With respect to value - added
measures of student achievement tied to individual teachers, current research suggests that high - stakes, individual - level decisions, or comparisons across highly dissimilar schools or student populations, should be avoided.
In a briefing paper prepared for the National Academy of Education (NAE) and the American Educational Research Association, Linda Darling - Hammond and three other distinguished authors reached the following conclusion: «With respect to value - added
measures of student achievement tied to individual teachers, current research suggests that high - stakes, individual - level decisions, as well as comparisons across highly dissimilar schools or student populations should be avoided.»
Not exact matches
A report out this week from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) found that California is just one
of five states that has no formal policy requiring that teacher evaluations be
tied in some way to
student achievement measures.
Over the border in Georgia, Gwinnett County has developed a «Results - Based Evaluation System,» in which fully 70 percent
of the score for schools and their principals is
tied to
student achievement, as assessed by indicators including standardized test scores and
measures of where schools are in closing the
achievement gap.
But instead
of leaving teacher effectiveness completely up to local educators, its Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (PDF) surprisingly requires states and districts to develop teacher evaluation systems that use multiple
measures of evaluation; incorporate
student achievement data; include more than two rating categories; are
tied to personnel decisions; and are developed with input from parents, teachers, and other staff.
National Public Radio notes that ESSA requires states to cite five
measures of school performance, with four focused on academic
achievement and a fifth
tied to a «non-academic»
measure of school quality or
student success.