Future of Teaching

Proposal: Let test scores count for up to 50 percent of teacher evaluations

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

Student test scores could account for as much as 50 percent of teachers’ performance evaluation ratings under a proposal the Indiana State Board of Education is expected to consider next week.

That would be a huge about-face for Indiana, which made a point of allowing local schools to decide how much test scores should count in 2011 when other states mandated that student test scores factor in at a high percentage. The proposal could require legislative action before it is put into practice.

Under a 2011 state law that overhauled teacher evaluation, test scores were required to “significantly inform” a teacher’s evaluation score, which was interpreted very differently by different school districts. The different approaches to counting test scores made it difficult to compare teacher results across school districts. But critics of evaluation systems that rely heavily on student test scores say it is an unreliable method of quantifying a teacher’s impact that can vary wildly from year to year.

As part of an effort to craft more specific guidance for how test scores should count, the state board brought in as a consultant The New Teacher Project, which met with the board’s strategic planning committee today. The New York-based company, started by former Washington, D.C., school chancellor Michelle Rhee, suggested scores could be factored into teacher ratings at different percentages depending on what subjects they teach.

For example, teachers who teach subjects tested on state ISTEP exams could have student scores count for 33 to 50 percent of their ratings, the company suggested, while teachers who don’t teach tested subjects could have test scores count less, perhaps a range of 25 to 40 percent. Districts could determine locally what percentage to use based on the evaluation models they’ve chosen.

Indiana districts are allowed to create their own evaluation models, which has led to very different results in different districts. Ratings this year were exceedingly favorable — more than 97 percent of the state’s teachers who were rated were deemed “highly effective” or “effective,” the top two of four categories. Hardly any were rated “ineffective.”

Jessica Conlon, presenting for the company, said test scores shouldn’t be the only objective measure used to determine how teachers are performing. Others, such as portfolios of student work and classroom observation, are also important.

“A teacher’s job is far too complex to be able to look at one metric only and decide that tells us that this person is a good teacher,” she said.

Conlon also suggested the state board wait until 2016-17 to implement these new ranges so the state has one year of data from its new standardized tests, which kids will take for the first time in 2015-16. The extra time would make the evaluations more reliable, she said, and give districts more time to change their evaluation systems.

“With that baseline and plenty of time to improve, I think that can help address many of the concerns that have been raised by teachers and others who are going to be evaluated under this metric,” board member Gordon Hendry said.

The company’s recommendations also included changing the way evaluations affect teacher pay. Some teachers and administrators see evaluations as a tool for keeping salaries low, Conlon said, so the system could be improved if pay increases aren’t withheld when teachers receive low ratings but are not deemed ineffective.

Board member Brad Oliver, who is also an education professor, agreed that teacher pay needs to be part of the evaluation discussion, especially for cash-strapped districts that might give only performance bonuses for good evaluations but not regular pay raises. He said if administrators are making evaluation decisions based purely on raising pay for teachers, it undermines the evaluation process.

“The focus seems to be on increasing the performance grant, which I’m all for,” Oliver said. “But if it’s being done with the belief that that will fix the underlying problem, I think there’s a disconnect between that and what’s really happening.”

He said the legislature should participate in these discussions to make sure performance bonuses don’t replace yearly cost-of-living increases.

The committee voted to send the recommendations to the state board for discussion and a vote at its Feb. 4 meeting. Hendry said he thinks the recommendations make good steps toward improving teacher evaluation in the state.

“We know that the teacher evaluation system in Indiana is not perfect and that there is room for improvement,” Hendry said. “But that’s OK. And I think we’re going to get there eventually, and I think it’s going to be better for everyone who is part of Indiana’s education system, especially, I think, teachers.”

 

teacher prep

Tennessee’s mediocre teacher training programs prompt ‘interventions’ with university presidents

PHOTO: Austin Peay
Austin Peay State University in Clarksville is among four Tennessee schools that have undergone "interventions" with state officials over the quality of their teacher training programs.

Armed with sobering data about the performance of teacher training programs in Tennessee, state officials are holding meetings with top brass at universities where they say programs have grown out of touch with the needs of K-12 classrooms.

About 40 programs in Tennessee feed the state’s teacher pipeline with about 4,000 new teachers annually. The largest are based at colleges and universities.

But those same traditional programs generally aren’t attracting enough high-quality candidates or producing enough effective or diverse teachers. Not a single public university in Tennessee scored in the top fifth of teacher training programs under a state report card issued in 2016. And the outlook isn’t expected to improve much under the 2017 report card being released early next month, officials say.

