Copyright © 2009 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. All rights reserved.

Multiple Measures of Teacher Effectiveness

Laura Goe, Ph.D.

Tennessee Department of Education

Nashville, TN 10/12/2010

www.tqsource.org22

Laura Goe, Ph.D.

Former teacher in rural & urban schools• Special education (7th & 8th grade, Tunica, MS)• Language arts (7th grade, Memphis, TN)

Graduate of UC Berkeley’s Policy, Organizations, Measurement & Evaluation doctoral program

Principal Investigator for the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

Research Scientist in the Learning & Teaching Research Center at ETS

www.tqsource.org

The goal of teacher evaluation

The ultimate goal of all teacher evaluation should

be…

TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND

LEARNING

3

www.tqsource.org

Part 1: An Overview of Teacher Quality, Teacher

Effectiveness, and Teacher Evaluation

4

www.tqsource.org5

What the evidence says about teacher quality (Goe, 2007)

Experience matters, but only for the first five years or so as teachers learn on the job; After that, experience adds little in terms of student achievement

Teachers’ subject matter knowledge (as evidenced by course-taking) appears to contribute significantly to math achievement, particularly at the secondary level, but research has not convincingly demonstrated that it matters in other subjects

Subject matter certification contributes significantly to math achievement, but is not significantly and consistently related to student achievement in other subjects

www.tqsource.org

Research Behind the Push for New Evaluation Measures and

SystemsThe Widget Effect report (Weisberg et

al., 2009) “…examines our pervasive and longstanding failure to recognize and respond to variations in the effectiveness of our teachers.” (from Executive Summary)

Value-added research shows that teachers vary greatly in their contributions to student achievement (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005).

6

www.tqsource.org

Keys to Measuring teacher Effectiveness

Measure what is required (i.e., federal/state legislation and incentives)

Measure what is valued (i.e., all the things we expect teachers to do)

Develop and make available to teachers and evaluators the standards by which teachers will be evaluated

Familiarize teachers with tools and processes of the evaluation

Measure performance against the standards

7

www.tqsource.org

Race to the Top definition of effective & highly effective

teacherEffective teacher: students achieve acceptable

rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance. (pg 7)

Highly effective teacher students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice).

 

8

www.tqsource.org

Race to the Top definition of student achievement

Student achievement means—(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) a student’s score

on the State’s assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

9

www.tqsource.org

Race to the Top definition of student growth

Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. (pg 11)

10

www.tqsource.org

Teacher contributions to GROWTH in learning (1)

End of YearStart of School Year

Achievement

Proficient

Teacher B: “Failure” on Ach. Levels

Teacher A: “Success” on Ach. Levels In terms of

learning growth,

Teachers A and B are

performing equally

Slide courtesy of Doug Harris, Ph.D, University of Wisconsin-Madison

11

www.tqsource.org

Teacher contributions to GROWTH in learning (1)

End of YearStart of School Year

Achievement

ProficientHigh Ach. Level, Low Growth

Low Ach. Level, High Growth

A teacher with low-

proficiency students can

still be high in terms of

contributing to growth

Slide courtesy of Doug Harris, Ph.D, University of Wisconsin-Madison

12

www.tqsource.org13

What standardized tests can’t tell you

Standardized tests can’t tell you why students in a particular classroom are scoring high• Maybe there is a narrow instructional focus

on test content • Or maybe the classroom offers a rich,

engaging curriculum that fosters deep student learning

How teachers are getting results matters, not just the results themselves

www.tqsource.org

Measures of teacher effectiveness

Evidence of growth in student learning and competency• Standardized tests, pre/post tests in untested subjects• Student performance (art, music, etc.)• Curriculum-based tests given in a standardized manner• Classroom-based tests such as DIBELS

Evidence of instructional quality• Classroom observations• Lesson plans, assignments, and student work

Other evidence (varies, based on local values)• Administrator/supervisor reports• Surveys of students and/or parents• An “evidence binder” created & presented by the teacher

14

www.tqsource.org

Evidence binders

Teachers collect and organize evidence that demonstrates their proficiency and/or indicates progress in • Classroom practice• Professional/out-of-class activities• Student learning linked to teacher practice

Teacher assignment + student work Teacher assignment + set of student work

showing growth Pre- and post-test scores showing student

progress DIBELS and other classroom-based tests

15

www.tqsource.org

Growth opportunities for all teachers

Duke, DL; Stiggins, RJ. (1986.) Teacher Evaluation: Five Keys to Growth. West Haven, CT: National Education Association. ERIC # ED275069 (full text, pg 15)

16

www.tqsource.org

Growth-oriented evaluation

Many evaluation systems currently in use ignore growth opportunities for teachers who are “doing fine”

For teachers who are struggling, the “help” may be seen as punitive rather than as creating opportunities for teachers to improve practice

But some measures of teacher performance are far more useful than others in helping teachers to improve their practice, which will in turn improve student learning

17

www.tqsource.org

Measures that help teachers grow

Measures that motivate teachers to examine their own practice against specific standards

Measures that allow teachers to participate in or co-construct the evaluation (such as “evidence binders”)

Measures that give teachers opportunities to discuss the results with evaluators, administrators, colleagues, teacher learning communities, mentors, coaches, etc.

