[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RAISING THE BAR: HOW ARE SCHOOLS MEASURING TEACHER PERFORMANCE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 28, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-991 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Barrett Karr, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
John Kline, Minnesota Carolyn McCarthy, New York,
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Kenny Marchant, Texas Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Susan A. Davis, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Martha Roby, Alabama Jared Polis, Colorado
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 28, 2013................................ 1
Statement of Members:
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Cantrell, Steve, chief research officer, Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation................................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Harper, Emanuel F. IV, French teacher, Herron High School,
Indianapolis, IN........................................... 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
McIntyre, Dr. James P., Jr., superintendent, Knox County
Schools, Knoxville, TN..................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Watson, Dr. Rodney E., chief human resources officer, Houston
Independent School District, Houston, TX................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Additional Submissions:
Chairman Rokita, question submitted for the record to:
Mr. Cantrell............................................. 36
Mr. Harper............................................... 37
Dr. McIntyre............................................. 37
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia, question submitted for the
record to:
Mr. Cantrell............................................. 37
Mr. Harper............................................... 37
Dr. McIntyre............................................. 38
Dr. Watson............................................... 38
Witnesses responses to questions submitted:
Mr. Cantrell............................................. 38
Mr. Harper............................................... 39
Dr. McIntyre............................................. 40
Dr. Watson............................................... 41
RAISING THE BAR: HOW ARE SCHOOLS MEASURING TEACHER PERFORMANCE?
----------
Thursday, February 28, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Petri, Foxx, Roe,
Thompson, McCarthy, Scott, Davis, Polis, and Sablan.
Staff present: Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education
and Human Services Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff
Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General
Counsel; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Dan Shorts,
Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary;
Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter,
Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor;
Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator;
Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Meg Benner,
Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly Broughan, Minority
Education Policy Associate; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of
Education Policy; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/
New Media Coordinator; Megan O'Reilly, Minority General
Counsel; and Michael Zola, Minority Senior Counsel.
Chairman Rokita. A quorum being present, the subcommittee
will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing on
teacher performance measurements. I would like to thank our
witnesses for joining us today to share their valuable insight
on ways states and local school districts are working to ensure
effective educators in our classrooms.
Teachers are one of the most influential factors on a
student's academic success. I don't think I even need to say
that. I am sure I am not the only one in this room that can
remember the teachers who inspired and motivated us as
children. And now that I am a father of two boys I am again
seeing firsthand the difference an engaging teacher can make on
a child's desire and ability to learn.
Over the next few months we will renew our efforts to
address the challenges facing K-12 schools, and what better
place to start than to discuss how states, school districts,
and schools are evaluating teachers and exploring more
innovative strategies that can help improve the academic
success of children?
We all agree No Child Left Behind helped the nation take
enormous steps toward a better education system, but we now
recognize the law's shortfalls. One primary concern for many of
us in this room is the way the law defined, quote-unquote--
``good teachers.''
No Child Left Behind's rigid ``Highly Qualified Teacher''
provisions require educators to have a bachelor's degree, hold
a state certification or license, and be able to demonstrate
knowledge of the subject matter they plan to teach. That all
sounds reasonable and great in theory, but in reality it meant
schools were forced to value an educator's credentials over his
or her ability to effectively and successfully teach children.
And we all want qualified teachers in the classroom but we must
also recognize that a teacher's excellence cannot be measured
simply by degrees and diplomas alone.
Recognizing the antiquated ``Highly Qualified Teacher''
requirements alone weren't helping schools attract the most
promising teachers to the classroom, some states and school
districts have been working to implement alternative methods to
better evaluate the effectiveness of their teachers. In recent
years a growing number of states and school districts have
started developing new teacher evaluation systems that
incorporate multiple measures and student performance data. Not
only does this data help measure a teacher's success in the
classroom, it also provides educators with valuable feedback to
analyze and refine their methods.
As a representative from the great state of Indiana, I am
particularly pleased to welcome one of our Hoosier educators as
a witness today and look forward to hearing his insights about
the importance of teacher evaluation at the local level.
In addition, in 2011 Tennessee became one of the first
states in the country to implement a comprehensive student-
outcomes-based evaluation system. This system uses traditional
measures, such as teacher observations and personal
conferences, but places significant emphasis on student
achievement data. Additionally, the new system prevents
ineffective educators from staying in the classroom by directly
addressing teacher tenure laws and the ``last in, first out''
policies that seem prevalent.
Within 1 year of implementing its new evaluation system,
Tennessee students made the biggest single-year jump in
achievement ever recorded in that state.
In my home state of Indiana, the general assembly approved
legislation that calls upon school districts to create their
own plans for annual performance evaluations or adopt one
recommended by the state. The law sets requirements that every
school must meet but provides districts with resources and
flexibility to find the methods that will help them meet those
requirements.
This is similar to a proposal based--passed out of this
committee last Congress as part of our ESEA reform efforts, and
I hope we will again consider such innovative policies in the
113th Congress.
I am looking forward to a productive conversation this
morning very similar, I hope, to our last committee hearing
here with my colleagues and our witness panel about the way
states and school districts are continuing to think outside of
the box when it comes to recruiting, retaining, measuring, and
supporting the most effective educators in the classroom.
And now I will recognize my distinguished colleague,
Carolyn McCarthy, for her opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing on teacher
performance measurements. I'd like to thank our witnesses for joining
us today to share their valuable insight on ways states and local
school districts are working to ensure effective educators are in the
classroom.
Teachers are one of the most influential factors on a student's
academic success. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this room that can
remember the teachers who inspired and motivated me as a child. And now
that I'm a father of two boys, I am again seeing firsthand the
difference an engaging teacher can make on a child's desire and ability
to learn.
Over the next few months, we will renew our efforts to address the
challenges facing K-12 schools.
What better place to start than to discuss how states, school
districts, and schools are evaluating teachers and exploring more
innovative strategies that can help improve the academic success of
children.
We all agree No Child Left Behind helped the nation take enormous
steps toward a better education system, but we now recognize the law's
shortfalls. One primary concern for many of us in this room is the way
the law defined ``good'' teachers.
No Child Left Behind's rigid ``Highly Qualified Teacher''
provisions require educators to have a bachelor's degree, hold a state
certification or license, and be able to demonstrate knowledge of the
subject matter they plan to teach. That all sounds great in theory, but
in reality it meant schools were forced to value an educator's
credentials over his or her ability to effectively and successfully
teach our children.
We all want well-qualified teachers in the classroom, but we must
also recognize that a teacher's excellence cannot be measured by
degrees and diplomas.
Recognizing the antiquated ``Highly Qualified Teacher''
requirements alone weren't helping schools attract the most promising
teachers to the classroom, some states and school districts have been
working to implement alternative methods to better evaluate the
effectiveness of their teachers.
In recent years, a growing number of states and school districts
have started developing new teacher evaluation systems that incorporate
multiple measures and student performance data.Not only does this data
help measure a teacher's success in the classroom, it also provides
educators with valuable feedback to analyze and refine their methods.
As a representative from the great state of Indiana, I am particularly
pleased to welcome one of our Hoosier educators as a witness today, and
look forward to hearing his insights about the importance of teacher
evaluation at the local level.
In 2011, Tennessee became one of the first states in the country to
implement a comprehensive student-outcomes based evaluation system.
This system uses traditional measures such as teacher observations and
personal conferences, but places significant emphasis on student
achievement data.
______
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you again for calling this hearing. It is very important as we
go forward.
So, I also want to thank our panel of witnesses, especially
bright and early. Usually we start around 10 and that
difference one of--1 hour is appreciated by all of us on the
last day.
I do want to make a note that even before we dive into
teacher performance and evaluation we have a duty to revisit
teacher standards in general to ensure the best and the
brightest are educating our children. This commitment begins at
a very early age, and I am currently working on legislation
that will encourage states to follow best practices in early
education and commit to hiring teachers with at least a
bachelor's degree.
With that being said, it goes without saying that
evaluating teacher performance is a tricky issue. There are
many factors aside from student achievement that come into play
when judging a teacher's performance. These factors include but
not are limited to: classroom environment, classroom resources,
or school leader involvement. Let me break down what I mean by
each of these.
Classroom environment: Where schools are located and the
make-up of the class all play important factors when we discuss
teachers' performance. Classroom resources: How much funding
local schools are getting, both federally and locally, affect
how teachers are able to do their work.
Last but not least, school leader involvement, too: Too
often our school leadership gets off the hook in
underperforming schools. We need to take a look at how teachers
are being supported by their school boards and administrators
when conducting any evaluation of performance.
While taking these three factors into consideration we must
also recognize several important points about evaluation.
Evaluations must be done frequently, with discretion, and with
the input and corroboration of teachers. Evaluation systems
must allow for teacher improvement and they must be refreshed
periodically to ensure their effectiveness.
Additionally, evaluators should be familiar with the
localities they are working in. As with most issues involving
school performance and standards, there must be a reasonable
level of flexibility for states and localities to provide
effective services.
The other week, when this subcommittee, as the chairman had
mentioned, addressing the issue of technology and innovation in
the classrooms, we heard testimony from Mr. Smith from
Rocketship Education. He noted that in his classroom, teachers
receive real-time feedback through the headset. I am not
suggesting that this is the solution for every classroom, but
it is precisely that kind of outside-of-the-box thinking that
needs to be explored when it comes to teacher evaluation.
Any legislation that this committee endorses should provide
a measure of flexibility. One bill I plan on reintroducing this
Congress that provides such flexibility is the Teacher and the
Principal Improvement Act. The bill provides grants to
localities for the purpose of professional development and
evaluation.
We, as members of Congress, do not have all the answers. We
rely on testimony, our own professional experiences, and our
beliefs to guide us through this process.
I look forward to hearing from the panel and thank you,
again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding another important hearing geared
toward improving our schools nationwide.
I also want to thank our panel of witnesses for joining us bright
and early today--we all appreciate your time.
I do want to make a note that even before we dive into teacher
performance and evaluation, we have a duty to revisit teacher standards
in general to ensure the best and brightest are educating our children.
This commitment begins at an early age and I am currently working
on legislation that will encourage states to follow best practices in
early education and commit to hiring teachers with at least a
bachelor's degree.
With that said, it goes without saying that evaluating teacher
performance is a tricky issue.
There are many factors aside from student achievement that come
into play when judging a teacher's performance.
These factors include, but are not limited to:
Classroom Environment;
Classroom Resources;
and School Leader Involvement.
Let me breakdown what I mean by each of these.
Classroom Environment: where schools are located and the makeup of
the class all play important factors when we discuss teacher
performance.
Classroom Resources: how much funding local schools are getting
both federally and locally effect how teachers are able to do their
work.
Last but not least, School Leader Involvement: too often our school
leadership gets off the hook in underperforming schools.
We need to take a look at how teachers are being supported by their
school boards and administrators when conducting any evaluation of
performance.
While taking these three factors into consideration, we must also
recognize several important points about evaluation.
Evaluation systems must be done frequently, with discretion and
with the input and collaboration of teachers.
Evaluation systems must allow for teacher improvement and they must
be refreshed periodically to ensure their effectiveness.
Additionally, evaluators should be familiar with the localities
they are working in.
As with most issues involving school performance and standards--
there must be a reasonable level of flexibility for states and
localities to provide effective services.
The other week, when this Subcommittee was addressing the issue of
technology and innovation in classrooms, we heard testimony from Mr.
Smith from Rocketship Education.
He noted that in his classrooms teachers receive real-time feedback
through a headset.
I'm not suggesting that that is the solution for every classroom,
but it is precisely that kind of outside of the box thinking that needs
to be explored when it comes to teacher evaluation.
Any legislation that this Committee endorses should provide for a
measure of flexibility.
One bill that I plan on reintroducing this Congress that provides
such flexibility is the Teacher and Principal Improvement Act.
The bill provides grants to localities for the purposes of
professional development and evaluation.
We, as Members of Congress, do not have all the answers.
We rely on testimony, our own professional experiences and our
beliefs to guide us through this process.
I look forward to hearing from the panel.
I yield back, thank you.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow
statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the
official hearing record.
And now it is my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
panel of witnesses. First, Dr. Steve Cantrell is the chief
resource officer for research and evaluation at the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, where he manages grants and contracts
focused on teaching effectiveness, including the Measures of
Effective Teaching, the MET project.
Thank you for being here.
And I will turn to Dr. Roe to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And appropriately dressed in his orange tie from Knoxville,
Tennessee, would be Dr. Jim McIntyre, superintendent of the
Knoxville County School System. Dr. McIntyre served as the
superintendent of the Knox County Schools--does serve.
Prior to his appointment in 2008 Dr. McIntyre served as the
budget director and chief operating officer for the Boston
Public School System. During Dr. McIntyre's tenure the Boston
Public Schools were named one of the top-performing urban
school systems in the nation.
Earlier in his career he taught English, anatomy, and
physical education at the Vincent Gray Alternative High School
in East St. Louis, Illinois. Dr. McIntyre has served on
numerous state-level working groups aimed at enhancing public
education and was selected as a fellow in the Broad Foundation
Superintendents Academy, an intensive 10-month fellowship in
urban public school superintendency.
Welcome, Dr. McIntyre.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Dr. Roe.
We also have with us Dr. Rodney Watson. He is the chief of
human resources for the Houston Independent School District. He
has served in several positions related to juvenile corrections
and student support services.
Welcome.
