Putting teacher evaluation systems on the map: An overview of states' teacher evaluation systems post–Every Student Succeeds Act

Abstract

The Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA) loosened the federal policy grip over states’ teacher accountability systems. We present information, collected via surveys sent to state department of education personnel, about all states’ teacher evaluation systems post–ESSA, while also highlighting differences before and after ESSA. We found that states have decreased their use of growth or value-added models (VAMs) within their teacher evaluation systems. In addition, many states are offering more alternatives for measuring the relationships between student achievement and teacher effectiveness besides using test score growth. State teacher evaluation plans also contain more language supporting formative teacher feedback. States are also allowing districts to develop and implement more unique teacher evaluation systems, while acknowledging challenges with states’ being able to support varied systems, as well as incomparable data across schools and districts in effect.

“Houston, We Have a Lawsuit”: A Cautionary Tale for the Implementation of Value-Added Models for High-Stakes Employment Decisions

“…To be sure, there are indicators that the use of VAMs across states and school districts is on the decline, overall (Close, Amrein-Beardsley, & Collins, 2020; Ross et al, 2017) and at least in part as explained by ESSA (2016). However, current evidence also indicates that many states and school districts continue to use VAMs state- and districtwide (Close et al, 2020; see also Ross et al, 2017). Moreover, given the human and financial capital already invested in their use (e.g., via Race to the Top [2011] and No Child Left Behind waivers [U.S.…”

“…Beyond reason, evidence more specifically suggests that educational policymakers and leaders in some states and school districts continue to promote the use of VAM data to make high-stakes personnel decisions (e.g., merit pay, tenure, and contract nonrenewal), precisely the types of decisions at issue in Houston . For example, although states have granted school districts more local control over districts’ teacher evaluation systems since ESSA, 12 states still allow or encourage districts to make teacher termination decisions solely 6 or primarily on the basis of their VAM data, and 23 states allow or encourage such decisions per a combination of districts’ VAM and other evaluative (e.g., observational) data (Close et al, 2020). In addition, states that were using the EVAAS before ESSA have continued to use it since (e.g., EVAAS in Ohio, North Carolina, and South Carolina; the Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System in Pennsylvania; the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System in Tennessee; the Texas Value-Added Assessment System in Texas).…”

“…First, we highlight the major concerns of VAMs in the research, particularly those related to VAM use in high-stakes employment decisions because these themes were echoed in Houston and other federal cases. Although states and school districts were (and still are; Close et al, 2020) using VAM output alongside other teacher evaluation measures such as observations, and these measures can be similarly criticized for their statistical and pragmatic shortcomings (see, e.g., Gill, Shoji, Coen, & Place, 2016; Weisberg et al, 2009), the lawsuits detailed in Education Week (“Teacher Evaluation Heads to the Courts,” 2015), including Houston , directly pertain to states’ and school districts’ uses of VAMs only. 7 As such, we recognize but do not review the literature surrounding the systemic observations of teachers (see, e.g., Anderson, 2013; Goldring et al, 2015; Jiang, Sporte, & Luppescu, 2015; Steinberg & Garrett, 2016; Winerip, 2011).…”

Policies and practices of promise in teacher evaluation: The introduction to the special issue

“…Likewise, the significance of understanding these lessons, for states and districts no longer under federal mandates post-ESSA (2016) is even more important, so that states and districts might avoid lawsuits themselves, especially if policy prone to the attachment of high-stakes consequences to VAM-based teacher evaluation output. In addition, even though evidence suggests that the use (and abuse) of VAMs is declining across states (see, for example, Close, Amrein-Beardsley, & Collins, 2020;Ross & Walsh, 2019), several states do still require or permit them, making their continued assessments, especially in terms of the law, relevant. For example, across the cases reviewed in this piece, Paige notes that plaintiffs were generally unsuccessful on theories arising under the substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.…”

“…Hence, and now four years post-ESSA (2016), perhaps unsurprisingly, states' educational policies, systems, and practices surrounding teacher evaluation are changing, or are beginning to change (Close, Amrein-Beardsley, & Collins, 2020;Ross & Walsh, 2019). Again, this is occurring because ESSA (2016) has allowed states to recover power and authorities over these areas.…”