Abstract
This chapter describes the results from an empirical study of how educators in Washington State are implementing a new teacher evaluation system that requires the use of student growth measures. The study draws from case study work in six districts and 19 schools over a two-year period, using a concurrent mixed-methods design. Particular attention is paid to how the development of student growth goals and the collection of multiple forms of evidence to assess student growth have impacted teachers’ professional learning. Challenges faced by teachers in developing student growth measures appropriate for their students are discussed. The chapter addresses the intersection of policy and practice in seeking to understand the issues faced by educators as they implement a dramatically different evaluation system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ballou, D., & Springer, M. (2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 77–86.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Braun, H. (2015). The value in value-added depends on the ecology. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 127–131.
Cohen, D., & Hill, H. (2008). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35–39.
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Kappan, 93(6), 8–15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gitomer, D., Bell, C., Qi, Y., McCaffrey, D., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2014). The instructional challenge in improving teaching quality: Lessons from a classroom observation tool. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–32.
Goe, L., Biggers, K., & Croft, A. (2012). Linking teacher evaluation to professional development: Focusing on improving teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Goe, L., & Holdheide, L. (2011). Measuring teachers’ contributions to student learning growth for nontested grades and subjects. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., et al. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104.
Guarino, C. M., Maxfield, M., Reckase, M. D., Thompson, P. N., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). An evaluation of empirical Bayes’s estimation of value-added teacher performance measures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(2), 190–222.
Hargreaves, A., & Braun, H. (2013). Data-driven improvement and accountability. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/data-driven-improvement-accountability
Harris, D. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know. Boston, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Harris, D. (2009). Would accountability based on teacher value-added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 319–350.
Herlihy, C., Karger, E., Pollard, C., Hill, H., Kraft, M., Williams, M., et al. (2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–28. http://www.tcrecord.org/library ID Number: 17292.
Isore, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working Paper. Paris: OECD.
Kersting, N., Chen, M., & Stigler, J. (2012). Value-added teacher estimates as part of teacher evaluations: Exploring the effects of data and model specifications on the stability of teacher value-added scores. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 21(7), 1–39. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1167
Humphrey, D., Koppich, J., Bland, J., & Bosetti, K. (2011). Peer review: Getting serious about teacher support and evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Lavigne, A. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116 (1). http//www.tcrecord.org/library ID Number: 17294.
Looney, L. (2011). Developing high-quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. European Journal of Education, 46(4), 440–455.
Malen, B., Rice, J. K., Matlach, L. K. B., Bowsher, A., Hoyer, K. M., & Hyde, L. H. (2015). Developing organizational capacity for implementing complex education reform initiatives: Insights from a multiyear study of a Teacher Incentive Fund program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 133–176.
McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J., Koretz, D., & Mihaly, K. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 572–606.
McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD.
Papay, J. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123–141.
Raudenbush, S. (2015). Value added: A case study in the mismatch between education research and policy. Educational Researcher, 44, 138–141.
Reardon, S., & Raudenbush, S. (2009). Assumptions of value-added models for estimating school effects. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 492–519.
Steinberg, M. P., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340–359.
Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
Spillane, J., Reiser, B., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Steele, J., Hamilton, L., & Stecher, B. (2010). Incorporating student performance measures into teacher evaluation systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Plecki, M.L., Elfers, A.M., John, E.S., Yeh, T.L. (2016). Practitioners’ Responses to Washington’s Required Use of Student Growth Measures in Teacher Evaluation. In: Kappler Hewitt, K., Amrein-Beardsley, A. (eds) Student Growth Measures in Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53901-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53901-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53900-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53901-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)