And finally, Mr. Emanuel Harper is a French teacher at the
Herron High School, a public charter school in downtown
Indianapolis that I am familiar with. He is also an adjunct
faculty member at Marian University and a Teach Plus Policy
fellow.
Welcome.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony
let me briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have
5 minutes to present your testimony, and when you begin the
light in front of you, as you might expect, will turn green.
When there is 1 minute left it will be yellow, and then when
your time is expired the light will be red.
Sounds simple. Not necessarily always for us.
At that point I ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as
you are able, and after everyone has testified, members, of
course, will each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
So without further ado, I would like to recognize Dr.
Cantrell for 5 minutes, sir?
STATEMENT OF STEVE CANTRELL, CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER, BILL &
MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
Mr. Cantrell. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and
committee members, I am Steve Cantrell, chief research officer
at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and co-director of the
Measures of Effective Teaching project. Thank you for inviting
me to testify about the MET project.
The Measures of Effective Teaching project set out to
answer one question: Is it possible to measure teaching
effectiveness? The answer is yes.
Drawing upon data collected from over 3,000 teachers at 300
schools in six urban school districts, MET researchers, using a
design that included randomly assigning students to teachers,
demonstrated that effective teaching causes better learning.
There are teachers whose students consistently learn more and
teachers whose students consistently learn less.
MET proved that these results are due to differences in
teaching ability, not differences in student characteristics,
and that more and less effective teachers can be identified
through a combination of classroom observation, student
surveys, and student assessments. Indeed, the combination of
these measures does a far better job predicting teaching
effectiveness in raising student performance than master's
degrees or years of experience.
Furthermore, these measures have the potential to provide
teachers with much better feedback and more tailored supports.
Given these results, it is now time for school systems to put
into practice feedback and evaluation using multiple measures
that teachers can trust.
Alongside its findings, the MET project issued a second
report entitled ``Feedback for Better Teaching.'' In it are
nine principles to guide those who develop feedback and
evaluations systems. We organized the nine principles into
three categories: measure effective teaching, ensure high-
quality data, and invest in improvement.
As school systems set out to measure effective teaching
there are three important considerations. First, the measures
should emerge from and help establish expectations for what
constitutes effective teaching. Second, since no single measure
can fully capture the complexity of teaching, states and
districts should use multiple measures. And third, our research
demonstrated that balance is best when deciding how much
emphasis to place on any single measure.
As school systems collect effectiveness data there are
three important considerations for establishing and maintaining
trust in the data. First, the measures should be valid
predictors of student learning; second, the measurement should
be reliable; and third, when data are used for accountability
there should be a good match between the teacher's data and the
students' data.
As systems use effectiveness data it is important to
understand and communicate that improvement is the goal.
Relatively few teachers in the MET sample exhibited uniformly
poor or uniformly great practice. We found that most teachers
scored average, and yet they displayed different strengths and
different weaknesses.
Still, we know that average teaching is not good enough to
get all of our students career and college ready, and so
improvement is necessary. That most teachers are in the middle
means that school systems need to share the responsibility to
improve teaching by providing targeted and high-quality
support.
If teachers are to believe that the feedback and evaluation
system is designed to help them improve then these three
principles should be evident: First, a system built for
improvement will not exaggerate small differences, but the
performance categories will make meaningful distinctions
between teachers. Teachers in adjacent categories should have
demonstrably different impacts on student learning.
Second, a system built for feedback and improvement will
prioritize that in all its communications. And third, the
measures of effective teaching naturally focus on classrooms;
that information should be used at all levels of the system.
How else would a school system know what professional
development to offer which teachers and whether the
professional development investments make a difference to
improving teaching practice?
In closing, I want to reiterate one important point: Better
feedback and evaluation systems are essential to improving
teaching and learning. If done well, in ways that teachers can
trust, school systems can use this information to provide
better supports which, in turn, will lead to better performance
for students.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present.
[The statement of Dr. Cantrell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Cantrell, Chief Research Officer,
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and committee members, I
am Steve Cantrell, Chief Research Officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation and co-Director of the Measures of Effective Teaching
project. Thank you for inviting me to testify about the MET project, a
research study with great relevance for those who design and implement
teacher evaluation and feedback systems.
Overview
The Measures of Effective Teaching project set out to test if it is
possible to measure teaching effectiveness using multiple measures of a
teacher's performance. The answer is yes. Drawing upon data collected
from nearly 3,000 teachers from over 300 schools across six urban
school districts, MET researchers demonstrated that effective teaching
causes better learning. There are teachers whose students consistently
outperform their peers and teachers whose students consistently
underperform their peers. MET proved that these results are due to
differences in teaching ability rather than differences in student
characteristics, and that more and less effective teachers can be
identified through a combination of classroom observations, student
surveys, and evidence of student learning. These measures have the
potential to provide teachers with much better feedback and more
tailored supports to improve their practice and to help their students
succeed.
Data Collection and Findings
The study looked at several dimensions of teaching. This is
important because, as you know, teaching is complex and any single
measure cannot fully reflect all important aspects of teaching. We
measured four distinct aspects of teaching practice. We used two
different student assessments to measure student learning. We used five
different classroom observation protocols to assess the quality of
classroom teaching (we are, of course, not recommending that districts
adopt five different protocols). We tested teachers' ability to
represent, identify, and increase students' conceptual understandings.
Finally, we surveyed students themselves to assess how they experience
the instructional environment.
This work was conducted by some of the nation's finest researchers
and technical assistance providers using state-of-the-art methods and
technology. The researchers used a value-added model (VAM) to calculate
the differences between the actual and predicted performance of a
teacher's students on both state tests in math and ELA in grades 4
through 9 and an additional more cognitively challenging assessment in
the same grades and subjects. Classroom lessons were observed using
panoramic video cameras and scored by highly trained and certified
raters. The test of teacher knowledge and the student perception of the
instructional environment survey both built upon more than a decade of
prior research.
Preliminary MET findings demonstrated that three measures--student
assessments, classroom observations, and student surveys--helped
predict whether teachers would raise the performance of future groups
of students. Indeed, the combination of these measures does a far
better job predicting which teachers will succeed in raising student
performance than master's degrees and years of teaching experience.
In the study's second year, researchers took the unusual step to
randomly assign classes of students to teachers. We did this to see if
teachers previously identified as more effective based on these
measures actually caused students to learn more. Random assignment
allowed researchers to isolate teaching effectiveness from any
unmeasured student characteristics. Furthermore, the researchers
detected no bias in the teacher effectiveness estimates, as long as the
estimates were adjusted to account for differences in measured
students' characteristics, such as prior performance and demographics.
Final MET findings literally proved that effective teachers cause
their students to learn more. Furthermore, the final findings showed
that when combining measures into a single composite index, balanced
weights are best. Composites that weigh state test results between 33%
and 50% are more stable from year to year and better predict student
performance on higher order assessments than composites that place more
than 50% of the emphasis on state tests.
Nine Principles for Feedback and Evaluation Systems
It is now time for school systems to put into practice MET's
research findings by building and implementing feedback and evaluation
systems using multiple measures that teachers can trust. The MET
project's final report, Feedback for Better Teaching, provides 9
principles to guide school systems as they develop feedback and
evaluation systems. These 9 principles fall into three categories:
Measure Effective Teaching, Ensure High Quality Data, and Invest in
Improvement.
As school systems set out to measure effective teaching, there are
three important considerations. First, the measures should emerge from
and help establish expectations for what constitutes effective teaching
practice. Second, since no single measure of effectiveness can capture
the full complexity of teaching, states and districts should use
multiple measures. Third, our research demonstrated that balance is
best when considering how much emphasis to place upon any one measure
within a set of multiple measures.
As school systems collect effectiveness data, there are three
important considerations for establishing and maintaining trust in the
data. First, the measures should be valid predictors of increased
student learning. A school system enters into a bargain with its
teachers when it adopts a measure within an evaluation system. The
bargain states that if teachers work hard to improve on this measure,
then their students will be better learners. It is this bargain that
animates the feedback promise of multiple measures. By annually
validating each measure, the school system guarantees that effort
toward improving practice will not be wasted. Second, the measurement
process should be reliable. Teachers have been especially wary of
classroom observation processes because they perceive the process as
potentially subjective. MET project research discovered three ways to
increase reliability of classroom observation: test and certify raters,
have at least two raters observe each teacher, and observe at least two
lessons. Third, when data are used for accountability, it is essential
that the data match the right teachers with the right students. If the
data are mismatched then one could easily draw the wrong conclusion
about the effectiveness of a given teacher or school.
As school systems use effectiveness data, it is important to
understand and communicate that improvement is the goal. Relatively few
teachers in the MET sample exhibited uniformly poor or great practice
across all measures. The data led us to conclude that most teachers are
average, but for different reasons. Indeed, the majority of teachers
scored very close to the mean on both the classroom observation
instruments and on the survey of students' perceptions of the
instructional environment. Yet, we know that average teaching is not
good enough to help students achieve college and career success, so
improvement is necessary. The realization that most teachers are in the
middle means that school systems need to share the responsibility to
improve teaching by providing targeted, high quality support.
As school systems begin this work, there are three important
considerations for signaling an improvement-focused feedback and
evaluation system. First, a system built for improvement will not
exaggerate small differences, but will use performance categories to
make meaningful distinctions among teachers. Teachers in adjacent
categories should have demonstrably different impacts on student
learning. Otherwise, there is no need for the additional category.
Second, a system built for improvement will prioritize feedback and
support in all communications with stakeholders. Third, though measures
of effective teaching naturally focus on classrooms, the data from
these measures should be used for decision-making at all levels of the
school system. The measures will indicate areas where teachers need
better support and this data should be used to determine which
professional development to offer to which teachers and whether the
professional development investments in place are making a difference
to improve teaching practice. Furthermore, the measures will indicate
the schools where teaching is getting better over time. This seems like
a natural indicator of the quality of instructional leadership.
In closing, I want to reiterate one important point: Better
evaluation and feedback systems are essential to improving teaching and
learning. If done well, in ways that teachers can trust, these systems
will enable better teacher supports which, in turn, will lead to better
student performance.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present.
reports to accompany the written testimony
``Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching:
Culminating Findings from the MET Project's Three-Year Study,'' may be
accessed at the following internet address:
http://metproject.org/downloads/
MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf
``Feedback for Better Teaching: Nine Principles for Using Measures
of Effective Teaching,'' may be accessed at the following Internet
address:
http://metproject.org/downloads/
MET_Feedback%20for%20Better%20Teaching_Principles%20Paper.pdf
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. McIntyre, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES P. MCINTYRE, JR., SUPERINTENDENT, KNOX
COUNTY SCHOOLS
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member
McCarthy, members of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education. Good morning. My name is
Jim McIntyre and I have the privilege of serving as the
superintendent of the Knox County Schools in the great state of
Tennessee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning
to talk about this important issue.
Over the last 5 years Tennessee has embarked on a
remarkable journey of education reform and improvement.
Radically higher academic standards, support for performance-
based pay, fundamentally restructured teacher tenure, and the
introduction of an interest-based labor dialogue called
``collaborative conferencing'' are but a few of the significant
policy initiatives that have been put in place to enhance
schooling for our children.
But perhaps no other recent change has greater potential to
improve the quality of education in our state than the adoption
of a new teacher performance evaluation system.
Tennessee law requires, now, a performance evaluation of
every teacher every year, and at least 50 percent of that
evaluation must be based on student academic outcomes. The
Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model, or TEAM, as the standard
evaluation model is called, is based on multiple measures of
teacher effectiveness, incorporating elements of student
academic results, multiple observations of classroom practice,
and indicators of teacher professionalism.
The TEAM evaluation system features an excellent classroom
observation instrument, or rubric, as it is called, which
begins with a detailed and research-based definition of good
teaching and allows educators to understand how their
instruction measures up against a very rigorous standard. The
classroom observation protocol requires an objective assessment
based solely on the evidence an evaluator observes in the
classroom or during lesson-planning activities.
Our new teacher evaluation system, now in its second year,
has several important strengths. First, requiring every teacher
to be evaluated every year based on multiple classroom
observations connects the performance of our--the performance
evaluation of our teachers to the day-to-day work of teaching
students. This was not the case in the past, where performance
evaluation was an isolated and infrequent event which had, at
best, a marginal impact on student--excuse me, on instructional
practice.
Second, Tennessee's teacher performance evaluation system
incorporates both student achievement results--and student
achievement meaning measuring student learning at a point in
time--as well as value added growth outcomes, which is
measuring learning over a period of time, providing for a
reasonable picture of teacher effectiveness.
Third, I appreciate that a significant proportion of the
teacher evaluation is now based on student outcomes. This makes
sure that our focus is not just on teaching the material but
ensuring that students actually learn it.
Fourth, the approach we have taken in Knoxville, and
generally taken across the state of Tennessee, has been to
ensure that our evaluation system is a developmental process
rather than a punitive one. That is, the evaluation system
primarily is focused on helping our teachers to improve their
instructional practice.
Finally, I believe that our new evaluation system is well
aligned to the more in-depth and rigorous academic standards
that Tennessee has adopted and will better prepare our students
for success in today's increasingly complex and competitive
world.
I believe the power of TEAM and any strong performance
evaluation system is that it provides consistent and useful
information regarding teacher effectiveness that can be
utilized in human capital decisions, such as retention,
termination, promotion, tenure, appointment to teacher
leadership roles, and even compensation. In Knoxville we use
the data from teacher evaluations to support all of these
critical personnel decisions.
