has gained acceptance from the National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of Teachers and the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. In fact, the NEA president embraces peer review as a way for teachers to take greater responsibility for school quality. (Bradley, 1998). Peer review is often referred to as “new unionism” because teachers are taking a role in assisting or eliminating ineffective teachers. Peer review systems usually include the selection of lead or consulting teachers who make classroom observations and meet with teachers. Often, the lead or consulting teachers leave the classroom to “evaluate” full-time. Columbus and Toledo, Ohio have “successful” peer review program and tout it as the reason for their high teacher retention. (Bradley, 1998 and Lieberman, 1998).

Others are not so quick to embrace peer review. Some believe peer review suffers from the same flaws as administrator observation: class disruption, inadequate sample size, personal bias and inadequate training. (Peterson, 2000). Moreover, peers cease to be peers when they leave the classroom to become peer evaluators. (Peterson, 2000). Peterson suggests in lieu of peer review of classrooms (i.e. observation), peer review of teacher materials. Other criticism of peer review systems flows from a lack of accountability and the conflicting roles of unions to simultaneously protect employee interests and evaluate or supervise those employees. (Lieberman, 1998).

Portfolios. The use of portfolios for teacher evaluation is growing. An evaluation portfolio is a set of artifacts demonstrating a teacher’s performance against a set of standards. The artifacts are used to document or support how teaching standards were met. (Painter, 2001). Critics of the portfolio suggest they are not uniform, leave out a number of perspectives and ignore teachers whose quality is not in written materials. (Peterson, 2000). Nonetheless, portfolios can be one effective data source for evaluating teachers.

Action Research. Action research is a process whereby teachers study their own practice through a self-disciplined inquiry. Action is taken to improve teaching based on understanding the data examined during the action research. Action research consists of five steps: (1) problem formulation; (2) data collection; (3) data analysis; (4) reporting results and (5) implementing improvement (an action plan). (Mayo, 1997). Action research normally is appropriate only for veteran teachers.

Kirkpatrick Model. The Kirkpatrick model focuses on four levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior and results. Used in the corporate world to evaluate adult training programs, some suggest applying this model of evaluation to teachers. First, evaluate how the students feel about the teacher and instruction. This could be accomplished using student reports. Second, the learning level could be measured by student gain on established tests. The behavior component of this model could be measured by using a performance assessment to see if students are applying the learning. The results part of the evaluation would occur at the aggregate level to see if the school is meeting its goals and objectives. (Naugle, 2000).

Multiple Data Sources. For a data source to pass muster as an evaluation tool, it must be logical and valid, fair (equal opportunities for teachers in all settings), legal (are criteria and data explained to the teacher in advance of the evaluation) and cost-efficient. (Peterson, 2000). Different teaching domains, standards or criteria may demand different data sources.

Administrators still have a role in modern teacher evaluation. However, the administrator’s role is no longer in isolation. Rather, in combination with varying evaluation procedures and multiple data sources, the principal must make a judgment about individual teachers. Differing perspectives on how to combine data to evaluate teachers, and whether to use all data summatively or merely formatively persist. Nonetheless, the approaches discussed above are leading the way to modern teacher evaluation in response to the call for accountability and professional development.

Key Research and Publications

For a national perspective on modern teacher evaluation, see Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices, 2nd ed., by Kenneth Peterson or Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice by Charlotte Danielson and Thomas McGreal. Other research in teacher evaluation is ongoing by the Chief State School Officers Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Performance Assessment Development Project. Ten states are collaborating to develop prototype classroom performance assessments based on the INTASC core and discipline-specific standards. For more information, visit www.ccsso.org/intasc.html.

In Virginia, the Department of Education has commissioned the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute to develop evaluation prototypes for teachers. The prototypes are expected to be released in June, 2001.

