After collecting and synthesizing data from 17 states and the District of Columbia, we found that, despite state policy changes, many districts still don't factor student growth
into teacher evaluation ratings in a meaningful way.
While calibration is most often associated
with teacher evaluation ratings, it's important to expand the definition to include calibration of the instructional coaching processes happening at the school and district levels.
While there was hardly a neat correlation
between teacher evaluation ratings and school performance, the data in that show - stopping slide did show a rough pattern: in general, the higher a school's average teacher evaluation score, the better the school did.
More specifically, observers in states in
which teacher evaluation ratings include five versus four rating categories differentiate teachers more, but still do so along the top three ratings, which still does not solve the negative skew at issue (i.e., «too many» teachers still scoring «too well»).
Tennessee teachers with
top teacher evaluation ratings were more likely to continue teaching in low - achieving schools when given a substantial pay incentive, according to a new working paper released released this morning.
The actual distribution of formative and
summative teacher evaluation ratings in evaluators» schools in the first (Panel A) and third (Panel B) year of a new teacher evaluation system
To read the full report: «BURYING THE EVIDENCE: StudentsFirstNY Analyzes Hidden 2015 - 16
Teacher Evaluation Ratings,» click here (PDF).
Leading education reform organization StudentsFirstNY issued a new report called Burying the Evidence that analyzes previously unreported findings from the 2015 - 2016
teacher evaluation ratings.
As states revamp their teacher evaluation systems, they continue to search for that magic number: the percentage of
a teacher evaluation rating that should be based on student academic performance.
The two documents provide additional information around
the teacher evaluation rating appeals period, which closes on December 1, 2016 and how and where districts should post the statutorily required assurances on their website.
About 375 teachers in those schools had a «level 5» rating, the highest, on
their teacher evaluation rating and agreed to participate.
Leading education reform organization StudentsFirstNY issued a new report called Burying the Evidence that analyzes previously unreported findings from the 2015 - 2016
teacher evaluation ratings.
To read the full report: «BURYING THE EVIDENCE: StudentsFirstNY Analyzes Hidden 2015 - 16
Teacher Evaluation Ratings,» click here (PDF).
Teacher evaluation ratings are submitted at the end of each school year to the REP (Registry of Educational Personnel).
That in turn led to concerns about the pace of implementation and the potential effects of the shift on student grade - promotion decisions and
teacher evaluation ratings.
See also the recommendations offered, some with which I agree on the observational side (e.g., ensuring that teachers receive multiple observations during a school year by multiple evaluators), and none with which I agree on the value - added side (e.g., use at least two years of student achievement data in
teacher evaluation ratings — rather, researchers agree that three years of value - added data are needed, as based on at least four years of student - level test data).
While state mastery tests — which include the Smarter Balanced assessments, SAT, CMT and CAPT science — are no longer an option, school districts are still required to measure teachers in part on their students» testing success, which makes up 22.5 percent of
the teacher evaluation rating.
The state is encouraged to rethink its SLO scoring policy and only allow objective student growth data to factor into
a teacher evaluation rating.
The publication concludes with a brief discussion of communicating the results of student growth measures, such as monitoring correlations between student outcomes and
teacher evaluation ratings and using data dashboards to track and share evaluation data.