Measures that are directly and explicitly aligned with teaching standards

Measures that are aligned with professional development offerings

Measures which include protocols and processes that teachers can examine and comprehend

18

www.tqsource.org19

Questions about Part 1?

www.tqsource.org

Part 2: Models of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems that

Include Student Growth for All Teachers

20

www.tqsource.org

Austin Independent School District

Student Learning Objectives:

Teachers determine two SLOs for the semester/year One SLO must address all students, other may be

targeted Use broad array of assessments Assess student needs more directly Align classroom, campus, and district expectations Aligned to state standards/campus improvement

plans Based on multiple sources of student data Assessed with pre and post assessment Targets of student growth Peer collaboration

21

www.tqsource.org22

Rubric for student learning objectives

www.tqsource.org23

Rubric for student learning objectives (cont’d)

www.tqsource.org

SLO Model Strengths/Weaknesses

Strengths Teachers take an active role in determining

student learning goals Good professional growth opportunity for

teachers If objectives are of high-quality and teachers plan

instruction to meet them, students should benefit

Weaknesses Heavily dependent on administrator

understanding and time commitment to supervision

Not clear how or if “rigor” could be determined Not “comparable across classrooms” because

teachers set the objectives and they will vary widely

Not clear how students’ beginning point is determined

24

www.tqsource.org

“Rhode Island Model” is another example of an SLO Model

Under consideration, not yet implemented• Teachers measure student growth by setting

student academic goals aligned to standards• Principals, during the goal setting process, will

confer with teachers to establish each goal’s degree of ambition and select the appropriate assessments for measuring progress against the goals

• Teacher evaluation will be based on students’ progress on the established goals, as determined by an end-of-the-year principal review of the pre-determined assessments and their results

25

www.tqsource.org

The “Rhode Island Model”

The Rhode Island Model (RI Model)1. Impact on student learning2. Professional Practice (including content

knowledge)3. Professional Responsibilities

“…each teacher’s Student Learning (SL) rating will be determined by a combination of state-wide standardized tests, district-selected standardized tests, and local school-based measures of student learning whenever possible.”

26

www.tqsource.org

RIDE Model: Impact on Student Learning

Category 1: Student growth on state standardized tests that are developed and/or scored by RIDE

Category 2: Student performance (as measured by growth) on standardized district-wide tests that are developed and/or scored by either the district or by an external party but not by RIDE (e.g., NWEA, AP exams, Stanford-10, ACCESS, etc.)

Category 3: Other, more subjective measures of student performance (growth measures and others, as appropriate) that would likely be developed and/or scored at the district- or school-level (e.g., student performance on school- or teacher-selected assessments, administrator review of student work, attainment of student learning goals that are developed and approved by both teacher and evaluator, etc.)

27

www.tqsource.org

Rhode Island DOE Model: Framework for Applying Multiple Measures of Student

Learning

Category 1: Student growth

on state standardized tests (e.g., NECAP, PARCC)

Student learning rating

Professional practice rating

Professional responsibilities

rating

+

+

Final evaluation

rating

Category 2: Student growth on standardized

district-wide tests (e.g., NWEA, AP exams, Stanford-

10, ACCESS, etc.)

Category 3: Other local

school-, administrator-,

or teacher-selected

measures of student

performance

The student learning rating is determined by a combination of different sources of evidence of student learning. These sources fall into three categories:

28

www.tqsource.org

“‘Rhode Island Model”: Student Learning Group Guiding

Principles• “Not all teachers’ impact on student learning will be measured by the same mix of assessments,

and the mix of assessments used for any given teacher group may vary from year to year.”

