Conclusions
and Recommendations
“...We began by noting that some advocates of using
student test scores for teacher evaluation believe that doing so will make it
easier to dismiss ineffective teachers. However, because of the broad agreement
by technical experts that student test scores alone are not a sufficiently
reliable or valid indicator of teacher effectiveness, any school district that
bases a teacher’s dismissal on her students’ test scores is likely to face the
prospect of drawn-out and expensive arbitration and/or litigation in which
experts will be called to testify, making the district unlikely to prevail. The
problem that advocates had hoped to solve will remain, and could perhaps be
exacerbated.
“There is simply no shortcut to the identification
and removal of ineffective teachers. It must surely be done, but such actions
will unlikely be successful if they are based on over-reliance on student test
scores whose flaws can so easily provide the basis for successful challenges to
any personnel action. Districts seeking to remove ineffective teachers must
invest the time and resources in a comprehensive approach to evaluation that
incorporates concrete steps for the improvement of teacher performance based on
professional standards of instructional practice, and unambiguous evidence for
dismissal, if improvements do not occur.
“Some policy makers, acknowledging the inability
fairly to identify effective or ineffective teachers by their students’ test
scores, have suggested that low test scores (or value-added estimates) should
be a “trigger” that invites further investigation. Although this approach seems
to allow for multiple means of evaluation, in reality 100% of the weight in the
trigger is test scores. Thus, all the incentives to distort instruction will be
preserved to avoid identification by the trigger, and other means of evaluation
will enter the system only after it is too late to avoid these distortions.
“While those who evaluate teachers could take
student test scores over time into account, they should be fully aware of their
limitations, and such scores should be only one element among many considered
in teacher profiles. Some states are now considering plans that would give as
much as 50% of the weight in teacher evaluation and compensation decisions to
scores on existing poor-quality tests of basic skills in math and reading.
Based on the evidence we have reviewed above, we consider this unwise. If the
quality, coverage, and design of standardized tests were to improve, some
concerns would be addressed, but the serious problems of attribution and
nonrandom assignment of students, as well as the practical problems described
above, would still argue for serious limits on the use of test scores for
teacher evaluation.
“Although some advocates argue that admittedly
flawed value-added measures are preferred to existing cumbersome measures for
identifying, remediating, or dismissing ineffective teachers, this argument
creates a false dichotomy. It implies there are only two options for evaluating
teachers—the ineffectual current system or the deeply flawed test-based system.
“Yet there are many alternatives that should be the
subject of experiments. The Department of Education should actively encourage
states to experiment with a range of approaches that differ in the ways in
which they evaluate teacher practice and examine teachers’ contributions to
student learning. These experiments should all be fully evaluated.
“There
is no perfect way to evaluate teachers. However, progress has been made over
the last two decades in developing standards-based evaluations of teaching
practice, and research has found that the use of such evaluations by some
districts has not only provided more useful evidence about teaching practice,
but has also been associated with student achievement gains and has helped
teachers improve their practice and effectiveness.61 Structured performance assessments of
teachers like those offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards and the beginning teacher assessment systems in Connecticut and
California have also been found to predict teacher’s effectiveness on
value-added measures and to support teacher learning.62
“These systems for observing teachers’ classroom
practice are based on professional teaching standards grounded in research on
teaching and learning. They use systematic observation protocols with
well-developed, research-based criteria to examine teaching, including
observations or videotapes of classroom practice, teacher interviews, and
artifacts such as lesson plans, assignments, and samples of student work. Quite
often, these approaches incorporate several ways of looking at student learning
over time in relation to the teacher’s instruction.
“Evaluation by competent supervisors and peers,
employing such approaches, should form the foundation of teacher evaluation
systems, with a supplemental role played by multiple measures of student
learning gains that, where appropriate, should include test scores. Given the
importance of teachers’ collective efforts to improve overall student
achievement in a school, an additional component of documenting practice and
outcomes should focus on the effectiveness of teacher participation in teams
and the contributions they make to school-wide improvement, through work in
curriculum development, sharing practices and materials, peer coaching and
reciprocal observation, and collegial work with students.
“In
some districts, peer assistance and review programs—using standards-based
evaluations that incorporate evidence of student learning, supported by expert
teachers who can offer intensive assistance, and panels of administrators and
teachers that oversee personnel decisions—have been successful in coaching
teachers, identifying teachers for intervention, providing them assistance, and
efficiently counseling out those who do not improve.63 In others, comprehensive systems have been
developed for examining teacher performance in concert with evidence about
outcomes for purposes of personnel decision making and compensation.64
“Given the range of measures currently available for
teacher evaluation, and the need for research about their effective
implementation and consequences, legislatures should avoid imposing mandated
solutions to the complex problem of identifying more and less effective
teachers. School districts should be given freedom to experiment, and
professional organizations should assume greater responsibility for developing
standards of evaluation that districts can use. Such work, which must be
performed by professional experts, should not be pre-empted by political
institutions acting without evidence. The rule followed by any reformer of
public schools should be: “First, do no harm.”
“As is the case in every profession that requires
complex practice and judgments, precision and perfection in the evaluation of
teachers will never be possible. Evaluators may find it useful to take student
test score information into account in their evaluations of teachers, provided
such information is embedded in a more comprehensive approach. What is now necessary
is a comprehensive system that gives teachers the guidance and feedback,
supportive leadership, and working conditions to improve their performance, and
that permits schools to remove persistently ineffective teachers without
distorting the entire instructional program by imposing a flawed system of
standardized quantification of teacher quality.”
61. Milanowski, Kimball, and White 2004.
62. See for example, Bond et al. 2000; Cavaluzzo
2004; Goldhaber and Anthony 2004; Smith et al. 2005; Vandevoort,
Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner 2004; Wilson and Hallam 2006.
63. Darling-Hammond 2009; Van Lier 2008.
64. Denver’s Pro-comp system, Arizona’s Career
Ladder, and the Teacher Advancement Program are illustrative. See for example,
Solomon et al. 2007; Packard and Dereshiwsky 1991.
From the Economic Policy Institute: http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.