1. Building School Capacity Through Teacher Evaluation Susan Moore Johnson Harvard Graduate School of Education Project on the Next Generation of Teachers Chicago Schools Policy Luncheon Series November 1, 2010

2. Generational Shift in the Teaching Force 1986 0-910-1920+ Sources: National Education Association, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001. National Center for Education, Schools and Staffing Survey, 2003-04. 2004 0-910-1920+ 2001 0-910-1920+ 1971 0-910-1920+

6. The New Generation of Teachers  Hired in a job market with many options  Anticipate serial careers and short-term commitments  Are traditionally and alternatively prepared Include first-career and mid-career entrants

7. Professional Preferences of Two Generations Retiring Privacy Autonomy Equal treatment Career development within the classroom Early Career Teamwork Flexibility Opportunities for advancement Career development beyond the classroom

8. Alternative Ways to Assess Effectiveness Student achievement –Standardized test scores –Alternative measures Teaching performance –Classroom observations  Both are needed and both require further work

9. Limitations of Value-Added Assessments Based on standardized tests, which measure only part of what teachers are expected to do Unstable from year to year Are influenced by student assignment and tracking Don’t account for shared responsibility in teaching students Current data limit the use of V-A to grades 3-5 in literacy and math; this includes ~ 30% of teachers K-12

10. Using Value-Added to Identify the “Best” and “Worst” Teachers Provides teachers with no information about how to improve. Creates disincentives for teachers to work in low- performing schools or teach low-performing students. Interferes with team teaching and collaboration. Does nothing to promote learning and growth among all teachers.

11. Standards-Based Evaluations Specify elements of effective practice Provide descriptive rubrics for each element at several levels of performance (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished) Require extensive training for both teachers and evaluators in how to use them validly, reliably, and meaningfully

12. Develop the Individual and the Organization Encourage evaluators to make sound, informed decisions about specific teachers (rehiring, awarding tenure, dismissing them) and Increase the quality of instruction across the school by using the evaluation process to promote learning among teachers.

13. The New Teacher Project’s Widget Effect: Administrators do not use evaluations effectively > 99% teachers rated satisfactory 75% of evaluated teachers get no feedback 57% of new teachers (years 1-3) had no areas identified for improvement 41% of administrators had never denied a teacher tenure Respondents report 5-8% teachers in their schools are unsatisfactory; yet dismissal rates <1%-0%

14. An Alternative: Use Peer Evaluators Supplement principals’ work with assessments by master teachers (D.C.) Assign full responsibility for assessment to expert teachers (Cincinnati) Rely on expert teachers to provide both support and assessment in PAR (Cincinnati; Montgomery County, MD; Columbus OH)

15. What is PAR? Expert Consulting Teachers intensively assist and eventually evaluate –All novice teachers –Tenured teachers not meeting standards Collaboratively governed by a labor- management PAR Panel Assures due process and has been shown to increase both retention and dismissal rates

16. Additional Information Project on the Next Generation of Teachers: www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt User’s Guide to Peer Assistance and Review www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par