Legal Issues/Court Decisions

The use of high stakes testing for students is being tested in the courts. Likewise, as teacher evaluations become based at least in part on student test results, legal challenges are expected. To date, there is little instructive case law on the issue of using student achievement data in teacher evaluations. One case challenged the use of student test data for teacher evaluations on the basis of equal protection and validity. Saint Louis Teachers Union v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, 652 F. Supp. 425 (E.D. Mo. 1987). In this case, teachers were evaluated based on student performance on the California Achievement Test (CAT). If a teacher’s students performed poorly, the teacher received a preliminary unsatisfactory rating and an examination of the teacher’s evaluations. If other deficiencies existed, then a final unsatisfactory rating could result. The teachers challenged this policy based on an equal protection claim because the CAT only tested certain subjects so some teachers were not subject to this type of evaluation. The court held that it was permissible for the school district to use test results only for those teachers who taught the subject covered by the test. The teachers also argued that the CAT was not designed or validated as an evaluation tool for teachers so its use for that purpose was arbitrary. The court held that during the term of employment teachers have a substantive due process right to be free from arbitrary, capricious or irrational action by their government employers. (Farmelo, 2000).

Virginia

Virginia is on the leading edge in reforming educator evaluations. First, with the passage of the Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act of 1999 (the Act), Virginia requires evaluations of educators based on certain criteria, including student academic progress. The policy behind the Act is to provide strategies to train and evaluate educators with a primary focus on increasing student achievement and school safety. The Act requires accountability for personnel at all levels in the school, from probationary teachers to superintendents. Regarding teachers, the Act requires local school boards to “develop a procedure for use by division superintendents and principals in evaluating instructional personnel that is appropriate to the tasks performed and addresses, among other things, student academic progress and the skills and knowledge of instructional personnel, including, but not limited to, instructional methodology, classroom management, and subject matter knowledge.” Code of Virginia, § 22.1-295 (B). Probationary teachers must be evaluated annually using the same procedure. Code of Virginia, §22.1-303(A). Moreover, such evaluations must be considered in making employment recommendations to the school board. Id

Another novel aspect of Virginia’s school personnel evaluation system is the requirement for administrator training in evaluation and documentation of employee performance. Virginia law requires professional development for administrators in the evaluation and documentation of teacher and administrator performances based on student academic progress and the skills and knowledge of the instructional or administrative personnel. Code of Virginia, § 22.1-253.13:5. Moreover, beginning in September 2000, prior to making employment recommendations to the superintendent, principals and assistant principals and other administrators must have training in evaluation and documentation of employee performance. This is an innovative policy which links the power to make employment recommendations to evaluation training. In fact, the failure to provide such training could invalidate employment actions. This policy addresses one of the concerns of traditional evaluation: lack of administrator training.

Based on the Act, the Virginia Board of Education adopted Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators and Superintendents. These guidelines define five domains or major categories of evaluation followed by criteria or standards for each of the domains. These guidelines provide the standards for evaluating teachers.

The five domains or major evaluation criteria for teachers in Virginia are:

1. Planning and Assessment

2. Instruction

3. Safety and Learning Environment

4. Communication and Community Relations and

5. Professionalism.

Within each of these domains, specific evaluation criteria are suggested. See Guidelines pages 12-13. The Guidelines offer suggestions for implementing a new or revised evaluation system including selecting criteria and standards, selecting appropriate data collection procedures and establishing a schedule for information collections and evaluation reports, developing a rating scale and defining a performance improvement process when necessary. (DOE, 2000). The Guidelines also make recommendations on how to address student academic progress on teacher evaluations.

The Virginia Department of Education’s second initiative to implement the Act is the development of evaluation prototypes for teachers and other educators. These prototypes are being developed through a grant to the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute. An advisory committee of stakeholders, including superintendents, school board members, building and central office administrators, teachers and evaluation experts is providing expertise and input into the development process. The prototypes are expected to be released in June, 2001.

The last piece of the Virginia Department of Education’s innovative school personnel evaluation reform is the provision of administrator training in the evaluation and documentation of employee performance. The Virginia Department of Education is sponsoring this training through a grant to the Virginia Association of School Superintendents.