TEAM data is used to identify teachers who might need
additional assistance or teachers who could potentially be
effective peer evaluators, what we call lead teachers.
Evaluation information is an important factor in the decision
to terminate chronically ineffectual teachers and it is used to
discover potential candidates for consideration in school
leadership roles.
As I mentioned earlier, the state of Tennessee has
significantly restructured teacher tenure. In the past,
teachers were automatically granted tenure if they were on the
job for 3 years and 1 day. Now, new teachers in Tennessee are
not eligible for tenure until after 5 years of service and only
if they perform at one of the highest two levels on the new
evaluation system for 2 consecutive years.
In the Knox County Schools we have also developed a
strategic compensation, or performance-based pay, initiative
that relies heavily on the data from the teacher evaluation
system.
In the Knox County--and our outcomes have been very good,
and Chairman Rokita made reference to that. In the interest of
time I will leave that to the questioning, but our outcomes
have been very good for students, but our outcomes certainly
aren't where we would like them to be yet. But I do believe
that our teacher evaluation system is an important strategy in
our efforts to improve the quality of public education in
Knoxville and across the state of Tennessee.
Tennessee's teacher evaluation system is not perfect but it
is a vast improvement over our previous evaluation process, and
I think it will prove to be a very valuable professional growth
and instructional improvement tool.
[The statement of Dr. McIntyre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James P. McIntyre, Jr., Superintendent,
Knox County Schools, Knoxville, TN
Chairman Rokita, Members of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education, distinguished guests: My name is
Jim McIntyre, and I have the privilege of serving as the Superintendent
of the Knox County Schools in the great state of Tennessee. As the
public school system for Knoxville and its surrounding area, the Knox
County Schools is approximately the 75th largest school system in
America, serving more than 55,000 students from urban, suburban and
rural environments in 88 schools. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to be here this morning to discuss the important topic of
teacher performance evaluation.
Over the past five years, Tennessee has embarked on a remarkable
journey of education reform and improvement. Radically higher academic
standards, support for performance-based pay, fundamentally
restructured teacher tenure, and the introduction of an interest-based
labor dialogue called ``collaborative conferencing'' are but a few of
the significant policy initiatives that have been put in place to
enhance schooling for our children. But perhaps no other recent change
has greater potential to improve the quality of education in our state
than the adoption of a new teacher performance evaluation system.
Tennessee law now requires a performance evaluation of every
teacher, every year; and at least fifty percent of that evaluation must
be based on student academic outcomes. While district-specific plans
that meet these parameters can be approved in Tennessee, the standard
evaluation system is called the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model
or TEAM. The TEAM evaluation system is based on multiple measures of
teacher effectiveness, incorporating elements of student academic
results, multiple observations of classroom practice, and indicators of
teacher professionalism. This year we will even pilot using some
student feedback on a limited basis.
The TEAM evaluation system features an excellent classroom
observation instrument (or ``rubric'' as it is called), which begins
with a detailed and research-based definition of good teaching, and
allows educators to understand how their instruction measures up
against a very rigorous standard. The rubric incorporates specific
instructional practices that have been demonstrated to increase student
achievement. The classroom observation protocol requires an objective
assessment based solely on the evidence that an evaluator observes in
the classroom or during lesson-planning activities.
Our new teacher evaluation system, now in its second year, has
several important strengths:
First, requiring every teacher to be evaluated every year connects
the performance evaluation to the day-to-day work of teaching students.
In the past, teacher evaluations took place only twice every ten years
in Tennessee, and teachers felt this process was oddly separate from
their daily efforts in the classroom. Because it occurred so
infrequently, the previous evaluation system had, at best, a marginal
impact on instructional practice. With evaluation happening for every
teacher each year, it is now part of the daily work of the school.
Evaluation visits are routine and frequent, professional conversations
center around the instructional strategies in the rubric, and the
evaluation process can actually have a significant impact on improving
the quality of teaching in our schools.
Second, Tennessee's teacher performance evaluation system
incorporates both student achievement and academic growth outcome
measures. We are all familiar with student achievement data, which
gauges where a student measures against a particular standard at a
point in time, and is typically expressed as to whether the student is
deemed ``proficient'' in the subject matter for a particular grade
level.
But Tennessee also includes ``value-added'' growth measures as a
significant proportion of its evaluation system. Value-added growth, as
the name implies, measures student learning over time, and whether the
student exceeds or falls below the expected level of academic progress
over a specified period of time, usually a school year. It therefore
measures the amount of ``value'' added by the teacher (or the
``effect'' of the teacher) over and above the expected academic growth.
The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) is a well-regarded
statistical model, refined over the past 20 years, that calculates the
growth measures used in the TEAM evaluation system.
Value--added growth is a useful measure to include in a teacher
evaluation model, as it quantifies each student's learning over the
period that the educator has taught them, but does not disadvantage the
teacher if a student came to him or her behind academically. Value-
added growth, therefore, provides useful information regarding the
effectiveness of the teacher. As quantitative measures of student
academic success are increasingly integrated into teacher evaluation
systems across the country, academic growth models will be critical in
helping to ensure a fair, appropriate measurement of teacher
effectiveness.
Third, I appreciate that a significant proportion of the teacher's
evaluation is now based on student outcomes. Our new performance
evaluation system puts a premium not only on good teaching, but also on
student learning. No longer is it acceptable for a teacher to say,
``Well, I taught a great lesson, but my students just didn't learn
it.'' The new evaluation system reinforces the urgency we all must feel
in ensuring that our students meet the much more rigorous academic
standards that we have put in place in Tennessee--and higher
expectations for our teachers will help us get there.
Fourth, the approach we have taken in Knoxville, and generally
across the state of Tennessee has been to ensure that our evaluation
system is a developmental process. That is, it is focused on helping
our teachers to improve their instructional practice.
I believe we must view teacher performance evaluation primarily as
a professional growth tool, rather than purely as an accountability
mechanism. Don't get me wrong, there will be teachers who will fail to
secure tenure or who will be terminated because of issues surfaced
through their performance evaluation. But for the overwhelming majority
of our teachers, those who are solid performers to truly extraordinary
educators, our evaluation system will be about continually improving
and enhancing their instruction.
Finally, I believe that our evaluation system is well aligned to
the new Common Core academic standards that Tennessee and 44 other
states have adopted. As a state-led initiative, Common Core will
require our teachers to explore curricular topics in greater depth, and
to facilitate important 21st century skills such as critical thinking,
applying knowledge, and identifying creative solutions. Accordingly,
the instructional rubric includes indicators that evaluate in-depth
questioning, teaching different modes of thinking, and problem-
solving--exactly the types of skills that will prepare our students for
success in today's rapidly changing world.
The TEAM evaluation system, like any system, is not without
challenges. Because our state assessments only cover grades 3-8 and
certain subjects in high school, close to half of the teachers in
Tennessee are without individual value-added growth data. Our state has
committed to increasing the number of grades and subjects with such
assessments, but this remains an important concern. For the most part,
non-tested teachers share in the growth data for their whole school or
particular discipline. I think this is a very appropriate short-term
solution, as music and art teachers do influence the learning of all
students in their elementary school, and certainly a great physics
teacher will bolster the academic growth of her students in
mathematics.
The other challenge to highlight is ensuring that there is
consistency of implementation of the evaluation system, and that we
attain inter-rater reliability within schools, districts, and across
the state. Our new evaluation system has significantly raised the bar
for expectations of teacher effectiveness. If our evaluators are true
to their training and consistently rigorous, then TEAM will provide an
excellent assessment of teacher performance and an outstanding
professional growth tool. If they are not, TEAM will be an expensive
and time-consuming failure.
Allow me to outline some of the ways that TEAM data is used. The
power of TEAM, and any strong performance evaluation system, is that it
provides consistent and useful information regarding teacher
effectiveness that can be utilized in human capital decisions, such as
retention, termination, promotion, tenure, appointment to teacher
leadership roles, and even compensation. In Knoxville, we use the data
from teacher evaluations to support all of those critical decisions.
TEAM data is used to identify teachers who may need additional
assistance, or those who could potentially be effective peer evaluators
(Lead Teachers). Evaluation information is an important factor in the
decision to terminate chronically ineffectual teachers, and it is used
to discover potential candidates for consideration in school leadership
roles.
As I mentioned earlier, the state of Tennessee has significantly
restructured teacher tenure. In the past, teachers were automatically
granted tenure if they were on the job for three years and one day. It
was a sometimes difficult structure because about two and a half years
into a teacher's career, a principal had to decide whether to give a
teacher tenure, essentially for the rest of their professional career,
or fire them.
Now, new teachers in Tennessee are not eligible for tenure until
after five years of service, and only if they perform at one of the two
highest levels (on a five point scale) on the evaluation system for two
consecutive years. This is obviously a very different perspective on
teacher tenure, but a worthy experiment in exploring if a radically
different conceptualization of tenure will make a difference in teacher
effectiveness.
In the Knox County Schools, we have developed a strategic
compensation (performance-based pay) initiative that relies heavily on
the data from the teacher evaluation system. APEX (Achieve, Perform,
EXcel), provides either $1,500 or $2,000 to our teachers based on great
instruction, strong student academic results, teacher leadership and/or
providing consistent high-quality instruction in our high needs
schools. Data from the TEAM evaluation system determines 70% of the
eligibility for this $3.6 million incentive pay program (funded in part
through Race to the Top funding).
One important but somewhat unique aspect of our implementation of
the teacher evaluation system in Knoxville has been the development of
a Lead Teacher role. Lead teachers are some of our most outstanding and
respected classroom teachers who are paid an additional stipend to be
observers and evaluators of their fellow educators.
Our Lead Teachers are able to play an important leadership role
while remaining as classroom teachers, and they lend credibility,
instructional expertise, and much needed support to the teacher
evaluation process. Utilizing peer evaluators can be a tricky business,
but when done right--with the right people, training, and structure--it
can be an incredibly powerful asset in the effective evaluation and
development of teachers.
One more important note on teacher evaluation systems: they are
not, by themselves, a panacea. Rigorous, developmental teacher
evaluation systems can be an important instructional improvement tool,
but must be implemented in the context of a larger education reform and
improvement effort.
In the Knox County Schools, we have certainly embraced the TEAM
teacher evaluation system, but we have also crafted a detailed five-
year strategic plan, invested in professional development and teacher
support, embraced research-based instructional practices, focused on
school leadership, initiated performance-based compensation,
facilitated professional learning communities, and built the capacity
to utilize data to support great instruction. These strategies all
support and compliment the centerpiece teacher evaluation system, and
these strategies are collectively indispensable to our educational
success.
Finally, you may be wondering how the new teacher evaluation system
in Tennessee is impacting teaching and learning. So, I will leave you
with just a few perspectives on outcomes:
In 2011-12, Tennessee saw some of the highest gains in student
achievement on state assessments in recent history. Likewise, this past
year in the Knox County Schools we have seen strong academic progress
by virtually every quantifiable measure of student learning and
success. Proficiency for our students increased overall in grades 3-8
in all four tested subject areas: English/language arts, mathematics,
science and social studies. Graduation rates, academic growth, and ACT
scores also posted strong results.
In our school system, we have experienced substantial gains in
teacher value-added scores in the last two years. Our district
experienced a significant decrease in the number of teachers performing
at the two lowest effectiveness levels from 2011 to 2012, declining
from 18% to 9%.
Over that same time period, the percentage of our teachers scoring
in the highest category of teacher value-added performance, those
making the greatest impact on student learning, increased from 27% to
36%.
TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS TENNESSEE VALUE-ADDED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (TVAAS) TEACHER EFFECT
SCORES 2010-2012
[Teachers with individual TVAAS scores]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1 2 3 4 5 Count
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.......................................... 4% 5% 32% 23% 36% 2,050
2011.......................................... 9% 9% 38% 16% 27% 2,417
2010.......................................... 13% 13% 34% 16% 24% 1,738
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Knox County Schools, our student outcomes are not nearly
where we want them to be yet--and we are certainly not declaring
victory--but I believe that our teacher evaluation system is an
important strategy in improving the quality of public education in
Knoxville and across our state. Tennessee's teacher evaluation system
is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement over our previous
evaluation process, and I think it will prove to be a very valuable
professional growth and instructional improvement tool.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Dr. McIntyre.
Dr. Watson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. RODNEY WATSON, CHIEF OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Watson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Rodney Watson. I am the chief human resources
officer for the Houston Independent School District.
Under the leadership of Superintendent Terry Grier and our
board of trustees, we have been working to improve teacher
evaluation and professional development for the past 3 years.
This work, or the impetus for this work, stemmed from a major
disconnect between our old teacher and evaluation system and
student achievement.
In Houston our old system gave teachers acceptable
performance ratings, so we had about 97 percent of our teachers
who received acceptable ratings when, in fact, we have over
70,000 students that could not read at grade level. As a
result, two-thirds of Houston ISD teachers are now aware of at
least one specific area in which they need to improve.
I would like to spend my time sharing with you a few of the
most important lessons we have learned over the past few years,
which I think will help you as you make key and critical
decisions as we tackle these issues.
First, we have learned that better teacher evaluations are
not the end goal; they are one part of a solution to one of the
most critical challenges that most school districts face today.
Nothing we can do for our students matters more.
In Houston, our work on evaluations and professional
development is just one part of our Effective Teacher
Initiative, which we launched in 2009. Specifically, we have
made human capital acquisition a focus as a district to recruit
and select teachers earlier because research shows the earlier
we are able to attract and retain good teachers, the more
likely they are to have success in the classrooms.