Teacher A (5th grade)

Teacher B (11th grade English)

Teacher C (middle school art)

This teacher may use several category 3 assessments

 

Category 1 (growth on NECAP)

Category 2 (e.g., growth on NWEA)

Category 3 (e.g., principal review of student work over a six

month span)

Teacher A’s student learning rating

+ + =

Category 2 (e.g., AP English exam)

Category 3 (e.g., joint review of critical

essay portfolio)

Teacher B’s student learning rating+ =

29

www.tqsource.org

“Rhode Island Model” Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths• Includes teachers in evaluation of student

learning (outside of standardized tests)• Teachers will benefit from having

assessment of student learning at the classroom level

Weaknesses• Heavily administrator/evaluator driven

process• Teachers can weigh in on assessments, but

do not determine student growth30

www.tqsource.org

Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) Model

TAP requires that teachers in tested subjects be evaluated with value-added models

All teachers are observed in their classrooms (using a Charlotte Danielson type instrument) at least three times per year by different observers (usually one administrator and two teachers who have been appointed to the role)

Teacher effectiveness (for performance awards) determined by combination of value-added and observations

Teachers in non-tested subjects are given the school-wide average for their value-added component, which is combined with their observation scores

31

www.tqsource.org

TAP strengths/weaknesses

Strengths• Value-added becomes everyone’s responsibility,

which should encourage efforts from teachers in non-tested subjects to support teachers in tested subjects

• Multiple yearly observations should be more informative and produce more reliable information about practice

• Professional development aligned with results is required

Weaknesses• Concerns about “fairness” when only a few teachers’

student achievement and progress toward learning goals “counts”

• Tells you nothing about how teachers in other subjects are performing in terms of student learning growth (grades are not always good indicators)

32

www.tqsource.org

IMPACT sorts teachers into groups that are evaluated

differentlyGroup 1: general ed teachers for whom

value-added data can be generatedGroup 2: general ed teachers for whom

value-added data cannot be generatedGroup 3: special education teachersGroup 4: non-itinerant English

Language Learner (ELL) teachers and bilingual teachers

Group 5: itinerant ELL teachersEtc… 33

www.tqsource.org

IMPACT components for Group 1

Individual Value-Added (IVA) = 50% of score

Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) (measure of instructional expertise) = 40% of score

Commitment to the School Community (CSC) (measure of the extent to which you support your colleagues and your school’s local initiatives) = 5% of score

34

www.tqsource.org

IMPACT components for Group 2

Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) (measure of instructional expertise) = 80% of score

Non-Value-Added Student Achievement Growth (NVA) = 10%

Commitment to the School Community (CSC) (measure of the extent to which you support your colleagues and your school’s local initiatives) = 5%

School-wide value-added = 5%

35

www.tqsource.org

Explanation for 10% for test scores for Group 2 and others

“As a school system, we recognize that we still have a significant amount of work to do to establish norms for student achievement growth outside of the DC CAS grades and subjects. In recognition of this fact, we have decided to limit this component to just 10% of the overall assessment. As we develop clearer norms, we plan to increase this percentage.”

36

www.tqsource.org

Group 2 assessment rubric

3 “cycles” of data collected & averaged/year

Highest level of rubric:• “Teacher has at least 1 high-quality

source of evidence (i.e., one that is rigorous and reliable) demonstrating that approximately 90% or more of her/his students are on track to make significant learning growth (i.e., at least a year’s worth) towards mastery of the DCPS content standards over the course of the year.”

37

www.tqsource.org

Non-VAM tests (accepted under Washington, DC’s IMPACT evaluation

system) DC Benchmark Assessment System (DC BAS) Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS) Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) Curriculum-based assessments (e.g., Everyday

Mathematics) Unit tests from DCPS-approved textbooks Off-the-shelf standardized assessments that are

aligned to the DCPS Content Standards Rigorous teacher-created assessments that are

aligned to the DCPS Content Standards Rigorous portfolios of student work that are aligned

to the DCPS Content Standards38

www.tqsource.org

DC IMPACT Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths• Uses multiples measures to assess

effectiveness• Permits the use of many types of

assessment for students in non-tested subjects and grades

• Includes what is important in the system (in order to encourage specific teacher behaviors)

Weaknesses• No multiple measures of student learning

growth for teachers in tested subjects and grades

• Huge differences in how teachers are measured

39

www.tqsource.org40

Georgia KEYS

www.tqsource.org41

Georgia KEYS for Non-tested subjects

www.tqsource.org

Georgia KEYS Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths• Rubric for measuring teacher contribution

is easy to understand• Includes examples of multiple measures of

student learning for all teachers, including those in tested grades and subjects

Weaknesses• Rubric (including observation and other

information) is about 100 pages long• Might be a challenge to implement

42

www.tqsource.org

Delaware Model

Standardized test will be used as part of teachers’ scores in some grades/subjects

“Group alike” teachers, meeting with facilitators, determine which assessments, rubrics, processes can be used in their subjects/grades (multiple measures)

Assessments must focus on standards, be given in a “standardized” way, i.e., giving pre-test on same day, for same length of time, with same preparation

Teachers recommend assessments to the state for approval

Teachers/groups of teachers take primary responsibility for determining student growth

State will monitor how assessments are “working”43

www.tqsource.org

Delaware Model: Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths• Teacher-driven process (assumes teachers are the

experts in assessing their students’ learning growth)

• Great professional growth opportunity as teachers work together across schools to determine assessments, score student work, etc.