Virginia is one of the first states to require student academic progress as part of teacher evaluations, and to require administrator training in evaluation. Other states have similar policies and some require additional measures.

National

Examples of other innovative or modern teacher evaluation systems across the country are listed below:

Alaska. Alaska law requires an annual evaluation for teachers that “provides an opportunity for students, parents, community members, teachers and administrators to provide information on the performance of the teacher or administrator who is the subject of the evaluation.” Alaska Stat. § 14.20.149(b)(7). Like Virginia, Alaska prohibits a person from conducting an evaluation unless the person has had training in the division’s evaluation system. Alaska Stat. § 14.20.149(c). Lastly, Alaska allows a different evaluation cycle (once every two years) for tenured teachers who have consistently exceeded the division’s performance standards. Alaska Sta. § 14.20.149(b)(4).

Arizona. Arizona allows a differentiated system of evaluation for teachers based on their years of employment. The law requires an evaluation twice a year for teachers who have been employed by a division less than three consecutive years and requires an annual evaluation for teachers who have been employed more than three consecutive years. A.R.S. § 15-537. If a school division implements a career ladder program, then the law requires teacher evaluations that include an assessment of pupil academic progress. The consideration of pupil academic progress must include (1) specific criteria for the demonstration of pupil academic progress for placement at each level of the career ladder; (2) the use of various assessment methods established by the division for the evaluation of pupil progress; and (3) procedures for the review and refinement of pupil academic progress criteria, assessments and procedures. A.R.S. §15-918.02(3)(b). Evaluations must also be conducted by someone qualified to evaluate teachers. A.R.S. §15-537(D).

Colorado. Colorado requires multiple measures of student performance to be included in the standards set by local school boards for satisfactory teacher performance. C.R.S. § 22-9-106(1)(V)(e). Moreover, the law permits, but does not require, local school boards to include peer, parent or student input obtained from standardized surveys. C.R.S. § 22-9-106(3.2). Lastly, Colorado like many other states now, does not allow anyone to be responsible for teacher evaluation unless the principal or administrator has received education and training in evaluation skills. C.R.S. §22-9-106(4).

Delaware. In 2000, Delaware created a new system of licensure, certification and performance review for teachers. The Delaware Performance Appraisal System “must have no more than five components and must have a strong focus on student improvement, with one component dedicated exclusively to student improvement and weighted at least as high as any other component.” 14 De. C. § 1270(c). The measures of student improvement, however, must address student absence, student mobility, student chronic noncompliance with school rules, chronic failure by parents to abide by the Parents’ Declaration of Responsibilities and other factors that may adversely affect the evaluation. 14 Del. C. § 1270(c). Moreover, if a student misses more than 15% of the class time, then the student’s scores shall not be used in the teacher’s evaluation. Id. Delaware, by state law, has addressed many of the concerns surrounding the use of student achievement data by removing factors outside the control of the teachers.

Florida. In Florida, teacher evaluations must be primarily based on the performance of students on state and local assessments. Fla. Stat. Ann. §231.29(3). Florida law also requires a mechanism for parental input into school employee performance assessments and administrator training in evaluation criteria and procedures. Fla. Stat. Ann. §231.29(c). Lastly, Florida’s teacher evaluation system permits the consideration of peer reviews. Fla. Stat. Ann. §231.29(3)(a).

Georgia. Georgia law requires that teacher evaluations consider the “role of the teacher in meeting the school’s student achievement goals, including the academic gains of students assigned to the teachers.” O.C.G.A. § 20-2-210 (b)(1). In considering academic gains, the state requires evaluators to consider a range of student achievement assessments including “those utilized by the teacher, the local board of education or required by Georgia law.” O.C.G.A. § 20-2-210(c). Lastly, such evaluations must be conducted by “appropriately trained” evaluators. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-210(d). Interestingly, the state law also allows schools boards to require principals to be evaluated annually by the teachers in the school. However, the data collected from the teachers is confidential, solicited and recorded anonymously, and available only to the superintendent and school board. O.C.G.A. § 20-2-210(e).