We are also offering potential trips to campuses that are
also likely to yield high-performing teachers. Steps like these
allow us to be able to compete with other districts and charter
networks who have historically sought out and hired the best
candidates earlier.
In addition, as part of our Effective Teacher Initiative,
we are thinking how we can use compensation and career pathways
to retain and reward our best teachers. Using data from our
evaluation system, we are able to identify our best teachers
and use a multi-pronged approach to retain them in HISD. For
years our district has been a leader in the field of
performance pay by rewarding our top-performing staff with
significant bonuses through our ASPIRE program.
Second, we have learned that rigorous evaluations and
better professional development go hand in hand. Some people
suggest that these two things are mutually exclusive--that
better evaluations undermine professional development, for
example--but what we have found is that nothing could be
farther from the truth.
We expect a lot from our teachers, and for our new
evaluation system, our processes reflect that providing them
with specific expectations for their classroom practice, we are
able to help them and support them as they reach their goals.
But we also designed the evaluation system to give teachers
more and better development opportunities than they ever had in
our old system.
In addition, all of our teachers have the opportunity to
work with one of 130 teacher development specialists, which are
master teachers in specific subject areas whose job it is--
which is their only job--is to offer advice and connect
teachers with resources that can help them improve. This is a
position that was created and staffed as part of our Effective
Teaching Initiative.
Setting a high bar for excellence is critical to good
professional development because we can't help teachers reach
their full potential unless we are honest about what they need
and how they are going to improve, and it is our responsibility
to provide them with the necessary resources and also with a
picture of what excellence looks like.
Third, we have learned that better evaluations can help us
hold on to our best teachers. A lot of people worry that more
rigorous evaluations will push good teachers out the door. That
hasn't been our experience. In fact, we see teacher evaluation
systems as a critical tool that helps us keep even more of our
best teachers. After all, we can't retain our best teachers if
we don't know who they are.
As we began to look at retaining our ``highly effective''
teachers, our goal this year is to retain at least 95 percent
of them after retaining 92 percent last year. We are also
taking steps to attract more promising teachers to our schools
by offering sign-on bonuses up to $5,000 in our hardest-to-
staff subject areas and our schools.
During the first year of implementation we made it a
priority to gather feedback from our teachers and appraisers on
their experience with the new system at several checkpoints
throughout the year. We found that teachers who reported that
their system--that their appraiser consistently applied the
expectations articulated in our rubric and who received useful
feedback about their practice from their appraiser were 10
times more likely to report that the evaluation system was fair
and believed that their rating to be accurate--an accurate
reflection of their performance.
I conclude with you the obvious point: This is extremely
hard work. Getting the logistics of a teacher evaluation system
right is hard enough, but on top of that you are really asking
schools across the nation to embrace an entirely new paradigm,
a new culture of honest feedback and accountability for results
in the classroom.
No school system can hope to get this exactly right on the
first try, but perfection shouldn't be the standard. Our
experience in Houston shows that it is possible to make big
strides in teacher evaluation and development right away, at
the same time, keeping improvements going as you go along.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Dr. Watson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rodney E. Watson, Chief Human Resources
Officer, Houston Independent School District, Houston, TX
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rodney
Watson, and I'm the Chief Human Resources Officer for the Houston
Independent School District. Under the leadership of Superintendent
Terry Grier and our Board of Trustees, we have been working to improve
teacher evaluation and professional development in our district for the
last three years.
This is work we undertook because we saw a major disconnect between
our old traditional teacher evaluation system and student achievement.
This was a system not unlike those in effect in most districts across
America. In Houston, this old system gave acceptable performance
ratings to 97 percent of teachers, despite the fact that 70,000 Houston
students were reading below grade level. To their credit, Houston
teachers told us they wanted a useful evaluation system that treats
them like the professionals they are.
As a result, thousands of teachers joined with other educators,
parents, and community members to help design a new teacher evaluation
and development system that is now in its second full year of
implementation. Today, two-thirds of Houston ISD teachers are aware of
at least one specific area in which they need to improve. More
importantly, they are getting the guidance and tools to make it happen.
We think it's one of the most innovative approaches to teacher
evaluation in the country, and I would be happy to address some of the
specifics during the question and answer period.
I would like to spend my time sharing a few of the most important
lessons we have learned so far, which I think will help you and
especially education leaders in your states and districts who are
tackling these issues.
First, we have learned that better teacher evaluations are not an
end goal. They are one part of a solution to the most critical
challenge our schools face today: how to find and keep teachers who can
prepare our students for success in today's ultra-competitive economy.
Nothing we can do for our student's matters more.
In Houston, our work on evaluations and professional development is
just one part of our Effective Teachers Initiative, which we launched
in 2009. This initiative is a commitment to refocus nearly every aspect
of our human resources operation on putting great teachers in every
classroom. That commitment has led us to reexamine everything from the
way we recruit teachers to the way we pay them to the way we encourage
our best teachers to stay in HISD.
Specifically, we have made human capital acquisition a focus as a
district to recruit and select teachers earlier because research has
shown that teachers who are hired earlier have high student achievement
results in the classroom. We kick off our recruitment season as early
as October to ensure our recruiting trips to campuses that are likely
to yield high performing teachers. We also offer potential teaching
candidates early contracts which support our ability to hire teachers
in the winter and spring instead of late in the summer. Steps like
these allow us to finally compete with many of our surrounding suburban
districts and charter networks, who have historically sought out and
hired the best candidates far earlier than we ever could in the past.
In addition, as part of the Effective Teachers Initiative, we are
rethinking how we can use compensation and career pathways to retain
and reward our best teachers. Using data from our evaluation system, we
are able to identify our best teachers and use a multi-pronged approach
to retain them in HISD. For years, our district has been a leader in
the field of performance pay by rewarding top performing staff with
significant bonuses through the ASPIRE award program. And this past
year, we engaged teachers and principals from around the district to
develop teacher leader roles and a career pathway framework that is
currently being piloted in 23 schools. These opportunities allow our
best teachers to specialize and extend their reach to more students and
colleagues, without having to leave the classroom.
Second, we have learned that rigorous evaluations and better
professional development go hand in hand. Some people suggest that
these two things are mutually exclusive--that better evaluations
undermine professional development, for example--but nothing could be
further from the truth. We expect a lot from our teachers, and our new
evaluation process reflects that by providing them with specific
expectations for their classroom practice. But we also designed the
evaluation system to give teachers more and better development
opportunities than they ever had under the old system. We've raised the
bar, but we are also helping our teachers meet those expectations. For
example, as part of the evaluation process, our teachers meet regularly
with their administrators to discuss their performance and create an
Individualized Professional Development Plan. This plan not only
connects teachers to development opportunities that fit their needs and
interests but is also matched directly to the specific instructional
practice criteria that make up the observation part of their
evaluation--a far cry from the one-size-fits-all workshop approach to
professional development that prevails in most districts.
In addition, all teachers have the opportunity to work with one of
130 Teacher Development Specialists, master teachers in specific
subject areas whose only job it is to offer advice and connect teachers
with resources that can help them improve. This is a position we
created and staffed as part of Effective Teaching Initiative using
existing funds. We have also created a library of exemplar videos that
showcase some of our best teachers engaging in best practice around
each of the 13 instructional practice criteria found in our teacher
appraisal and development rubric. Our evaluation system has helped us
create a roadmap for our teachers to know and meet the expectations we
have for the quality of instruction they deliver to our students on a
daily basis.
None of this means we've lost sight of our high standards: Under
our old evaluation process, about 97 percent of our teachers were told
they were essentially perfect and had absolutely nothing to work on.
Now, nearly two-thirds of teachers have a development area identified
on their evaluation.
Setting a high bar for excellence is critical to good professional
development, because we can't help teachers reach their full potential
unless we are honest about what they need to improve, and provide
examples of what excellence looks like.
Third, we have learned that better evaluations can help us hold on
to our best teachers. A lot of people worry that more rigorous
evaluations will push good teachers out the door. That hasn't been our
experience. In fact, we see our teacher evaluation system as a crucial
tool that helps us keep even more of our best teachers--after all, we
can't work to retain great teachers unless we can identify them in the
first place. Thanks to our evaluation system, we know who our best
teachers are, and we're aiming to keep at least 95 percent of them this
year after retaining 92 percent of teachers rated ``highly effective''
last year. We are also taking steps to attract more promising teachers
to our schools by offering signing bonuses of up to $5000.00 in the
hardest-to-staff subject areas and schools.
Our research and experience suggests, more rigorous evaluations are
actually directly related to higher levels of teacher satisfaction with
the evaluation process. During the first year of implementation, we
made it a priority to gather feedback from teachers and appraisers on
their experience with the new system at several checkpoints throughout
the year. We found that teachers who reported that their appraiser
consistently applied the expectations articulated in the rubric and who
received useful feedback about their practice from their appraiser were
10 times more likely to report that the evaluation system was ``fair''
and believed their rating to be an accurate reflection of their
performance. Likewise, teachers who saw and received feedback about
their performance from their Teacher Development Specialist more
frequently during the year were more satisfied with the evaluation
process as a whole. What this tells us is that our teachers welcome and
embrace high standards and high quality feedback, which ultimately
supports their overall improvement.
I'll conclude with an obvious but important point: This is hard
work. Getting the logistics of a new teacher evaluation system right is
hard enough, but on top of that you are really asking schools to
embrace an entirely new culture of honest feedback and accountability
for results in the classroom. No school system can hope to get this
exactly right on the first try, but perfection shouldn't be the
standard. Our experience in Houston shows that it's possible to make
big strides in teacher evaluation and development right away--and keep
making improvements as you go along.
Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Harper, you are recognized for 5 minutes?
STATEMENT OF EMANUEL HARPER, FRENCH TEACHER, HERRON HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Harper. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and members of
the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
on this important subject. As a French teacher at Herron High
School in Indianapolis it is my priority to expose students to
different cultures as we become a more globalized society. I am
also an adjunct faculty member at Marian University for
transition-to-teach candidates and also a Teach Plus Policy
fellow.
So at my core I am a teacher, and while there is no oath
teachers take before entering into the classroom, for all of us
there is an abiding promise that we do and must make, one that
has to transcend the rancor of socioeconomic conditions and
decades of preconceived conclusions. This promise we make as
teachers is that every day we go into the classroom working
towards ending the achievement gap that has and continues to
jeopardize our students' futures.
Unfortunately, we are here today because this promise has
not been kept. Fortunately, there are at least two remedies:
One, implementing stronger evaluative tools for teachers,
appropriately weighing student performance and student voice;
and giving more local flexibility in gathering a culture that
drives student growth.
I know this because as I began my first year teaching at my
first school I recognized that enthusiasm was the benchmark by
which teachers were deemed effective. No longer was the focus
on how you taught but how the administration thought you
taught. It created a stagnant environment where students sat in
their desks numb.
And in this system I knew that there were areas of growth
for me that simply were not being addressed, even despite my
hard work. Without having an objective account of my practice
with substantive measurements and indicators, I was left to
tease out my performance based on what I felt. It was
unsustainable and I decided to leave the school.
And so I spoke out against this ineffective practice by
testifying before the Indiana House Education Committee in
favor of the newly implemented Senate Act 1, which strengthens
teacher evaluations. This new act bases effectiveness not on
degrees and years in the classroom, but on composites like
student outcomes and observations. And it is schools like
Herron High School, where I currently teach, that are leading
the way in this regard.
Herron High School, which is a public charter school
located in the heart of downtown Indianapolis, has a mission to
create world-class citizens of the 21st century. In fact, US
News & World Report ranked Herron in the top 30 best high
schools in the United States.
This is possible due to a rigorous evaluation tool used to
measure our impact on students. With announced and unannounced
visits we are continually assessed on our effectiveness. This
maintains a constant loop of evaluation, critical feedback, and
actionable next steps.
In the evaluation process, non-tested subjects, such as
French, undergo the same amount of scrutiny as tested subjects,
with curriculum and assessments analyzed for their fidelity to
A.P. exams. Thus, with end-of-year performance conversations,
teachers who continually meet our high instructional bar are
rewarded with leadership opportunities and salary increases.
Those who do not are either placed on a targeted and demanding
teacher assistance plan or removed from the classroom.
Retaining and recruiting top talent translates to educating and
preparing all students for college, which is our singular and
overriding objective.
But if the system at large inhibits the cultivation and
retention of great teachers, a more rigorous evaluative tool
will be for naught. Local flexibility in staffing will ensure
that only the highest-qualified teachers are selected to enter
into the classroom, and at Herron our professional development
is built around using our teachers as experts to increase
student performance. We generate targeted cross-curricular
interventions for at-risk students and reinforce the vertical
alignment of our disciplines to challenge all students.
No one finishes their crosswords in this space. It is
eagerly anticipated and an opportunity to hone our mission of
closing the achievement gap.
And this is why I know that I don't make the promise to
close the achievement gap in vain. It is possible and is
happening as we speak at Herron and hundreds of other schools
across the United States. But action has to be taken now for
our students to properly inherit what we all aspire to, which
is the American dream, and it starts with me.
It starts with me testifying here on the importance of
stronger evaluative tools for teachers. It starts with us
allowing local schools and school districts the flexibility to
innovate and retain talent to drive student success. And it
starts with reaffirming the right of every student to a high-
quality and rigorous education.
