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

Models of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation

SystemsLaura Goe, Ph.D.Research Scientist, ETS

Principal Investigator, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher

QualityJune/July 2010

www.tqsource.org

Minnesota

Enacted by Minnesota Legislature in July 2005• Voluntary program that allows local districts and exclusive

representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain a plan that meets the five components of the law

• Five components under Q Comp include: Career ladder/Advancement Options, Job-embedded Professional Development, Teacher Evaluation, Performance Pay, and an Alternative Salary Schedule 

St Francis Independent School District• Each annual review based on

4 observations Teacher-generated evidence of improved student

performance2

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

4

Rubric for student learning objectives

5

Rubric for student learning objectives (cont’d)

www.tqsource.org

Washington DC’s IMPACT (an example of a CTES)

The recently implemented IMPACT outlines 3 ways it will improve teaching:• Clear expectations that detail exactly what

is expected in terms of teacher performance

• Clear feedback Three assessment cycles for maximum

feedback In-person assessment conferences Web-based (can review ratings & written

comments)• Growth plans noting strengths, growth

areas, and next steps for professional development

6

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… 7

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

8

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% of score

9

www.tqsource.org

School Value-Added (SVA)

“A sophisticated statistical measure of your school’s impact on student achievement, as measured by the DC CAS” = 5% of score

Schools receive an SVA score based on how well the students in the school performed overall compared with how they were predicted to performed (based on previous test scores)

Calculated using student factors10

www.tqsource.org

Factors used in calculating School Value-Added (SVA)

Student factors•Previous year’s test scores•Free or reduced price lunch status•Special education status•English language learner status

11

www.tqsource.org

Core Professionalism

Core Professionalism (CP) “a measure of four basic professional requirements”1. No unexcused absences2. No unexcused late arrivals3. Following the policies and procedures of

your school (or program) and the school system

4. Interacting with colleagues, students, families, and community members in a respectful manner12

www.tqsource.org

Group 2 assessment rubric3 “cycles” of data collected &

averaged/yearHighest 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.”

13

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.”

14

www.tqsource.org15

Georgia KEYS

16

Artifacts •Benchmark assessments•Common assessments•Diagnostic assessments•Individual-level teacher results based on roster of students taught by the teacher for a semester or school year in the current school year. Data needed are the group pass rate (percent of teacher’s students who passed/met or exceeded state standards) on state-mandated academic achievement tests for appropriate grade level and subject taught.•State- and district-level student data on percent who meet/exceed state standards at grade level and in subject areas tested by state-mandated student achievement measure (e.g., CRCT results, EOCT results, GHSGT results for first-time test takers in grade 11, Georgia Writing Assessment, etc.)

NOTES:Using multiple assessments to evaluate student achievement is encouraged.Due to a discrepancy between availability of state-mandated test data (May/June) and the legal date for completing the annual performance review (April), this element rating may need to be completed as an addendum to the annual performance review and added to the teacher’s evaluation file for the next school year.

Exam

ples

of D

ata

Sour

ces

Georgia Data Sources

www.tqsource.org17

Non-tested subjects

www.tqsource.org

Colorado’s Legislation (Senate Bill 191)

Under the bill passed in May• All teachers would be evaluated each year

(instead of every 3 years for tenured teachers)

• 50% of their performance on supervisors' reviews and the other half on student growth on standardized tests and other measures

• Teachers could lose tenure• Johnson says “tests to evaluate non-CSAP

subjects could be built or bought by the state”

www.tqsource.org

Colorado (cont’d)

“An amendment to the legislation would allow districts to rate student growth differently in certain classrooms, including ones where students are highly mobile or where 95 percent of kids meet the definition of "high-risk." The exception also would apply to special-education classes.”

Denver Post, 5/10/10 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14953971

www.tqsource.org

Contact Information

20

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