Thank you to the Team Leaders (Dina, Darcy, Sam, Doug, and Lisa), Jon, JoAnn, Laura, JoLisa, Betty, Ross and Dean for their thoughful comments on our Draft Recommendations.

We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback as well as feedback from our network of policy advisors. Two of the most difficult challenges are balancing detail with generality and aggressiveness with achievability. We encourage you to think of this report as a starting point for a larger conversation and call to action. In the next few months, we will be launching an effort to use Policy2.0 as an advocacy tool to push for the adoption of these elements in 10 major systems by 2012. More details about this effort are coming soon, and we sincerely hope that the policy team will become the foundation of that movement.

Below are the revised recommendations and the discussion that accompanies each. Please do not hesitate to comment, either by replying to the thread or contacting us. Unfortunately, our timeline for production is very tight, so we appreciate your efforts to comment as soon as possible and no later than Monday. Thank you again for all of your hard work! Expect new opportunities from Hope Street Group soon!

1) Multiple objective measures of student achievement must be a major component of teacher evaluation.

The Policy Team quickly established that effective teachers have an impact on student achievement; therefore, evidence of student achievement should be a major part of teacher evaluation. Measuring student achievement and relating it to individual teachers is a significant challenge.

Using multiple measures of student achievement from different points throughout the school year holds teachers accountable to a more complete picture of student growth. The policy team felt strongly that a single, one-time measure of student achievement, such as state-level accountability test, would not be enough to provide a fair and accurate picture of student achievement gains and the impact of effective teaching.

For all teachers, the Team discussed several appropriate measures of student achievement to be used in teacher evaluations throughout the year, including:

•    value-added data from standardized tests;
•    student work, including performance criteria and evidence of student growth;
•    classroom data about student goals and growth;
•    formative assessments;
•    objective performance-based assessments; and
•    assessment of affective engagement and self-efficacy.

State accountability tests and other standardized assessments should be used for teacher evaluation where they can provide robust value-added data about teachers. Availability of such data is limited by the frequency of state testing, subject specificity of assessments, and access to multiple years of data for an individual student. That requires that states have the capacity to link data from students to their teachers and to maintain and connect student data across several years. States also have an important role to play in continually testing the validity of value-added formulas and improving assessments.

2) Clearly defined standards of quality instruction should be used to assess a teacher’s classroom performance.

Teacher evaluations cannot rely on measures of student learning outcomes alone. Teachers need feedback during the school year on their daily practice, and assessments of student achievement are insufficient to capture all of the work, leadership and skill that a teacher needs to be effective. [quote]

The team identified classroom observations as inadequate in many current teacher evaluation systems, noting that they typically rate arbitrary criteria and do not focus directly on the quality of teacher instruction…evaluation is often about activity and not targeted to student outcomes.

The team agreed that to be fair, standards of classroom practice must clearly defined by the district or state. Teachers’ work includes the tasks of lesson planning, instruction, classroom management, parent communication, school leadership and collaboration with peers. The use of robust and careful measures of classroom practice is essential to identifying effective teachers and creating opportunities for improvement.

The team identified possible measures of classroom practice as:
•    classroom observations
•    teacher portfolios
•    videos of teacher practice
•    lesson plans
•    evidence of professional development
•    evidence of school leadership
•    successful action research
•    parent, student and peer surveys

3) Teachers, teacher groups and unions should be included in developing and implementing teacher evaluation systems.

[“Teacher input…is invaluable”]

Teacher involvement in developing and implementing evaluation systems is inconsistent. But teacher input is essential to ensure quality and fairness. Unfortunately, complicated collective bargaining agreements and union resistance can preclude important elements of a good evaluation system, or make meaningful outcomes harder to realize. In comments submitted to the Department of Education regarding the Race to the Top Fund, for example, the National Education Association called linking student and teacher data at the state level (as described in Recommendation 1) “inappropriate.”

After examining promising models, including the innovative contracts of GreenDot Public Schools and the TAP program, the policy team recommends that teacher groups be involved in developing: clear standards, a clear process for improvement plans for teachers not meeting those standards, and an appropriate structure to deal with tenure and dismissal issues. The team highlighted peer review as a compelling way to include teacher input while ensuring meaningful outcomes.

Implementing this recommendation will require leadership at many levels. By providing the positive incentive of the Race to the Top fund, the Department of Education has taken a good step. Engaged teachers and other informed stake-holders can provide a key layer of accountability for both school systems and unions if they make their voices heard.

4) Teacher Evaluation Systems themselves must be continually evaluated and refined.

