Educator Evaluation Policy that Incorporates EVAAS Value-Added Measures: Undermined Intentions and Exacerbated Inequities

Abstract

Abstract:In the United States, policies in forty states and D.C. incorporate student growth measures -estimates of student progress attributed to educators -into educator evaluation. The federal government positions such policies as levers for ensuring that more students are taught by effective teachers and that effective educators are more equitably distributed amongst schools. Because these policies are new, little is known about how educators respond to them. Mixed methods survey data from a large, diverse district in North Carolina, a state that incorporates valueadded data into teacher evaluations, indicate that substantive, unintended effects may undermine the purposes for which these policies were developed. Results indicate that educators evaluated by value-added are generally opposed to its use. Those who have previously been evaluated by valueadded have significantly more negative perceptions about the fairness and accuracy of value-added, are more opposed to its use in educator evaluation, and are more likely to perceive that it will not result in more equitable distribution of good educators across schools and that educators will avoid working with certain students because of value-added. Respondents perceived effects of the use of value-added for teacher accountability that fall within five themes: 1) Educators increasingly game the system and teach to the test, 2) Teachers increasingly leave the field, 3) Some educators seek to avoid working with certain students and at certain schools, 4) Educators feel an increase in stress, epaa aape

Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction

“…Beyond the basic features of the design and implementation of these supportive practices, we also found that the degree to which teachers experienced positive changes in their practice from evaluation was also related to their satisfaction-over two-and-one-half tenths of a standard deviation for every unit increase in perceptions of positive change. As with prior research, these findings suggest that teachers who find utility in the feedback they receive and can use this information to improve their practice are more likely to be satisfied with the work they are doing and with their place in the profession (Ford et al, 2017;Hewitt, 2015;Ingersoll et al, 2016;Longo-Schmid, 2016).…”

“…Though the evidence on performance or "merit" based pay is mixed, several recent experimental evaluation studies revealed limited, if any, change in student achievement, teacher motivation, attitudes, or instructional practice over time (Marsh et al, 2011;Springer et al, 2012;Yuan et al, 2013). Furthermore, recent scholarship has revealed some unintended consequences of current U.S. teacher evaluation policy, such as: lack of support and/or guidance in the use of teacher evaluation results (Amrein-Beardsley & Collins, 2012;Ford et al, 2017); lack of validity and/or reliability (either real or perceived) of evaluation results (Darling-Hammond et al, 2012;Ford et al, 2016;Jiang, Sporte, & Luppescu, 2015;Longo-Schmid, 2016;Reddy et al, 2017); and evidence of increase in adverse affective states for teachers subjected to high-stakes evaluation, such as high stress and anxiety as well as decreased job satisfaction, professional commitment, and turnover (Ford et al, 2017;Hewitt, 2015;Holloway & Brass, 2017;Ingersoll et al, 2016;Jiang et al, 2015).…”

Better integrating summative and formative goals in the design of next generation teacher evaluation systems

“…Because it has these characteristics, the information generated from SSPs is much more likely to be relevant to a teacher's classroom practice (in the sense that teachers select the standard/s, instructional practices, and means of assessment) than measuring growth by using standardized tests and situates more choice and control in the hands of the teacher (Farrell & Marsh, 2016;Huguet et al, 2017). Additionally, numerous studies (e.g., Eckert, 2016;Ford, 2018;Hewitt, 2015;Rice & Malen, 2016) indicate that educators generally struggle to understand how to interpret teacher effectiveness scores that are produced through student growth measures and value-added models (VAM), while the implications of the results of student learning objectives, if they are developed by teachers themselves, are more likely to be self-evident.…”

“…Athough many aspects of teacher evaluation systems have ostensibly been improved over recent years, numerous studies reveal that some old, persistent challenges remain: lack of support and/or guidance in the use of teacher evaluation results (Amrein-Beardsley & Collins, 2012;Ford, Van Sickle, Clark, Fazio-Brunson, & Schween, 2017); lack of validity and/or reliability (either real or perceived) of evaluation results (Darling-Hammond et al, 2012;Ford, Van Sickle, & Fazio-Brunson, 2016;Kappler-Hewitt, 2015;Jiang et al, 2015;Longo-Schmid, 2016;Reddy et al, 2017); and evidence of increase in stress and anxiety as a result of engaging in teacher evaluation (Ford et al, 2017;Hewitt, 2015;Holloway & Brass, 2017;Ingersoll et al, 2016;Jiang et al, 2015). While disparate, these recent findings of teacher evaluation in practice have one thing in common: They reflect a series of consequences that might plausibly emerge from evaluation systems which do not, to a large enough extent, prioritize the needs of teachers or, at the very least, fail to maximize the benefits they receive from participation.…”

Evaluating the Tennessee Higher Education Commission's Report Card on the value-added estimates of teacher preparation programs

“…Since the implementation of TVAAS a large variety of value added statistical models (i.e., the Value-Added Research Center (VARC) model, the RAND Corporation model, the American Institute for Research (AIR) model, and the Stude nt Growth Percentiles (SGP) model) have been developed and applied (Amrein-Beardsley & Collins, 2012). In addition to the development and widespread adoption of these growth models there has been a surge in the research base providing analysis of the benefits, drawbacks, costs, and implications of these new methods (Darling-Hammond et al, 2012;Hewitt, 2015;Pullin, 2013;Sparks, 2011). In general these growth models are very complex and highly technical, and there are concerns that policymakers, administrators, teachers and other stakeholders will struggle to understand the pros and cons of so many different and complex approaches.…”