And it must end with student achievement, because despite a
student's surroundings or background, graduating from high
school and college empowered to do anything they choose will be
their destiny, but only when we do everything we can, starting
today, to ensure effective teachers in every classroom.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Harper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emanuel F. Harper IV, French Teacher,
Herron High School, Indianapolis, IN
Chairman Rokita and Ranking Member McCarthy: Thank you for giving
me the opportunity to speak on this important subject.
As a French teacher at Herron High School, It's my priority to
expose students to different cultures as we become a more globalized
society. I am also an adjunct faculty member for Best Practices in
World Language for Marian University's Master of Arts in Teaching
program. It's here where I prepare the next generation of transition-
to-teach candidates on how to most effectively teach world languages.
The community is also an important stakeholder as I am a founding
member of the Indianapolis chapter of Stand For Children--a grassroots
parent and student advocacy non-profit. And, as a policy fellow for
Teach Plus, it is important that I help shape the policies that will
affect my students.
Of all the great professions, there is no oath teachers take before
entering the classroom. But deep within us is an abiding promise we do
and must make. It is one that must transcend the rancor of socio-
economic conditions and decades of preconceived conclusions, one we are
entrusted to perform and must faithfully execute. It is one that if
broken stunts our nation's prosperity and (more critically) a student's
access to the American Dream. This promise we as teachers must make is
that every day we go into the classroom working towards ending the
achievement gap that has and continues to jeopardize our students'
futures.
Unfortunately we are here because this promise has not been kept.
Fortunately there are at least two remedies--1) implementing stronger
evaluative tools for teachers, appropriately weighing student
performance and student voice and 2) giving more local flexibility in
generating a culture that drives student growth.
I have a deep abiding love and respect for the teaching profession
and my content. But as I began my first year teaching at my first
school, I recognized that enthusiasm was the benchmark by which
teachers were deemed effective. No longer was the focus on how you
taught but how the administration thought you taught. It created a
stagnant environment where students sat in their desks numb. Matt, a
former student, exemplified this tendency until he realized that I
wasn't going to let him give up. With a lot of effort on both of our
parts, he became one of the best students in my class, pleading with me
to Skype with him over Spring Break to work on more French. I assure
you I obliged.
Yet, I knew there were areas of growth that were simply not being
addressed. Without having an objective account of my practice with
substantive measurements and indicators, I was left to tease out my
performance based on what I ``felt''. It was unsustainable. I had to
leave the school.
I spoke out against this ineffective practice by testifying before
the Indiana House Education Committee in favor of a newly implemented
Senate Act 1 which strengthens teacher evaluations. This new act
establishes higher standards for teacher performance, basing
effectiveness not on degrees and years in a classroom, but on
composites like student outcomes and observations. And it is schools
like Herron High School, unlike the school I was formally at, where I
currently work that are leading the way in this regard.
A public charter school located in the heart of downtown
Indianapolis, Herron's mission is to create world class citizens of the
21st century. US News and World Report ranked Herron in the Top 30 Best
High Schools in the United States. This was possible due to a rigorous
evaluation tool that our Dean of Faculty Greg Lineweaver uses to
measure our impact on students. With unannounced visits, we are
continually assessed on our effectiveness. This maintains a constant
loop of evaluation, critical feedback, and actionable next steps. In
the evaluative process, non-tested subjects (such as French) undergo
the same amount of scrutiny as tested subjects with curriculum and
assessments analyzed for their fidelity to AP exams. Thus, with end-of-
the-year performance conversations, teachers who continually meet our
high instructional bar are rewarded with leadership opportunities and
salary increases. Teachers who do not are removed from the classroom.
Recruiting and retaining top talent translates to educating and
preparing all students for college--our singular and overriding
objective.
But if the system at large inhibits the cultivation and retention
of great teachers, a more rigorous evaluative tool will be for not.
Local flexibility in staffing will ensure that only the highest
qualified teachers are selected to enter into the classroom. And at
Herron, our Professional Development is built around using our teachers
as experts to increase student performance. In-housed, every Friday we
dive into data about our students. We generate targeted cross-
curricular interventions for at-risk students and re-enforce the
vertical alignment of our disciplines to challenge all students. No one
finishes their crosswords in this space. It's eagerly anticipated, an
opportunity to hone our mission of closing the achievement gap.
And this is why I know that I do not make the promise to close the
achievement gap in vain. It is possible and is happening as we speak at
Herron and hundreds of schools across the country. But action has to be
taken now for our students to properly inherit what we all aspire to--
the American Dream. And it starts with me. It starts with me testifying
here and now on the importance of stronger evaluative tools for
teachers. It starts with us allowing local schools and school districts
the flexibility to innovate and retain talent to drive student success.
It starts with affirming the right of every student to a high quality
and rigorous education. And it must end with students like Matt. He is
why closing the gap is important. Because despite his surroundings and
background, graduating from high school and college empowered to do
anything he chooses will be his destiny, but only when we do everything
we can to ensure effective teachers in the classroom.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Harper.
I am going to reserve my question time for a little bit
later and recognize, instead, Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
putting together this subcommittee hearing. My experience is as
a--you know, an accurate, appropriate, thoughtful employee
evaluation really is a baseline of, you know, of--for
proficiency improvement towards high performance, and whether
we are talking about teachers or whatever field, it is
extremely important tool and sometimes we don't do that so
well.
And so I really appreciate expertise. I want to thank the
experience that all the panelists bring in coming here today.
And I want to start with Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper, how is--in
your opinion, how is professional development at your school
related to the information gleaned from the evaluation? Can you
give an example of how it specifically targeted to meet your
professional needs and professional development?
Mr. Harper. Thank you for the question. At Herron High
School we collect data from assessments and from evaluations
that we take from our students, and Friday, when we have our
meetings an hour and a half before school, we look over that
data to make sure that the students who are coming up short are
assisted by their teachers.
So we make sure that we target students who need office
hours, so those are reserved periods for teachers to help
students individually, and we also have structured academic
supports for one-on-one meetings with students before and after
school. So it is really a time for us to analyze what we need
to do as a school to make sure that we are encouraging growth
for all of our students.
Mr. Thompson. I know in my time I served--I am a recovering
school board member, and, you know, frequently we would get
those requests during those monthly, or bimonthly, or--they
told me it was only going to be 1 hour a month, which was a bit
of a lie, when I went on the board--you know, we would get
those requests for continuing education, but they were--
sometimes I didn't find they were really related, in any data
sense, to kind of gaps or proficiency issues that our teachers
had. I am hoping that whatever models are developed on school
districts or states, you know, tie in so that we are always
looking to increase the performance level, you know, to--you
know, because no matter what you do there is always an
opportunity to improve and to be better.
Dr. McIntyre, have your local teachers brought in and
responded to the district's teacher evaluation system, and do
they feel that it helps improve their practice in the
classroom?
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
You know, if you had asked me that question about 18 months
ago I would probably give you a very different answer. I think
at the beginning there was a lot of uncertainty and maybe even
some anxiety about this new evaluation system, and what it
looked like, and how it was going to be implemented.
But I will tell you, over time, having worked through it
and lived with it last year and half way through this year, I
think the vast majority of our teachers have begun to see the
value of this evaluation system. Having lived through it, they
see that it is fair. Having lived through it, they see that it
actually--we really do mean that it is developmental and meant
to help enhance their practice, and that they have learned a
few things from it.
I think that the experience of--and I say this half in
jest--you know, we didn't fire half our teachers this summer
probably, you know, helps. They realize that we really do mean
for this to be a developmental process. And I think that we saw
some very strong outcomes for student learning last year, and I
think we have--we are very fortunate at Knox County Schools to
have extraordinary teachers, and if something is going to--if
they see that something is going help them enhance student
learning they are going to be game for it.
So I think I see, you know, the vast majority of our
teachers, I think, have come to realize that there is value in
this evaluation system.
Mr. Thompson. Any time we implement change, I mean, that is
hard, because it is just in the nature of it. Were there
barriers or problems that you ran into in implementation of
this, and how did you address those?
Mr. McIntyre. I think there always are, and I think that
what we tried to do was try to be as thoughtful as we could
about the implementation. And I think that is one of the most
important things, as we think about teacher evaluation
nationally, and think about how we implement it well in schools
systems, is to do it thoughtfully.
I think you have to have buy-in from leadership and make
sure that this is something that is important to, you know,
district leadership, but also our school principals. They are
key to making sure that this is a process that is going to be
valuable and helpful.
I think communication is incredibly important and making
sure that there is information available to teachers, that
there is training available to teachers, as Mr. Harper said,
that there is professional development that actually is really
rationally related to the evaluation that is going to occur.
We have done a couple of things that I think have been very
helpful. We had a, what we called a----
Chairman Rokita. Gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. McIntyre. Oh, I am sorry.
Chairman Rokita. It is all right.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. McIntyre.
Chairman Rokita. See, it is not that easy.
Mr. McIntyre. No.
Chairman Rokita. Mrs. McCarthy is recognized for 5 minutes?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
Dr. Watson, I want to thank you for your testimony and I
appreciate your emphasis on teacher retention as well as the
inclusion process your school district embarked on when
reexamining teacher evaluation. You mentioned in your testimony
that two-thirds of the teachers were aware of at least one area
in which they needed to improve.
Can you go into that a little bit deeper on how you
basically were able to improve on those certain skills once the
evaluation had been made?
And also, with evaluations--a number of you had said, you
know, at the end of the year you look at everything. I think
that is one of the biggest problems, trying to get the
information to the teachers sooner than at the end of the year.
I don't know how we do that. The hearing we had last week, that
was using high technology to do a weekly evaluation, which is
obviously better for the student. But if you could answer my
first question.
Mr. Watson. Sure. We have taken great strides in being able
to provide our teachers with the necessary information they
need to be successful. Paramount to that is our development of
individualized professional development plans.
So at the very beginning of the year our teachers go
through a goal-setting process----
[Audio gap.]
Mrs. McCarthy. Nope.
Chairman Rokita. Is the green light on?
Can you share?
Mr. Watson. Thank you--at which time they sit down with
their administrator and they go through and develop specific
goals. Now, those goals can be related to the actual
performance areas that they have shown they need development in
as well as other areas that they want to be successful with.
Also, with our school principals and our school support
officers we sit down once a year at the very beginning of the
year as well as at the middle of the year and we do what we
call a ``fall check-in'' or ``staff review.'' During this time,
we go through every single teacher's data within that
particular building and we are able to talk about those
development areas that teachers need.
Now, in my testimony I specifically talk about, it is not
only our ability to be able to identify those areas of need but
also our ability to be able to provide specific support. So we
have developed a litany of exemplar videos based upon all 13
exemplar areas on our--in our effectual ratings, where teachers
are able to go through and watch videos of best practices as it
relates to instruction.
Mrs. McCarthy. You know, when you talked about your program
ASPIRE----
Mr. Watson. Yes.
Mrs. McCarthy [continuing]. Where do you find the funding
for that? Because that seems to be the biggest problem on--when
we are talking about any school developing programs for the
teachers. Money is always an issue.
And recruiting early, too. Tell me how that plays into such
an important part.
Mr. Watson. Recruiting early is extremely important. As I
said earlier, when we go out and select teachers the earliest
we can we are able to find the best teachers. As we know, the
best teachers are out looking for jobs right now, versus
teachers that sometimes wait a week or 2 or a month before
school starts. And so by looking at how we recreate--how we go
out and recruit teachers as well as what we do to recruit
teachers, we have been able to change our processes to free up
budgets--campus budgets--where principals are early to go
through and look at who exactly--what positions they need to
fill as well as those positions that they may not be filling on
their campuses.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
Just one quick question, and I know this is, you know, for
early education that we are working on, but the--you all
mentioned about getting the best teachers from the schools. How
prepared are the teachers when they graduate? Have they had
enough training?
Mr. Watson. Well, I don't think you could ever have enough
training. I don't think any college or private education can
ever provide enough, but one of the things that we have done is
we have begun to be proactive and go out and network with area
colleges and universities in our area, and we have let them
know specifically what we need teachers to be able to do. And
so we have infused that and actually have had them go back and
redevelop their programs to meet the needs that we have within
our district.
Mrs. McCarthy. Dr. Harper--very quickly, because my time is
running out--when you went to your first school, how soon was
it that you were into it that you saw that the school was not
functioning well? Was it the atmosphere of the teachers or was
it more on the principal and the superintendent's part?
Mr. Harper. Thank you for the question. For me, I thrive on
feedback, and so the MET study and actually the Teach Plus
Policy study, ``Great Expectations,'' found that teachers like
myself need feedback--effective feedback for--and actionable
next steps to be able to perform well.
So when I was at my first school I didn't have anyone come
into my room until the second semester, and they came in with a
checklist and then went out and that was all of 5 minutes, and
I realized that that would be great if I was simply going into
teaching as a secondary job, but teaching is what I love and I
want to make an impact on the next generation, and so I knew I
needed to be in a place that would provide me with structural
support so that I can get better, and having a continued
dialogue and being able to be effective for my teachers--or for
my students was something of priority to me, so that is when I
knew.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy.
Mrs. Foxx is recognized for 5 minutes?
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank our witnesses here today.
Dr. Cantrell, in your opinion and using your knowledge of
the MET study findings, can we trust the results of teacher
evaluation systems if implemented using multiple measures with
balanced weight? Is it fair to use the results of teacher
evaluation systems to make decisions about personnel, both
positive and negative, to improve the teaching profession?
