Teacher Evaluation With Multiple and Variable Lines of Evidence

Abstract

Teacher evaluation is key to understanding effective teacher practice, rewarding excellent performance, and improving training programs. Yet the current practice of principal visits and reports does not promise to promote reforms for teachers or teacher educators. In this study six lines of evidence of teaching impact or value were developed and tested with 281 K-12 classroom teachers. Teachers selected a minimum of four lines for promotion in a career ladder system. Administrator reports showed low variation and correlations with other measures. Student reports, parent surveys, and teacher tests produced sufficient variance for decisionmaking and moderate correlations with other measures. Professional activity and years of experience showed erratic relations. In general, the lines of evidence showed independence, suggesting that multiple measures may have tapped different constructs of quality.

Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness: Evidence from New York City

“…This estimation of a teacher's value-added is a fairly standard procedure and follows closely the method described in . However, rather than obtain a single estimate of teacher value-added using all years of data, we run a series of regressions, each of which uses two years of data, and the residuals from each regression are used to produce estimates for a single cohort of first-year 4 Most studies of subjective evaluations by different groups-principals, peer teachers, students, parents, and the teachers themselves-only examine correlations among these measures (e.g., Epstein (1985), Peterson (1987)). We know of two studies that examine the relation between multiple subjective evaluations and teacher effectiveness (Anderson (1954) and Wilkerson (2000)), but both are based on very small samples.…”

Effectiveness of the North Carolina teacher performance appraisal system

“…The preferences of teachers and evaluators for a 5-point or 6-point scale addresses concerns about inflated ratings that are frequently noted in the literature (Wise et al, 1984;Peterson, 1987). It may be that 3-point or 4-point scales "force" evaluators to assign the highest available rating by not allowing finer discrimination, Frequently (5) Conslstently (6) especially at the upper end of the scale.…”

Parent Surveys for Teacher Evaluation

“…Dwyer (1995) discussed the expectation of communicating with parents about student learning as contained in the Educational Testing Service Praxis III Professional Assessments. Peterson (1984Peterson ( , 1987Peterson ( , 2000 added to these expectations the opportunity for teachers to be partners with parents by giving them ideas for home support of learning, e.g., reading with them, creating places to do homework, or simply listening to them. He also recommended the use of a global satisfaction rating item (Boverall satisfaction with this teacher'') to be included because of the stakeholder status of parents.…”