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