Mr. Cantrell. Absolutely. Where the measures agree, we can
have the confidence to act. One of the benefits of having
multiple measures is the error is actually uncorrelated. So you
know that any single measure isn't going to be perfect, but
when you have several measures the mistakes that they make
correct one another, and so the average from multiple measures
is much more reliable than any single measure could provide
alone.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. McIntyre, how does the Knox County teacher evaluation
system interact with the state evaluation system of Tennessee,
and were you given flexibility to implement specifics in a way
best suited to your local needs?
Mr. McIntyre. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
The Knox County Schools' evaluation system is actually the
standard or default system for the state of Tennessee, the TEAM
model. Tennessee actually allows for different districts to
define an alternative model as long as it meets the basic
criteria of evaluating every teacher every year and at least 50
percent being based on student outcomes. So there are a few
different models, actually, in the state of Tennessee, but the
vast majority of districts use the TEAM model.
We have been given some flexibility in terms of how we
implement, in terms of some of the measures that we look at. We
have been given flexibility, for example, as to there is an
opportunity to do fewer observations of teachers who are on the
higher end of the scale. But that is an option; you can do that
or you can not do that.
And because we believe that the evaluation process is
developmental, we have chosen to continue with the number--the
same number of observations even for teachers on the higher end
of the scale because we think it is beneficial. Even great
teachers can become even better.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harper, I am so glad that we have a teacher here today
and I want to say to you, when I taught--I taught for 15 years
at Appalachian State University--we were only required to do an
evaluation every 2 years or 3 years but I did one every
semester, so I identify with you. I liked to get the feedback
from the students--the student evaluation, and so I am glad to
hear you saying you like to get that feedback.
Talk a little bit, if you would, on your thoughts on
teacher tenure and policies such as the ``last in, first out.''
How have you observed those, and what do you think about those
as the way to operate in the school systems?
Mr. Harper. Thank you. I think teacher tenure is great only
if the teachers that are retained are really effective
teachers. And unfortunately, ``last in, first out'' has
negatively impacted a lot of school districts because you see
really motivated candidates who go into the classroom let go
because of tenure. I think it is important that we don't
necessarily look at how long a teacher has been in the
classroom, but more so, look at what impact they are making and
allow that to be a really strong and driving force for how we
evaluate whether or not they stay in the classroom, because all
of us are here because we want to make sure that students make
the appropriate gains, particularly if they come into the
classroom lagging in certain categories, and so that is why it
is really important that we look not necessarily at how long
they have been in the classroom but how effective they are
inside the classroom.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
And Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes?
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. I really appreciate it.
As a former school board member in San Diego Unified, this
evaluation issue was something that I always felt was terribly
important and I was quite frustrated that we weren't able to
move forward. And, of course, a number of years have taken
place.
I wanted to just mention, along with Mr. Polis, we have
authored the STELLAR Act, which I hope you will all take a look
at, Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leaders, Learning, And
Results Act. What I wanted to focus on quickly is--are just a
few issues.
One is the federal role. In your experience--and what this
bill focuses on, Title 1 schools, particularly, and putting in
place over a period of time with teacher buy-in and hopefully
professional development, it is a flexible idea, in terms of
making certain that there is buy-in and that there is very,
very active participation in terms of the creation and design,
but I am wondering what you think about that. I mean, do you
think that there should be a federal role in this, and should
we put some guidelines out there and then hold people
accountable if they are not able to follow through?
Anybody want to tackle that?
Mr. McIntyre. Gosh, I think that if there is a federal role
to be had it is probably setting broad parameters and giving a
lot of flexibility to states and localities. You know, I think
that certainly we believe, in Tennessee, that, you know, having
the flexibility to implement something like a teacher
evaluation system that makes sense for our state and for our
local school district makes a lot of sense, and that there are,
you know, differences in terms of how--what that might look
like. Even in Knoxville versus Memphis versus----
Mrs. Davis. Sure, absolutely.
Mr. McIntyre [continuing]. Versus Nashville. And so I think
you know, perhaps either the federal level or the state level
setting broad parameters, making sure that there is, you know,
adequate and appropriate evaluation of teachers, but maybe
leaving lots of flexibility for local school districts to do
what they need to do to make it work.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. That certainly is our intent. But I
also see that sometimes school districts and states, as well,
get a little tripped up along this process, and that is--you
know, that is very important to be sure that you have all these
elements in place.
What is it, do you think, about trying to define and
develop an evaluation system that does trip up those
organizations--school entities--that are trying to move
forward?
Mr. Watson. I would say one of the areas that trips up is
just the mere understanding of the various methods or measures
we can use to accurately evaluate teacher performance. So long
teachers have not had to use student performance as a measure
of their effectiveness, and so better understanding around
that, the use of EVAS as one of the measures, but also the
ongoing educational training that is needed to be able to
support teachers--more importantly, helping them also be able
to understand and link up the professional development to those
areas that have been deemed to be ``highly effective'' or
``areas of improvement.''
Mrs. Davis. And in terms of professional development, then,
I think one of the difficulties is defining, what is the best
kind of professional development, and then, do you have the
resources to back that up? How have you seen in your work that
school districts are able to carve out the resources that they
need to actually provide the kind of teacher professionalism
program that they know is best?
Mr. McIntyre. You know, in Knoxville we just--we find that
there is extraordinary capacity and expertise already in our
classrooms and we seek to leverage that. A lot of our
professional development is teacher-led. You know, we provide
opportunities for teachers to step up and be in leadership
roles, either in instructional coaching roles or providing
professional development, and I think that has an enormous--it
is incredibly high-quality professional development when our
teachers do it because they take it extremely seriously, and it
is incredibly powerful when it is teacher-to-teacher, as well,
so that is one of the strategies that we use.
Mrs. Davis. I wonder----
Mr. Cantrell. You know, one more thing about evaluation as
professional development, I think too often we think about
evaluation as something that is just about measurement rather
than is about feedback and the ability to mark progress and
improvement over time and to make adjustments and to see if you
are actually changing the outcomes that you have for students
is incredibly valuable. And so we think about professional
development as something that happens to teachers rather than
as a process of improvement that requires evaluation and good
information.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
Gentlelady's time is expired.
We will now hear from Dr. Roe for 5 minutes?
Mr. Roe. Thank the chairman, and I am sorry I had to step
out but the Tennessee Department of Transportation director was
out there and any time you are talking about roads you go talk
to that guy.
Dr. Cantrell, I want to thank you and the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation for your support of the Niswonger Foundation
of Distance Learning in East Tennessee. It has been a
phenomenal success, and just a personal thank you.
On the evaluations--and this is Mr. Harper, or Dr.
McIntyre, or any of you that have been in the classroom--let me
give you a narrative here that I see and hear from former
patients of mine who are teachers, many of them I know well. I
went to read to a class--a second grade class--and as I got up
to leave I said, ``Well, how is this young fellow doing?''
And my friend who is the teacher said, ``Well, he is going
to be with me again next year.''
And I said, ``Why is that?''
She said, ``Well, he missed 60 days of school.''
First thing a doctor asks, ``Has he been sick?''
And she said, ``No. His dad is in prison and his mother
won't get up and get him out of bed to get him out the door to
get him to school.'' So he is going to be held back, and that
evaluation, that student didn't make adequate yearly progress,
so he didn't learn what he is supposed to learn.
And yet my teacher friend is being evaluated on someone--so
how do you do that, because I hear that from teachers. There
are things totally out of their control that are societal
issues that they are being evaluated on.
I absolutely think--we are in medicine right now we are
doing outcomes-based, meaningful use criteria. Education is
doing the same thing, try to standardize what we are doing and
try to see--put a metric out here and see if we have actually
made progress.
Let me just throw that out to anybody. Dr. McIntyre?
Anybody--Mr. Harper?
Mr. Harper. That happens in schools across the country and
I am glad you brought that up. For me personally, even if you
have students who are coming from these different backgrounds,
ultimately the buck stops with me and if I am not making the
appropriate gains for these students I am ultimately held
culpable. However, it is important to recognize that you look
at the student's growth and progress and make sure that that is
taken into consideration on how the teacher is evaluated.
So yes, will students come from disadvantaged backgrounds
and all these extraneous situations that you can't control?
Yes. But effective teachers will seek out resources inside and
outside their school to make sure that there is a plan for
these specific students who might need extra support.
Mr. Roe. Well, your job is a lot easier if you have got a
mom and dad helping you out. I can tell you that.
Mr. Harper. I definitely agree, sure.
Mr. Roe. It is just, what you just described was making
your job of teaching French or--I think you are a French
teacher or----
Mr. Harper. Correct.
Mr. Roe [continuing]. Whatever, much harder.
Dr. McIntyre, how--when you do those evaluations, how do
you----
Mr. McIntyre. Yes, sir. You know, I think that that
certainly is an important consideration, and I think that is
also why it is important that you look at multiple measures. I
think it is important that you, you know, for the Tennessee
system you look at classroom observation and you go in and look
at instructional practice and you do that frequently. You do
that at least a couple times if not--you know, for newer
teachers, you know, up to four times in a year you have
conversations with the teachers about that.
So I think having multiple measures certainly is important
in that. And then I think, as Mr. Harper said, if you are
measuring student growth over time, as well, and the Tennessee
Value-Added Assessment System is, you know, is said to take
into account, statistically, some of those challenges of where
a student starts and where they end the year, and make sure
that the--that a teacher isn't penalized based on, you know, if
a student starts the year below proficient. If they start the
year academically behind but that teacher grows them over time
that they, you know, essentially get credit for that, that that
is taken into account in the measurement.
And certainly the issue that you raised around supports for
students and families is incredibly important, and that
shouldn't necessarily be our job, but if it impacts student
learning it sort of becomes part of our job, and having to work
with our students and our families to broker services or
provide support is an important part of what we do in schools
today.
Mr. Roe. Do you think, Dr. McIntyre, that you--we have
enough data in Tennessee to recommend--I know we are--our Race
to the Top is called First to the Top, but do we have enough
data, now, to recommend these--this teacher evaluation system
or some variant of it to the rest of the country or should we
have--wait a little more time on that?
Any of you can take that on.
Mr. McIntyre. I believe the basics of the model in
Tennessee are the right ones. I don't think the system is
perfect. I think there are certainly some areas that need to be
improved upon; there are some areas that need to be tightened
up; there are some challenges that still need to be worked
through in the system that we have in place right now, and I
think, you know, one area is teachers who don't have individual
growth data and how to make sure that we address that.
But I do think the basic parameters of what we have put in
place in Tennessee is quite good, and I think it is something
that, as we look to replicate the model elsewhere, I think it
would be very valuable in terms of having support for teachers,
providing an experience where they get feedback on a regular
basis, where they are reflecting on their practice. And it is--
I see it improving instructional practice in the Knox County
Schools.
Chairman Rokita. Gentleman's time----
Mr. Roe. Thank the chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time is expired.
We will now hear from Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes?
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing, and good morning, everyone.
I come from a place way out in the Pacific where, unlike
many school districts where you can reach into the next county
and pull teachers in, we don't have that capacity. But I would
also like to say that we have some bright spots in our school
system, and it is through a rough diamond, but there are bright
spots and potential.
And I also notice that because of the federal mandates our
schools were actually forced, in some instances, to take
teachers and move them into a lower level in terms of pay and
things like that. Federal mandates have required that, and
actually some of my--two of my best teachers won't qualify as
teachers. They happen to be my parents, and I also--but for now
I would like to--Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my time to
Mr. Polis--the remainder of my time.
Mr. Polis. I thank the gentleman. I deeply appreciate the
time.
As mentioned by my colleague, Susan Davis, we are working
on the STELLAR Act, and we know that teacher quality is the
single most important in-school factor that affects student
achievement. The STELLAR Act would require school districts to
work with school staff to implement fair teacher and principal
evaluation programs. It is the flexibility to do what works,
and this is an intensely local discussion, of course, between
teachers and principals and school boards, and we want to make
sure that there is the flexibility to work as systems like the
one that Dr. McIntyre has outlined.
At the same time, I think it is reasonable to say that
there is nothing so special about any district that somehow
they could argue that, ``Oh, in this area of the country
teachers don't need to be evaluated. Teachers don't--their
performance doesn't need to be tracked.'' So I think that that
is a reasonable balance between a federal role and a local
role, simply saying this needs to be done.
We also feel, again, leave it entirely open, but the
STELLAR Act, that performance data, achievement data needs to
be a part of the discussion. Now, that certainly doesn't mean
nor should it as a best practice be 100 percent of anything,
but I think in every instance where we have seen a real
meaningful performance agreement and evaluation system that
teachers agree to and districts have agreed to there have been
multiple indicators, and certainly academic growth on student
assessments has been one of the multiple measures, as Dr. Roe
mentioned.
It is never statistically perfect, and surely there are,
you know, situations that are beyond any teacher's control, and
it affects a student here, a student there, that is why in
the--these numbers need to be looked at in the--in an aggregate
way, a way that is fair to teachers.
Colorado has recently implemented a teacher evaluation
system. We have similar discussions at the state level about
whether this should be a one-size-fits-all for the state or
districts. Basically we have created a--or are creating, I
guess--a default out-of-the-box state approach and then
districts can, if they choose, do their own. Frankly, for many
smaller districts that have a few hundred or a few thousand
people it is much easier to take something that is fully
formed, if it is agreeable locally. Most of the major districts
will want to go through their own work.
My question for Dr. McIntyre is, what do you think we can
do more of at the federal level to help ensure that more
districts move in the direction that you have and to facilitate
that however we can?