It is important that teacher evaluation systems not be static tools, taken out of the box and not changed until a new system is implemented. Measures and standards must be continually improved to ensure quality and fairness. The implementation of teacher evaluation systems is complicated. Carefully examining the entire system in practice, including student assessments, training of evaluators and the timing of evaluations will ensure that appropriate adjustments are made.

As teacher evaluation systems are implemented, the team recognizes continual opportunities to refine and improve those systems by studying their outputs and results. Teacher evaluations result in information related to student growth and classroom practice. These measures should be compared to each other and analyzed for a connection to key student outcomes. Where an element of classroom observation is unrelated to student achievement, for example, it bears re-examination and improvement.

The policy team calls for a broad investment in collaboration and research to identify and share best practices and innovative ideas. The state’s role is to leverage capacity and improve assessments and data systems. The state should also be involved in identifying and highlighting best practices. Universities and individual districts, schools and teachers can also leverage the Internet to document and share master teacher behaviors and effective implementation of robust evaluation systems to help ensure quality across the country.

5) Teacher evaluation systems should reflect the importance of supportive administrators and school environment to effective teaching.

Even an effective teacher can be expected to struggle where basic supports and consistency are not present.  Effective teachers thrive where supportive administrators maintain a positive school environment. In order for teacher evaluation to be meaningful, administrators must be held accountable as well.

Teachers are among the most important factor in improving student achievement, but they do not exist in a vacuum. Ensuring accountability for school administrators will help prevent teacher effectiveness from declining because of a poor working environment. The team emphasized the critical role school administrators play in creating a school environment conducive to effective teaching.

A school environment conducive to effective teaching is one where high expectations are clear and firm; teaching staff is high quality and a culture of teamwork and accountability prevails; and required resources are present. As one team participant put it, “teachers teach better because of their peers. I feel accountable to them. I’m learning from them.” Such an atmosphere cannot exist where administrators do not cultivate one.
Districts must be committed to careful selection, meaningful evaluation and high standards of performance for school administrators.

6) Components of teacher evaluation that rely on observation and discussion must be in the hands of instructional leaders who have sufficient expertise, training and capacity.

Too often, teacher evaluation involves infrequent “drive-by” observations by harried administrators or evaluators without sufficient content knowledge and training to assess a given subject or class.  In order to observe and discuss teaching practice, the evaluator must be an instructional leader. This person must have the time, training, content knowledge and leadership skills to help all teachers improve their practice.

The team recommends that evaluators have the opportunity to observe a teacher several times during the course of the year. This requires significant capacity and time.

Further, the evaluators should receive significant training and be externally accountable for the proper implementation of evaluation tools. The capacity to provide this training and accountability might come from districts, states and outside partners.

Evaluators must have sufficient content knowledge and instructional skill to provide meaningful criticism and feedback for all teachers being evaluated. A master educator can provide targeted feedback and continual support to teachers as part of the evaluation process.

This recommendation will only have weight if it is made a policy priority and standards for evaluators are set high and monitored aggressively. The team suggested that the cost of training instructional leaders might be addressed by redirecting funding for ineffective professional development.

7) Evaluations must differentiate levels of teaching efficacy to identify opportunities for professional growth, and drive rewards and consequences.

In many cases, teacher evaluations are not tied to meaningful outcomes. Evaluation systems must serve dual purposes as both a performance measure and a tool for feedback and growth. Evaluation systems that do not differentiate among teachers, resulting in most teachers achieving the same rating, will not be able to accomplish these goals.

The team recommends that evaluation result in targeted opportunities for professional development and improvement for all teachers, including those who are already effective. Supports for novice and struggling teachers including high-quality mentoring, should be provided.

The team suggests the use of a review body including teachers and administrators to handle recommendations for dismissal. Where incentives are tied to evaluation and student achievement data, the team suggests combining individual, team and school-based incentives to ensure fairness and cooperation within a school. Tenure decisions should be based on a rigorous review of teaching performance and impact on student achievement, including peer review and feedback from mentor teachers.

8) Information from teacher evaluations should be comparable across schools and districts, and should be used to address equity in the distribution of teaching talent.

Since teachers are among the most important factors in determining student success, they are an integral part of the fight against inequity and the achievement gap. Evaluation systems that don’t allow the comparison of teaching quality across schools and districts may mask inequitable distributions of teaching excellence.

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, states and districts have been required to ensure that all students have teachers who are highly qualified. While qualifications are important, the team identified teaching effectiveness as paramount. Using evaluation data to address this policy concern requires that evaluations be, at least in part, comparable across schools and districts.

State-level student achievement data is a good place to start, and should be used to assess the distribution of effective teachers. States that are involved in developing and/or approving teacher evaluation systems need to consider comparability of ratings across districts.  Within a district, high standards for observation and ratings will make evaluations more reliable and comparable across schools for use in addressing equity issues.