building school capacity through teacher evaluation susan moore johnson harvard graduate school of...

Building School Capacity Through Teacher Evaluation

Susan Moore Johnson

Harvard Graduate School of EducationProject on the Next Generation of Teachers

Chicago Schools Policy Luncheon SeriesNovember 1, 2010

Generational Shift in the Teaching Force

28

45

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

701986

0-9 10-19 20+

Sources: National Education Association, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001.

National Center for Education, Schools and Staffing Survey, 2003-04.

42

27 31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

702004

0-9 10-19 20+

38

24

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

702001

0-9 10-19 20+

57

2618

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1971

0-9 10-19 20+

The New Generation of Teachers

Hired in a job market with many options

Anticipate serial careers and short-term commitments

Are traditionally and alternatively prepared

• Include first-career and mid-career entrants

Professional Preferences of Two Generations

Retiring

Privacy

Autonomy

Equal treatment

Career development within the classroom

Early Career

Teamwork

Flexibility

Opportunities for advancement

Career development beyond the classroom

Alternative Ways to Assess Effectiveness

Student achievement

– Standardized test scores

– Alternative measures

Teaching performance

– Classroom observations

Both are needed and both require further work

Limitations of Value-Added Assessments

Based on standardized tests, which measure only part of what teachers are expected to do

Unstable from year to year

Are influenced by student assignment and tracking

Don’t account for shared responsibility in teaching students

Current data limit the use of V-A to grades 3-5 in literacy and math; this includes ~ 30% of teachers K-12

Using Value-Added to Identify the“Best” and “Worst” Teachers

Provides teachers with no information about how to improve.

Creates disincentives for teachers to work in low-performing schools or teach low-performing students.

Interferes with team teaching and collaboration.

Does nothing to promote learning and growth among all teachers.

Standards-Based Evaluations

Specify elements of effective practice

Provide descriptive rubrics for each element at several levels of performance (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished)

Require extensive training for both teachers and evaluators in how to use them validly, reliably, and meaningfully

Develop the Individual and the Organization

Encourage evaluators to make sound, informed decisions about specific teachers (rehiring, awarding tenure, dismissing them) and

Increase the quality of instruction across the school by using the evaluation process to promote learning among teachers.

The New Teacher Project’s Widget Effect: Administrators do not use evaluations effectively

> 99% teachers rated satisfactory

75% of evaluated teachers get no feedback

57% of new teachers (years 1-3) had no areas identified for improvement

41% of administrators had never denied a teacher tenure

Respondents report 5-8% teachers in their schools are unsatisfactory; yet dismissal rates <1%-0%

An Alternative: Use Peer Evaluators

Supplement principals’ work with assessments by master teachers (D.C.)

Assign full responsibility for assessment to expert teachers (Cincinnati)

Rely on expert teachers to provide both support and assessment in PAR (Cincinnati; Montgomery County, MD; Columbus OH)

What is PAR?

Expert Consulting Teachers intensively assist and eventually evaluate

– All novice teachers

– Tenured teachers not meeting standards

Collaboratively governed by a labor-management PAR Panel

Assures due process and has been shown to increase both retention and dismissal rates

Additional Information

Project on the Next Generation of Teachers:www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt

User’s Guide to Peer Assistance and Reviewwww.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par