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. You know, as I said, I think that
if there is a role at the federal level it probably is to just,
you know, to encourage and support the evaluation of teachers
across the United States. I think that we have found having an
evaluation system that is--that evaluates every teacher every
year, that incorporates student achievement data, and is based
on multiple measures is an incredibly important and powerful
structure.
And you know, so again, I think that whether that comes
from the federal level or whether that comes from each of the
50 states, you know, I guess I am a little bit agnostic about,
but I do believe the value of ensuring that we have those
important evaluation structures and evaluation conversations,
because I think that is one of the most important parts, and I
think Mr. Harper said as well, getting that feedback and
reflecting on practice is incredibly important and powerful,
and that is what really moves the dial on instructional
practice and, therefore, moves the dial on student achievement.
Mr. Polis. I thank the gentleman for his time.
I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
Gentleman's time is expired. The chair recognizes himself
for 5 minutes.
Again, I would like to thank each of you for coming today.
Dr. Cantrell, let me start with you. If I heard your
testimony correctly--I will try to paraphrase it now--you said
that student characteristics are a lesser matter compared to
the effectiveness of teachers in realizing high student
achievement. Is that fair?
Mr. Cantrell. Yes. Absolutely----
Chairman Rokita. Can you go further in that?
Mr. Cantrell. Happy to do that. Yes, irrespective of the
students who came into a teacher's classroom, we could see
high-and low-quality practice. So it points back to Mr. Roe's
earlier question about is this fair, and we saw that there were
great teachers in places where kids were really struggling and
there were poor teachers in places where kids were really
advantaged. And it really didn't matter where a student was
starting----
Chairman Rokita. Right. Okay. Thank you.
Does anyone else want to react to that? Agree? Disagree?
Okay. For the record, I am hearing three agreements from
the other witnesses. [Laughter.]
Dr. Cantrell, you also indicated that student surveys,
along with classroom observations, et cetera, do a far better
job of predicting which teachers will succeed in raising
student performance. So it wasn't so long ago that I haven't
forgotten my high school days and what I did and didn't do
during those days. I was never empowered to evaluate a teacher,
I would say now for good reason.
But in all seriousness, I have heard some anecdotal
stories--maybe just one or two--where teachers were said to be
forging the surveys because they were fearful of certain or
maybe most students in their classrooms, depending on the
school or area, and that empowerment and that they were--you
know, if their salaries or whatever else were dependent on
this, the students knew that and, in a teacher's view, would
have sabotaged that. Is that black helicopter stuff, or is that
a concern, not--any of you could respond.
Mr. Cantrell. So in the MET project teachers weren't held
accountable for these surveys, so it was just a study----
Chairman Rokita. So it was just part of your feedback loop
that you were talking about----
Mr. Cantrell. What we found when talking to students is
they appreciated the opportunity and took it very seriously--
the opportunity to give voice. And we weren't asking students
about--to make judgments that they weren't highly qualified to
make. We were asking them about the quality of their
instructional environment, and that is something where they are
the experts.
Chairman Rokita. And you haven't heard any stories about
the likes that I have been talking about?
Mr. Cantrell. No black helicopters.
Chairman Rokita. Okay.
Doctor?
Mr. McIntyre. I think there are structures you can put in
place to make sure that those surveys are done actually by the
students, and we are actually piloting some student surveys
this year. They won't count toward the evaluation, but we think
it is--it will be interesting information, and based on the MET
study, it is said to be highly reliable. So we are going to
take a look at that this year.
Chairman Rokita. Dr. Watson? I think that one is working
for you if you want. It is up to you. Now you are in stereo
probably.
Mr. Watson. Yes.
We are actually going to implement student surveys this
spring for the first time.
Chairman Rokita. Okay. No worries?
Mr. Watson. No worries yet.
Chairman Rokita. Okay.
Mr. Harper?
Mr. Harper. They are a powerful tool, and I use them in my
classroom, and they are important for me to reflect on my own
practice and see how I need to grow with my students.
Chairman Rokita. Thanks for clearing that up.
We will stick with you, Mr. Harper, for my last question. I
was intrigued when you said that teachers don't take an oath. I
have never heard of a teacher taking an oath; maybe there are
some out there.
Philosophical question to end out my minute or so of time
left: Should there be an oath, and if so, who gets to write it?
Mr. Harper. I think there should be a higher standard to
which teachers are held accountable, because I think too often
teachers don't have the supports in the classroom or teachers
don't have the feedback that they need to make sure that they
make appropriate gains. So, you know, I think there should be
an oath but the oath that should be made should be to continue
to increase student achievement in the classroom.
Who writes that? You know, that is a great question. I will
have to get back to you.
Chairman Rokita. We will expect it in 7 days.
Anyone else, really quickly? We have about 30 seconds left
between the three of you on that last question.
Mr. McIntyre. I think most teachers are deeply committed to
children and deeply committed to the work that they do. I think
in a lot of senses they take an oath to themselves and perhaps
to a higher power when they go in the classroom. Making that a
formal, you know, opportunity might be an interesting and
useful thing to do.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Cantrell, anything to add?
Mr. Cantrell. Amen.
Chairman Rokita. Dr. Watson?
Mr. Watson. They should have an oath, and I think they take
that oath every day when they go. We just need to make sure
that the oath that they take and the professional development
and support match up so they can actually do it.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you. My time is expired.
I now recognize Mr. Scott for 5 minutes?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this
hearing. It is interesting that all of the witnesses have
confirmed that the teacher's resume is a totally inadequate
measure of their effectiveness, that you have to do more than
just look at the resume to ascertain whether or not the teacher
is a good teacher.
One of the things that concerns me is we keep trying to
improve teacher quality without talking about pay scales.
Dr. McIntyre, if you had more money and could offer higher
salaries could you get better teachers?
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you for the question. You know, I think
resources, in terms of compensation, certainly is one thing
that can be helpful. I don't think it is the sole criteria and
I don't think it is, in and of itself, is going to make a
difference.
We have put in place a strategic----
Mr. Scott. When you get down to the last few teachers you
are trying to hire and there is a quality challenge, I mean, if
you had higher salaries you could attract a better pool of
candidates, couldn't you?
Mr. McIntyre. Yes, sir. I think that is--I think that is
fair to say. I think where that would be valuable is in
competing with some of the other industries that teachers have
the opportunities to go into. And we do--we have had a--we have
put in place a strategic compensation initiative that
recognizes great performance and provides incentives and
rewards for great teaching and student outcomes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Cantrell, you mentioned multiple measures for teaching
and the student component would be part of it. Do you have
multiple measures for the students, including, as Dr. McIntyre
mentioned, a growth model rather than a pass-fail model?
Mr. Cantrell. The MET project looked at two different
student assessments--the state assessment and a supplemental
higher-order thinking skills test that was characteristically
different than the state test and that allowed students to
demonstrate and answer more complex problems, and we saw that
the results were similar, independent of which test that we
used. They both were adequate for identifying teaching
effectiveness.
Mr. Scott. One of the problems I see in--we are trying to
get the best teachers in the most challenging schools. What
incentive would a teacher have to go into a challenging school,
because it seems to me if you are going to be based on student
achievement a bad teacher at a good school would have a better
chance of keeping a job than a good teacher at a bad school.
Mr. Cantrell. So what is nice about how these growth models
work is they don't privilege the status of the student; they
actually reward a teacher for making progress with the student.
And so there is no real advantage. It would be very hard for a
teacher to figure out which student, based on their prior
scores, is going to grow more, and yet growth is the coin of
the realm.
Mr. Scott. Well, in some schools, you know, everybody is
going to do all right.
Dr. Watson, do you see that same challenge?
Mr. Watson. Yes, we have seen that as a challenge, but one
of the things that we have done in Houston is not only to look
at just the growth, meaning from our lowest-performing schools
to our highest-performing. We have looked at our highest-
performing schools and how much growth are they making above
the grade level. And so when we are looking at growth it is not
just looking at low student achievement, but if you are already
at the level, are you 1 or 2 years above that level?
Mr. Scott. Well, if you have got a classroom where
everybody knows everybody is going to achieve because the
parents are helping and everything else in that community, any
teacher is going to be able to do okay. And so why would a good
teacher want to go to a bad school where you may get--may have
a lot of people not achieving?
Mr. Watson. Well, in the recruitment process one of the
things that we have found is there are those teachers that have
that special mission where they do want to work with the most
underserving kids. We do offer financial incentives as well,
but most likely those teachers go because of the support of
administrators and their ability to provide them very good
feedback to grow.
Mr. Scott [continuing]. Time for about one more question.
Mr. Harper, some students are going to be problem students
for everybody. What does evaluation do to collaboration, where
a teacher across the hall may notice that a student is
disruptive, ``Send Johnny over to me and see if I can work with
him.'' Why would a teacher do that if you are going to get
gigged and possibly lose your job because Johnny is going to
bring down your average?
Mr. Harper. I think any effective teacher will seek out
resources to make sure that they are behaving appropriately
inside their own classroom as they are in the classroom across
the hall, so I don't see behavior management as being something
that could be detrimental to a teacher's----
Mr. Scott. Well, if you have a student that you know is
going to be a problem, why would you invite the student into
your class to help your colleague across the hall when you
might be able to do better with that particular student than
the teacher across the hall when that might affect your
average?
Mr. Harper. Because any time you are wanting to build a
culture inside of a school where all students achieve it is
incumbent upon you to make sure that all of the--your teachers
are able to perform at the same level at the higher
expectation, so it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we
have that culture in the first place, which is why you have
local flexibility in developing school performance for our
teachers to be able to perform.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you.
Gentleman's time is expired.
I would like to thank, again, the witnesses for taking the
time to testify before the subcommittee today. Really
appreciate it. Really educational.
Mrs. McCarthy, do you have any closing remarks?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
And I want to thank all the witnesses. It was very
informative.
I always feel like these hearings--we want another hour or
2 because there are so many questions, but some of the
questions I have I hopefully I will follow up with asking you,
and--get back to us.
But as I said in our opening remarks, we as members in
Congress are looking for guidance from your insight. You are on
the ground. You are doing the work that we need to hear about.
Each of your testimonies have common themes, and I have to
say, you are all really on the same page. I didn't hear any
differences whatsoever, which is always a good sign--most
notably, that teacher effectiveness cannot be evaluated on the
one dimension, and I think that came across very strongly.
Students' needs have evolved greatly over time and
educators have an obligation to identify those needs and
develop teacher evaluation standards that are frequent and
diverse in time, and that is the only area that I still wish we
could get better data to the teacher and to everybody else so
the students aren't falling apart 3 months, 6 months. Get them
as early as we can to help them.
I am looking forward to continuing to work on this issue
with my colleagues, and it is my sincere hope that our panel
will continue to share their progress on this issue with the
subcommittee.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this hearing.
I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Ranking Member McCarthy.
I agree with the ranking member about what she just said.
We are looking for guidance and you all provided it. And I am
going to assume, at least in part, that you are representative
of your professions in your testimony today.
And I appreciate your leadership. I think your
professions--administrators and teachers alike--are unsung
heroes, and it is almost cliche to say that these days but it
can't be said enough, in another sense. So thank you very, very
much.
Education, I think is the second biggest challenge we have
as a country and culture today, second only to the
disintegration of the family unit as a problem that we must
address. And more and more you are being asked to do both those
jobs, and I think that is unfair. But that is the reason I want
to say thank you again for that kind of leadership.
We continue to learn so much about teacher evaluation in
the past years and, you know, I think it is time we move
forward with ESEA reauthorization. This hearing today helped
us--helped me, at least, as chairman, do that. So I look
forward to working on and moving such ESEA legislation this
Congress.
With that and no further business being before the
committee, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Question submitted for the record follows:]
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.
Dr. Steve Cantrell, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
P.O. Box 23350, Seattle, WA 98102.
Dear Dr. Cantrell: Thank you for testifying at the February 28,
2013 hearing on ``Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher
Performance?'' I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than April 9, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or Dan Shorts of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Todd Rokita, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
1. Dr. Cantrell, we've heard many researchers state that student
achievement, especially state test results, should not be included in
teacher evaluation systems because the state tests are ``poor quality.
What are your thoughts on this? Can student achievement, when weighted
with multiple measures, provide an accurate picture of a teacher's
ability?
rep. robert c. ``bobby'' scott (d-va)
2. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of
ensuring that our nation's children receive high-quality instruction.
It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to
become teachers in the first place, and one of the most attractive
features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after
years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure
have an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into
the profession? That is, would highly-qualified individuals be less
likely to apply to become a teacher if they knew that they could be
fired at any time?
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.
Mr. Emanuel Harper, Herron High School,
7654 Woodmore Trace, Apt E7, Indianapolis, IN 46260.
Dear Mr. Harper: Thank you for testifying at the February 28, 2013
hearing on ``Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher
Performance?'' I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than April 9, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or Dan Shorts of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Todd Rokita, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
1. Mr. Harper, in your testimony, you state that we need to ``give
more local flexibility in generating a culture that drives student
growth.'' Why is providing the decision-making power to those closest
to students so important?
rep. robert c. ``bobby'' scott (d-va)
1. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of
ensuring that our nation's children receive high-quality instruction.
It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to
become teachers in the first place, and one of the most attractive
features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after
years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure
have an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into
the profession? That is, would highly-qualified individuals be less
likely to apply to become a teacher if they knew that they could be
fired at any time?
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.
Dr. James P. McIntyre, Jr., Knox County Schools,
P.O. Box 2188, Knoxville, TN 37901.
