Evaluate Teachers Based On Evidence

Strategy 1.1: Evaluate teachers based on evidence of student results rather than arbitrary judgments, and separate teacher evaluation from the collective bargaining process.

StudentsFirst will aggressively pursue reforms to teacher evaluation systems, so that parents and school leaders can reliably distinguish among great, fair, and poor performers and so that teachers can better understand their strengths and areas for growth. Additionally, StudentsFirst will pursue laws and policies that give districts the autonomy to develop teacher evaluation systems apart from the collective bargaining process.

Strong evaluation systems contribute to professions by helping managers determine where professionals sit along expectation scales, and ensuring they understand how they can continually grow and improve in their practice. The systems are never perfect, but when thoughtfully implemented, they provide consistently important information about performance. The tools are also constantly revisited and improved. They often anchor how professionals talk about their craft and improve their practice.

In education, research shows that meaningful performance evaluations do promote teacher effectiveness. Real evaluations can offer teachers the relevant, specific feedback they need to improve and grow. Few districts, however, employ high-quality performance evaluation systems. In many failing schools with dismal student achievement rates, the vast majority of teachers receive the highest possible rating on their evaluations. If our evaluation systems put student interests first, this dissonance would be impossible. Good evaluations are honest and transparent, are calculated in an understandable manner, accurately assess overall performance, and identify opportunities for teachers to improve.

Fair and robust evaluation systems are not only possible in education, select districts across the country already use them. Evaluation systems in education have historically been one-dimensional (only using one data point or source of information) without integrating clear performance expectations and as a result are not valuable for teachers or their managers. The new generation of evaluation systems use multiple inputs to assess how teachers actually perform relative to their students' achievement. These systems include student input, regular classroom observations by trained master teachers and administrators, meaningful feedback, and clear, consistent rubrics. And, when available, they include a rigorous analysis of the individual teacher's "value-add" to their students' academic progress.

A teacher's "value-add" can be the best objective measure of their performance. As Harvard professor Thomas Kane explained, positive "value-add" is accurately obtained not by a simplistic review of raw test scores, "but when the students in [a teacher's] class outperform other students who had similar starting points — similar prior achievement, program participation and demographics — and had similar peers." Simply put, fair evaluations compare apples to apples.

Developing and implementing strong evaluations in education is the appropriate approach for several reasons:

• To improve the quality of any profession, it is essential to be clear about what good (great) performance actually looks like and to give practitioners feedback on where they are in relation to that standard;
• The availability of new methodologies (value added, student work sampling, good student questionnaires, strong observation protocols) now make it possible for us to do that better than ever before;
• Failure to use these methodologies at scale degrades the profession and is unfair to individual professionals, for it deprives them of the information they need to improve;
• Failure to use these methodologies is even more devastating to children — it deprives strong professionals of the incentives many need to stay in the profession and allows too many weak teachers to stay in the classroom.

School districts should work with teachers to develop evaluation systems, rather than imposing systems on teachers. StudentsFirst knows that teacher input and involvement in their evaluation and development strengthens both the process and the outcomes. Accordingly, teachers must have a voice in ensuring their evaluation accurately ties to their stated goals and objectives. Utilizing a broad range of strategies — including open feedback sessions, surveys, and specific focus groups by subject matter and grade level — will offer teachers meaningful engagement that will contribute to improved evaluations. However, embedding the systems in collective bargaining agreements or giving union leaders veto power over the final product does not actually have that effect. The reality is that the structure of unions and the way they are organized makes them systematically inappropriate for driving the decision-making around evaluations.

Union leaders are legally obligated to represent the interests of all of their members, including ineffective members. Although union leaders express an interest in quality, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their organization to enhance unity and protect low performers. As a result, union leadership, or the vocal minority of teachers, disproportionately influences the evaluation process to skew toward interests that conflict with those of high-performing or promising teachers. The majority of rank-and-file teachers deeply value strong colleagues and a culture of excellence. The ethic of high standards becomes lost in the process when the union dedicates time, effort, and money fighting for the lowest performers. Simply put, labor leadership has a conflict of interest when it comes to evaluation of their members. Recognizing this conflict, steps should be taken to balance the mission of school districts against the collective interest of district employees. A school should not be impaired in its ability to serve families by an evaluation system negotiated to protect the jobs of poor performers.

In school districts across the country, superintendents have no choice but to accept the teacher evaluation system codified in local teacher union contracts. This practice has become the norm over the past 20 years, resulting in weak evaluation systems in district after district. Meanwhile, even the most forward-thinking superintendents rarely have the political backing to negotiate better systems, since school board elections can be easily influenced by highly motivated union organizers. In this way, unions often hold a controlling interest in both sides of the negotiating table. This conflict of interest creates a barrier to developing and implementing meaningful evaluations that are based on what practices will most benefit the students. By including teachers in the evaluation process and simultaneously taking it off the bargaining table, districts will have new opportunities to build on teachers' strengths, drive professionalism, and demand great results for their students.

The bottom line is: When we ask, "What is right for students and their families?" it is clear that we must evaluate teachers based on their effectiveness.