Kansas. Kansas law requires school divisions to consider in teacher evaluations “results and performance, including improvement in the academic performance of pupils or students insofar as the evaluated employee has authority to cause such academic improvement...” K.S.A. §72-9004.

Kentucky. The Kentucky Board of Education evaluation guidelines permit a differentiated system of teacher evaluation based on years of experience and level of performance. 704 K.A.R. 3:345. Such regulations also require administrators responsible for evaluation to be trained and tested in the evaluation process. Id.

Tennessee. Under Tennessee’s evaluation system, the teacher’s value-added to student educational progress may not be used as a part of the formal evaluation until data from three complete academic years are obtained. Tennessee addresses student mobility and absenteeism by requiring students to be present for 150 days of classroom instruction per year or 75 days per semester before his or her scores are attributable to a specific teacher. Special education student records are not included in the value-added assessment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-1-606. The data on estimates of teacher effects are only available to the teacher, the teacher’s appropriate administrators and school board members. Id.

Texas. The assessment of teacher performance in Texas includes assessment domains on evaluation and feedback on student progress as well as improvement of academic performance of all students on campus. 19 TAC § 150.1002.

Utah. The Utah evaluation system must include the use of “several types of evaluation and evidence, such as self-evaluation, student evaluation, peer evaluation, or systematic observations.” Utah Code Ann. § 53A-10-106. If a school board uses a career ladder program, then advancement on the career ladder may include formal evaluation and assessment of student progress. Utah Code Ann. § 53A-9-103. Lastly, Utah provides for a mentor program for provisional educators. However, the consulting educator or mentor may not serve as an evaluator of the provisional teacher. Id.

West Virginia. West Virginia does not allow a person to evaluate teachers unless the administrator has successfully completed education and training in evaluation skills. W. Va. Code § 18A-2-12.

Teacher/Professional Development. The standards used to evaluate teachers should be linked to professional development. Moreover, when deficiencies or excellent practices are identified through the evaluation process, they should be used as a guide for teacher development.

Evaluator Training. As illustrated in the issue in practice section above, a new skill has been added to the administrator requirement list: effective evaluator. Many states now require training in employee evaluation prior to conducting teacher evaluation. This training component is essential for effective, fair and valid evaluation systems. Policy-makers at the local and state levels must provide opportunities for such training and administrator preparation programs are beginning to include this component in their training.

Teacher Incentive Pay. As a result of increased accountability for school performance, some school divisions provide cash bonuses for teachers who increase student test scores by a pre-established margin. Sometimes the bonuses are awarded on a school wide basis which encourages teachers and administrators to work as a team. In other incentive programs, bonuses are awarded based on individual teacher performance. Nonetheless a byproduct of accountability and modern evaluation is tying teacher pay to student academic progress. A similar program is the career ladder system in which teachers can advance up the ladder based on the satisfaction of certain criteria, especially raising student academic achievement.

Data Collection and Analysis. Many of the so-called modern evaluation techniques or methods require sophisticated data collection and analysis. Unfortunately, many school divisions lack adequate financial, human and technological resources to perform the level of analysis that is necessary to fairly and meaningfully provide modern evaluation. Policy-makers who want student achievement and 360° feedback in teacher evaluations, must create ways for all school divisions to participate.

School Performance. While evaluation is often conducted on the individual level, some accountability, particularly for accreditation, is placed at the school level. For this reason, some call for evaluation at the team or school level rather than the individual level. One way to address this issue has been to create compensation programs that reward all staff in a school that meet certain pre-established goals, rather than rewarding individual teachers.

Collective Bargaining. Although not an issue in Virginia, some states with unions must check their collective bargaining rules before implementing a new evaluation system. In some states, components of teacher evaluations must be negotiated with the teacher unions.

College and University Teacher/Administrator Preparation Programs. As teacher evaluation programs change around the country, teacher and administrator programs must change to meet the new standards for teachers and training in evaluation techniques for administrators.

