1. CPRE Research on Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation National Conference on Teacher Compensation and Evaluation Chicago, Illinois November 29, 2001 Herbert Heneman & Anthony Milanowski

2. Oft-Cited Problems with Traditional Teacher Evaluation u Low validity/subjectivity u Procedural rather than substantive emphasis u Limited attention to instruction u Low utility to teachers u Teacher mistrust/apathy

3. Some Causes of These Problems: u Lack of explicit standards and rubrics u Often not based on up-to-date model of practice u Dependence on 1-2 classroom observations u Limited training/expertise of evaluators u Pass/fail nature doesn’t help teachers improve

4. Standards-Based Evaluation Addresses Some of These Problems u Comprehensive competency model reflecting current consensus on good teaching u Explicit standards and rubrics provide more guidance to teachers and evaluators u Multiple levels of performance rather than pass/fail u More frequent observations & other lines of evidence u Opportunity & vocabulary for professional dialog u Evaluator training

5. How Do Standards-Based Systems Work in Practice? CPRE research: u 5 sites : 4 districts & 1 charter school u 4 used adaptations of Framework u Interviews in all, surveys in 4 sites

6. Teacher Reactions u Understanding and Acceptance u Perceived Fairness u Utility u Workload and Stress u Session and System Satisfaction

7. Evaluators u Acceptance of system adequate to good –But some don’t follow the process u Most concerned about extra workload u Many provide only limited feedback (confirmation) u Agreement in multi-evaluator systems moderate to good

8. System Issues u Some things are hard to observe u Content underemphasized in some systems u Portfolios: perceived as burdensome and requirements unclear u Teacher self-development effort in “off years” not high u Links to PD and other HR systems not yet established

9. Conclusions u Standards-based evaluation a big step forward –Teachers understand models and see them as legitimate –Teachers generally see process as fair »Explicit expectations »More evidence »Greater sense of process control

10. Conclusions u Validity –More evidence & more systematic use of evidence –Evaluators can be trained to have a uniform frame of reference u Potential improving practice partly realized –Clearer expectations & impetus for reflection –Some teachers and evaluators report concrete changes –Formative aspects stronger for new vs. veteran teachers

11. Conclusions u Standards-based evaluation is evolution, not revolution u Implementation dominates instrumentation

12. Implementation Issues u Think through and pilot to avoid mid-stream changes u Constant communication on procedural and substantive topics u Training needs to be more than just providing information u Need one person responsible for managing implementation

13. Implementation Issues u May need to pay more attention to evaluator feedback –Teacher expectations for useful feedback raised –Feedback is the link between assessment and improvement

14. Next Steps I: Improved Assessment Approaches u More emphasis on content/pedagogical content knowledge (compare INTASC) –Adds a “3 rd dimension” to standards like the Framework that emphasize classroom management and general pedagogy u Focus assessment on standards-based instructional units u Highly-structured portfolios with videos replacing some or all observations

15. Next Steps II: Performance Management u Instructional Leaders: Roles –Assessor –Feedback Provider –Goal Setter –Developmental Coach

16. Performance Management u Moving Instructional Leaders into These Roles: –Sources of Instructional Leaders –Recruitment and Selection –Training –Incentives

17. Performance Management & The Human Resources System Building the Architecture Foundation – the Competency Model Vertical Alignment with District Goals Horizontal Alignment among HR Systems