Weaknesses• Validity issues (how the assessments are given

and scored, teacher training to score, etc.)• Time must be built in for teachers to work

together on scoring (particularly for rubric-based assessments) 44

www.tqsource.org

Questions to ask about models

Are they “rigorous and comparable across classrooms”?

Do they show student learning growth “between two points in time”?

Are they based on grade level and subject standards?

Do they allow teachers from all subjects to be evaluated with evidence of student learning growth?

45

www.tqsource.org46

Questions about Part 2?

www.tqsource.org

Part 3: Measuring Teachers’ Contributions to Student Achievement Growth in Non-Tested Subjects and

Grades

47

www.tqsource.org48

Evidence of growth in student learning

Evidence is strongest when it is• Standardized, meaning that all teachers used the

assessment in exactly the same way Gave the assessment on the same day Gave students a specific amount of time to complete the test Used the same preparation/instructions prior to the test Recorded/reported results accurately

• Valid, meaning that it measures what is intended Items (questions) accurately capture students’ understanding

and knowledge Progress towards proficiency in a subject is captured because

there are sufficient items to measure students at all levels• Recorded, meaning that student progress can be

compared across classrooms and schools

48

www.tqsource.org

Standardization is key

Standardizing how curriculum- or classroom-based tests are given is key to ensuring that tests are “rigorous and comparable across classrooms”

Ensure that tests meet district approvalFor subject-matter tests, ensure that

• Tests are given on the same day, at the same time, for the same length of time, with supervision

• Teachers agree to appropriate “test prep” rules 49

www.tqsource.org

Challenges for Special Education Teachers and ELL Specialists

Challenges for SWD and ELLs• Small student numbers• Not all special educators and ELLs instruct

students in tested subjects• Teacher contribution to social and behavioral

growth would not be factored into results• Teachers working with students on alternate

standards• Little research exploring whether growth rates are

comparable• Little research on the use of accommodations &

their impact related to teacher effects

50

www.tqsource.org

Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness in Classrooms w/ Co-Teaching

Majority of SWD are in the general education classroom

Various co-teaching models make it difficult to evaluate teachers• For example, teachers as aides or working

with small group of studentsWho gets “credit” for student growth

when there are multiple teachers?

51

www.tqsource.org

The teacher’s “caseload”

For nurses, counselors, librarians, and other professionals who do not have their own classroom, what counts for you is your “caseload”• May be all the students in the school• May be a specific set of students• May be other teachers• May be all of the above!

52

www.tqsource.org

Other teachers with “caseloads”

For team teachers, special ed teachers, ELL teachers, other itinerant teachers• Caseload would be the students you

provide instruction or assistance to • When students are shared between two

teachers, those students belong to both teachers’ caseloads

• This may be done as a percentage, or the shared student scores would be counted for each teacher

53

www.tqsource.org

Student “demonstrations”

Using the term “demonstrations” to distinguish this measure from “performance” which is interpreted various ways

Demonstrations: students demonstrate their proficiency by giving a performance (dance, music, drama, art, speech, etc.) or by creating and displaying something (artwork, a bookshelf, etc.)

54

www.tqsource.org

Guidelines for recommending measures

Measures must show students’ growth between two or more points in time

Measures must be “comparable across classrooms”• All teachers in that grade/subject should agree

on what measures should be used• Common rubrics, and agreement as to how they

will be usedMeasures must be “rigorous”

• Based on appropriate grade-level standardsMeasures should improve teaching &

learning 55

www.tqsource.org

Multiple measures

Multiple sources of evidence of a students’ learning provide• The teacher with better evidence about

what the student knows and is able to do, allow him/her to adapt instructional strategies accordingly

• The evaluator with better evidence about a teachers’ contribution to student learning Results from a rubric-based assessment and

results from a standardized test may show different aspects of a students’ knowledge and skills 56

www.tqsource.org

Quote from Arne Duncan re: Race to the Top

"We need to be tight on goals and loose on means." 

Laura’s interpretation• Chief goals are improving teacher

effectiveness and increasing student achievement

• HOW we achieve those goals is less important (to Arne) than the fact that we DO achieve them

• We should focus as much as possible on measures that we believe will improve teaching and learning, rather than on blind compliance

57

www.tqsource.org

References

Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

http://www.tqsource.org/publications/LinkBetweenTQandStudentOutcomes.pdfGoe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating

teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

http://www.tqsource.org/publications/EvaluatingTeachEffectiveness.pdfRivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and

academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417 - 458.

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.

http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf 58

www.tqsource.org59

Questions?

www.tqsource.org60

Laura Goe, Ph.D.P: 609-734-1076 E-Mail: lgoe@ets.org

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality1100 17th Street NW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20036-4632877-322-8700 > www.tqsource.org