Teacher Retention. As teacher evaluation systems improve teacher quality and ultimately professional development and student learning, they may have an impact on teacher retention. Some teachers will not like the modern evaluation while for others it could serve as a tool to retain them and allow them to grow as professionals.

A change from the traditional evaluation system to a modern evaluation system will take time and money. Local school boards should involve teachers, administrators and the community in designing new evaluation systems that address state laws or changes in thinking. Localities and states must be willing to devote the resources of time, money, and personnel to develop a successful evaluation system that can meet today’s dual evaluation goals of accountability and professional development to improve student learning or achievement.

New evaluation systems must define the domains and standards of teaching, identify the multiple techniques and procedures for collecting data to assess those domains and standards and train evaluators to make consistent judgments about teacher performance. (Danielson, 2000). “Every method one can imagine for teacher performance evaluation is marred in a fundamental way. The solution...would be a judicious blend of assessment methods!” (Manatt, 1997).

Click for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history of “Teacher Evaluations.”

Allen, M. (1999). Student Results and Teacher Accountability, ECS Policy Brief.

Bradley, A. (1998).  Peer-Review Programs Catch Hold as Unions, Districts Work Together.  Education Week on the Web, June 3, 1998.

Danielson, C. (2001).  New Trends in Teacher Evaluation.  Educational Leadership, v58, no. 5 p.12-15.

Danielson, C. and McGreal, T. (2000).  Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice.  ASCD, ETS.

Farmelo, D. (2000).  Using Student Test Results to Evaluate Educational Professional and Institutions:  What the Law Instructs.  Inquiry and Analysis, NSBA.

Gorman, S. (1999).  How Should Teachers Be Evaluated?  National Journal.  December, 4, 1999.

Lieberman, M. (1998).  Teachers Evaluating Teachers.  Transaction Publishers.

Manatt, R. (1997).  Feedback from 360 Degrees:  Client-Driven Evaluation of School Personnel.  The School Administrator.  March 1997.

Mathews, J. (2000).  When Parents and Students Grade Staff.  The School Administrator Web Edition.  October 2000.

Mayo, R. (1997).  Trends in Teacher Evaluation.  The Clearinghouse. May-June 1997.

Mertler, C.  (1999).  Teacher Perception of Students as Stakeholders in Teacher Evaluation.  American Secondary Education.  Spring 1999.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1994).  School and Staff Survey, Question 30(j).

NCES (1999).  Teacher Quality:  A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers.

Naugle, R. (2000).  Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model as a Means of Evaluating Teacher Performance.  Education. Fall 2000.

Painter, B. (2001).  Using Teacher Portfolios.  Educational Leadership.  v58, no. 5, February 2001.

Peterson, K.D. (2000).  Teacher Evaluation:  A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices.  2d ed.  Corwin Press, Inc.

Peterson, K.D., Wahlquist, Bone, Thompson and Chatterton (2001).  Using More Data Sources to Evaluate Teachers.  Educational Leadership.  v58, no. 5, February 2001.

Peterson, Wahlquist and Bone (2000).  Student Surveys for School Teacher Evaluation.  Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education.

Sproule, R. (2000).  Student Evaluation of Teaching:  A Methodological Critique of Conventional Practices.  Education Policy Analysis Archives:  Vol. 8, No. 50.

Stronge, J. (1997).  Evaluating Teaching:  A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice.  Corwin Press, Inc.

Tucker, P. and Stronge, J. (2000).  Achievement and Accountability:  How Should Student Achievement Test Scores Be Used-Fairly-In Evaluating the Performance of Educators?  Virginia Journal of Education.  March, 2000.

Wilkerson, D., Manatt, R., Rogers, M and Maughan, R.  Validation of Student, Principal and Self-Ratings in 360 Degree Feedback for Teacher Evaluations.

Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide comments or additional information. Please indicate in an e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new inclusions.

Back to Top

Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if CEPI is credited.