“This data is sobering. It tells us that higher education must do better,” said Mike Krause, executive director of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. “… I worry our higher education faculty in colleges of education get disconnected from what a K-12 classroom looks like.”

Krause outlined the challenges to state lawmakers during a presentation on Tuesday with Sara Heyburn Morrison, executive director of the Tennessee State Board of Education.

Their first “intervention meetings” were with the presidents and education deans at four universities: Austin Peay, Tennessee-Chattanooga, Tennessee-Martin, and Tennessee Tech. Similar meetings are scheduled this spring with leadership of private colleges and universities across the state.

Krause described the first meetings as “very productive” — and illuminating. “In many cases, the presidents just didn’t know” about their programs’ shortcomings, he said.

Teacher quality is considered a driving factor in students’ success, making the quality of teacher preparation programs a front-burner issue in Tennessee.  A 2016 report said only a handful of the state’s programs are consistently preparing teachers to improve student achievement based on Tennessee’s TVAAS measure. The State Board’s new grading system also highlighted weaknesses based on racial diversity, candidates’ ACT scores, and whether they are producing teachers for high-need areas such as special education.

Reading instruction is another big challenge. In a state where only a third of students are considered proficient in reading, new teachers are arriving in classrooms ill-prepared to instruct students on Tennessee’s new reading standards. The state is working with higher education institutions so their faculty can take the same professional development on literacy that working teachers are taking.

But for the most part, the State Board has limited levers for improving the quality of teacher prep. The biggest hammer comes every seven years when each program undergoes a comprehensive review for licensure. (In 2014, the state raised its standards and revised its measures for effectiveness to include data such as placement, retention and employer satisfaction.)

Chancellor Keith Carver

Tennessee-Martin Chancellor Keith Carver said his school took its last state report card to heart. As a result of its overall score of 2 out of a possible 4, the university hired an assessment coordinator to help guide decisions based on data. “It’s a really good baseline for improving,” he said of the report card. “… We’ve got some work to do in our diversity profile.”

Tennessee’s teacher candidates are overwhelmingly white and female. Of those who completed Tennessee’s programs in 2016, only 14 percent identified themselves as non-white, compared with 36 percent of the state’s student population.

“Colleges of education will not stumble into diversity. There has to be a very intentional effort,” Krause said.

View the full presentation from Tuesday’s legislative hearing below.

Gold standard teachers

Tennessee adds nationally certified teachers but continues to trail in the South

PHOTO: Ruma Kumar/Chalkbeat

Twenty Tennessee educators have earned a national certification that’s considered the profession’s highest mark of achievement, although the state continues to lag in the South in growing that community.

The state Department of Education on Tuesday released the list of new educators designated as National Board Certified Teachers.

Their addition brings Tennessee’s number of NBCT educators to more than 700, with another 63 pursuing certification. By comparison, Kentucky has 3,600, Virginia 3,400, and Georgia 2,600.

“We know that teachers are the biggest factor in the success of our students, and it is an honor to celebrate educators who are helping their students grow, while serving as an example of what it means to be a lifelong learner,” Commissioner Candice McQueen said in a statement.

Nationally, 5,470 teachers earned the designation in 2016-17, raising the total to more than 118,000 through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The certification takes from one to three years to complete and includes a performance-based peer-review process. Successful candidates must demonstrate a proven impact on student learning and achievement.

In Tennessee, at least 36 school districts offer at least one type of incentive for achieving the certification. The most common is a salary bonus.

North Carolina continues to lead the nation in certification, with 616 more teachers gaining the endorsement last month from the Arlington, Va.-based organization.

Earning their certification in Tennessee were:

  • John Bourn, Franklin Special School District
  • Christy Brawner, Shelby County Schools
  • James Campbell, Metro Nashville Public Schools
  • Kimberly Coyle, Sumner County Schools
  • Suzanne Edwards, Williamson County Schools
  • Anastasia Fredericksen, Metro Nashville Public Schools
  • Theresa Fuller, Kingsport City Schools
  • Amber Hartzler, Clarksville-Montgomery County School System
  • Jennifer Helm, Williamson County Schools
  • Deborah Higdon, Franklin Special School District
  • Karen Hummer, Franklin Special School District
  • Heather Meston, Metro Nashville Public Schools
  • Melissa Miller, Franklin Special School District
  • Kelsey Peace, Sumner County Schools
  • Lindsey Pellegrin, Franklin Special School District
  • Andrea Reeder, Williamson County Schools
  • Jordan Sims, Metro Nashville Public Schools
  • Susanna Singleton, Williamson County Schools
  • Melissa Stugart, Metro Nashville Public Schools
  • Drew Wilkerson, Franklin Special School District

To learn more, visit the website of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.