Dear Dr. McIntyre: Thank you for testifying at the February 28,
2013 hearing on ``Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher
Performance?'' I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than April 9, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or Dan Shorts of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Todd Rokita, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
1. Dr. McIntyre, in your testimony you mention that your district's
teacher evaluation system serves as both an accountability mechanism
and a professional growth tool. We've heard from some organizations
that teacher evaluation systems are unfair, because they serve dual
roles. How does your evaluation system serve as both an accountability
mechanism and a professional growth tool? Is it adequate and fair in
serving both purposes?
rep. robert c. ``bobby'' scott (d-va)
1. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of
ensuring that our nation's children receive high-quality instruction.
It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to
become teachers in the first place, and one of the most attractive
features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after
years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure
have an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into
the profession? That is, would highly-qualified individuals be less
likely to apply to become a teacher if they knew that they could be
fired at any time?
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.
Dr. Rodney Watson, Houston Independent School District,
4400 West 18th St., Houston, TX 77092.
Dear Dr. Watson: Thank you for testifying at the February 28, 2013
hearing on ``Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher
Performance?'' I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than April 9, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or Dan Shorts of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Todd Rokita, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
rep. robert c. ``bobby'' scott (d-va)
1. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of
ensuring that our nation's children receive high-quality instruction.
It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to
become teachers in the first place, and one of the most attractive
features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after
years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure
have an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into
the profession? That is, would highly-qualified individuals be less
likely to apply to become a teacher if they knew that they could be
fired at any time?
______
[Responses to questions submitted follow:]
Mr. Cantrell's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
The Measures of Effective Teaching project demonstrated that states
should include student assessments as one among multiple measures.
Schools educate students to learn. Schools measure effective teaching
for students to learn better. Ideally, each of the multiple measures
supports this aim. Each measure provides, to teachers and to those who
support teacher growth, feedback to indicate areas of strength and
areas to develop. Without a measure of student learning, however, there
would be no basis for drawing teacher attention and effort to any
particular aspect of teaching. The point is to identify teaching
practices that help students learn better.
Certainly, smart people disagree about the best ways to assess
learning. State tests are often criticized for being overly narrow
representations of what students should know and be able to do. To the
extent this is true, the solution is for the tests to be supplemented,
not abandoned. There are two ways to accomplish this: The Measures of
Effective Teaching project did both. First, to the extent that the
state assessment reflects only part of the outcomes valued by the
school community, the assessment can be supplemented with other
reliable assessments. MET administered a supplemental assessment
designed to assess student's higher order thinking skills, a commonly
referenced gap in the skills addressed by most state assessments.
Second, the use of multiple measures, such as classroom observation and
student surveys, provides additional indicators to augment what the
state tests measure.
One important MET finding was when the multiple measures agree
schools can act with confidence even though each individual measure is
imperfect. Certainly, we would not advocate using measures that have
not been validated or are unreliable. But, most current state tests
have been validated and their reliability is known. The new tests being
designed to assess progress toward common core state standards will
likely be even better. Even so, states need not wait, but can use their
current tests now while the next generation of tests is developed.
Most teachers come to the profession to help their students
succeed, not for the employment guarantee of tenure. The most highly-
qualified individuals have many career options outside of teaching. We
have no evidence that these highly-qualified individuals would find
teaching less attractive if their continued employment was unrelated to
their success on the job. We have some limited evidence that among the
most highly-qualified teachers, those who struggle most in the
classroom leave voluntarily.\1,2,3\ Unfortunately, we also have
evidence that many of the most talented teachers leave teaching without
anyone having asked them to stay or having told them how remarkable
they were. Furthermore, many of these would have remained in teaching
had they known.\4\ Having tenure had no impact on their decision to
stay or go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dan Goldhaber, Betheny Gross, and Daniel Player. 2007. ``Are
Public Schools Really Losing Their Best? Assessing the Career
Transitions of Teachers and Their Implications for the Quality of the
Teacher Workforce.'' CALDER Working Paper No. 12. Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education
Research.
\2\ Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, Daniel M. O'Brien, and Steven
G. Rivkin. 2005. ``The Market for Teacher Quality.'' NBER Working Paper
No. 11154. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
\3\ Donald Boyd, Pamela Grossman, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb,
and James Wyckoff. 2009 ``Who Leaves? Teacher Attrition and Student
Achievement'' CALDER Working Paper No. 23 Washington, D.C.: National
Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
\4\ TNTP. 2012. The irreplaceables: Understanding the real
retention crisis in American's urban schools. New York, NY: TNTP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In most school districts, tenure is granted after completing two or
three years of satisfactory teaching performance. In most districts,
99% of teachers are designated as satisfactory. This means that tenure
has been nearly automatic, rather than a reward for high quality
performance on any valid, objective measure. Tenure is not enough to
signal success to the ``irreplaceable'' teachers whose internal sense
of mission requires better indicators of success. A well-designed
evaluation system does indicate success and, even more importantly, can
help the most talented individuals mark their progress from novice to
expert. There is no reason to leave these talented individuals guessing
as to whether they are helping student learn or what they need to do to
get better.
______
Mr. Harper's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
Providing schools with additional flexibility facilitates decision-
making opportunities that will directly and positively impact student
achievement. Because teachers are the greatest agents of academic
growth for students, it follows that they are also most receptive to
their needs. The farther removed one is from the classroom, the harder
it becomes to isolate key levers that will dramatically effect positive
change.
Teacher retention is another barrier to generating quality schools.
Providing administrators with flexibility in retaining and releasing
teachers will ensure that the school keeps and recruits top talent.
School-based decision making also affords school leaders an opportunity
to cultivate staff investment in the school. This sense of ownership
enhances school culture. It also builds trust with community
stakeholders like parents and the wider community.
There is a definition of tenure that implies a sense of eventual
immunity. It connotes protection from critical feedback for the
duration of a teacher's career. Under this definition tenure becomes a
race to see who can rest on his or her laurels first. In reality,
tenure must become a powerful tool to incentivize the teaching
profession and recognize excellent teaching in the classroom.
Under this new definition, only the highest performing teachers
would earn tenure. Part of this measurement would be continually
meeting high bars in instruction and management. It also recognizes
that these teachers will continually be internalizing and implementing
feedback from formal and informal evaluations from various stakeholders
(school leaders, peers, students, etc.) to close the achievement gap.
Incumbent upon such an honor would be targeted pay increases and
additional instructional responsibilities tailored to the teacher's
strengths. Thus, tenure is not the end-point of the teaching
profession, but the beginning. Because of its coveted status, tenured
teachers would strive to keep that honor and become the driving force
for excellence school-wide.
Tenure is needed in our schools to reward excellent teachers.
However, tenure must be the starting point for highly effective
teachers. Tenure is a needed incentive to the teaching profession if
structured correctly.
______
Dr. McIntyre's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
Following are my responses to the additional questions submitted by
members of the subcommittee as requested in your letter dated March 19,
2013.
Question: Dr. Mcintyre, in your testimony you mention that your
district's teacher evaluation system serves as both an accountability
mechanism and a professional growth tool. We've heard from some
organizations that teacher evaluation systems are unfair, because they
serve dual roles. How does your evaluation system serve as both an
accountability mechanism and a professional growth tool? Is it adequate
and fair in serving both purposes?
Accountability and professional growth seem to me to be two sides
of the same coin. I think it is fair, and even important that the
system serve dual roles. In that way every teacher has an opportunity
to grow and get better under the rubric, but if they don't * * * that's
going to surface pretty quickly.
Honestly, we're very fortunate in Knoxville, the vast majority of
our teachers do a very good to truly outstanding job in teaching our
kids, so most of what the evaluation system does is help teachers
continuously improve. It's a great support mechanism because we don't
just say ``you're doing a bad job.'' We talk very specifically about
the areas for refinement, and give specific strategies that the teacher
can utilize in the classroom.
But if a teacher in unable or unwilling to grow and get better, and
they are chronically ineffectual, then the evaluation system does give
us the evidence that they should perhaps be invited to explore other
careers.
In our experience great teachers expect to be held to high
standards, and they expect their colleagues to be held to high
standards as well. Tennessee's evaluation system holds all teachers to
the same high standards. Isn't that the way it should be?
Some additional thoughts:
Performance Appraisal separate from an on-going
professional growth model is typically not successful and not
strategically aligned to the goals of the organization. The appraisal
becomes an HR compliance exercise rather than an integral part of
performance management.
Performance management is ``a continuous process of identifying,
measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and
aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization''
(Aguinis, 2009b, p. 2). On the other hand, performance appraisal is the
depiction of the strengths and weaknesses of employees in a non-
continuous manner, typically just once a year. This process is often
perceived as a bureaucratic waste of time created by the human resource
department. (Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2011, p. 504)
So, therefore, teacher evaluation for accountability purposes and
as a professional growth tool must be inextricably linked in order to
effectively achieve the goals of both.
The strength of the TEAM/TAP model is the support that
occurs between formal observations, utilizing instructional coaches,
lead, master, and mentor teachers, as well as the professional growth
plan that teachers work with their administrators to design at the
conclusion of an academic year.
Our multiple measures evaluation tool also include goals
for student growth that are integrated into the on-going instructional
improvement structures for the school, like professional learning
communities (PLCs). This encourages teachers to work together and
collaboratively plan towards increasing student outcomes.
The administrator's role as an instructional leader should
include both the evaluation of classroom instruction, in addition to
providing coaching to support teachers. This is no different than a
supervisor who also becomes a mentor to individuals whom he or she
manages. .
In the private sector, this notion of the duality of
evaluation and professional growth is typically unchallenged. Employees
have grown accustomed to the evaluation process informing and driving
their professional development.
Question: Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part
of ensuring that our nation's children receive high-quality
instruction. It is also important that we recruit the most talented
individuals to become teachers in the first place, and one of the most
attractive features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn
tenure after years of high-quality performance on the job . Would
removing tenure have an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new
teachers into the profession? That is, would highly qualified
individuals be less likely to apply to become a teacher if they knew
that they could be fired at any time?
Tenure has been redefined for new teachers in Tennessee as a
privilege for truly extraordinary teachers rather than a right for all
teachers, even those who are only marginally effective. Only new
teachers are subject to the new tenure provisions in the Volunteer
State, and those coming into the profession today generally understand
the high expectations and rigorous standards that are necessary in
order to ensure that our students are prepared for success in today's
complex and competitive world.
A few other thoughts:
Tenure is and has always been a mechanism to ensure due
process rights for teachers in any employment decision. Tenure is not a
guarantee of job security. It is not a license for unsatisfactory
performance or other unprofessional behavior. As such, the notion of
tenure as life-long job protection, though pervasive, is largely
inaccurate.
Today's workforce has evolved from that of 40 years ago.
Many researchers say that most will work for 5-10 employers over the
course of their careers with longevity averaging 5 years or less.
Many of today's new graduates value opportunities for
promotion and increased compensation (based on performance) over and
above the potential for long-term service.
In particular, high performing employees value the
recognition and reward for their work rather than arbitrary tenure
status.
Moreover, the status and meaning of tenure is diluted when
it is granted to every employee, without regard to their historical or
continuing performance.
Since the change of tenure laws in the state of Tennessee
in 2011, our district has seen no decline in the number of applicants
for our vacancies nor the number of interns and student teachers who
are requesting to work in our district. Over the past three years, we
have averaged about 2,500 new applications for approximately 300 open
positions annually, and 2012 maintained this trend.
Thus, there is no evidence that change in tenure laws have
adversely impacted the ability of our district to attract a high
quality candidate pool.
I was honored to have the opportunity to share my belief that our
teacher evaluation system is an important strategy in our efforts to
improve the quality of public education in Knoxville and across our
state. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional
questions or concerns.
Respectfully Submitted,
James P. McIntyre, Jr.,
Superintendent.
Reference: Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, K. R. (2011). Why
we hate performance management--And why we should love it. Business
Horizons, 54, 503-507.
______
Dr. Watson's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
In general, we have found there is not much evidence in research to
support the claim that tenure is an attractive feature of the teaching
profession; evidence actually suggests that removing tenure would not
have an adverse effect on recruiting highly qualified individuals into
the profession, especially if performance-based decisions include the
ability for great teachers to earn a higher salary, faster, in lieu of
using resources to provide job security. In a survey of over 6,000
teachers in Chicago, less than a quarter agreed or strongly agreed that
``the protections of tenure are part of the reason I became a
teacher.'' The majority of teachers disagreed with this statement. In a
survey of teachers in Chicago and in Indianapolis, when faced with
layoffs during budget cuts to their districts, three-quarters of
teachers in both districts believe that additional performance-based
factors should be considered ahead of seniority when making layoff
decisions. While not a perfect proxy for tenure, if tenure were truly
an attractive feature of the teaching profession, it would follow that
these teachers would want seniority to be the primary factor of
employment decisions.
Moreover, we cannot assume that the talent pool going into teaching
today and in years' past will be the same talent pool going into
teaching tomorrow. We know that today's generation of college graduates
have a vastly different value proposition for what is important for
them in a job and in a career. Tenure status is not on their list.
Only 9% of top-third college students are planning on
going into teaching.
The most important job attributes for the other 91%
include: the quality of co-workers, prestige, a challenging work
environment, and high quality training. Teaching lags far behind other
professions on these attributes for this 91% of top-third college
graduates.
Of the 10 top attributes in an attractive job,
compensation factors make up 4 of the 10. Again, tenure/job security is
not on the list.
Overall, the removal of tenure would not adversely affect the
recruitment of effective teachers if other measures of support
including compensation, feedback, and support and development are in
place at the school level.
______
[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]