������Ƶ

Last week, officials at the U.S. Department of Education put three states’ No Child Left Behind waivers on high-risk status – Kansas, Oregon, and Washington – for not following through on their teacher evaluation reform promises. Specifically, these states have delayed making student growth a significant factor in teacher evaluation. For more on what “high-risk status” actually means and other states to keep an eye on, read  by Anne Hyslop on our sister blog, Ed Money Watch.

In exchange for a flexibility waiver, the  states to “use multiple valid measures in determining performance levels, including as a significant factor data on student growth for all students.” For the tested grades and subjects (3rd through 8th grade and once in high school in reading and math in most states), states must include students’ scores on state standardized tests. For the untested grades and subjects, learning can be measured through “alternative measures of student learning and performance,” as long as those measures are “rigorous and comparable across classrooms.” That last piece is especially tricky.

As I point out in my recent paper, , identifying valid and reliable measures of student growth is no easy task. That’s especially true in the untested grades and subjects, which include the early grades of elementary school. There are three approaches states and districts are experimenting with to try to measure student growth for the purposes of teacher evaluation: shared attribution, new assessments, and student learning objectives. While none of those approaches currently being used is great, or research-based for that matter, some are better than others. (Read more about states’ and districts’ approaches to teacher evaluation in the early grades .)

Although Kansas, Oregon, and Washington are behind in meeting the department’s deadlines, there are some experiments underway in each state to incorporate student growth data in teachers’ ratings. Two of the three models – assessments and student learning objectives – are in use across the three states.

Kansas: Kansas has developed a teacher evaluation system model, KEEP, and districts can adopt that model, adapt it, or develop their own models, provided the state department of education approves it. (This  shows which model Kansas districts have selected. A number are using KEEP, but several other systems are being used as well.) According to the , KEEP was first piloted in the 2011–12 school year, with subsequent pilots each year since. It appears, however, that the state has not piloted student growth measures as part of KEEP, which could delay full implementation. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Kansas instead convened a task force to determine how student growth will be included. Information on Kansas’ website is limited about specific, recommended student growth measures that could be used in the early grades of elementary school as well as the other untested grades and subject areas.

Oregon and Washington, on the other hand, are leaving the bulk of teacher evaluation system decisions up to local school districts; state officials have final approval of their plans. While allowing evaluation decisions to be determined locally enables districts to choose or develop a system that meets their individual needs, it also places a burden on districts that may not have the necessary capacity or expertise to successfully implement their systems.

Oregon: According to an article in , this coming school year in Oregon, teachers will receive a rating – based on various indicators including observations – on a scale that ranges from “proficient” to “not acceptable.” Student growth, however, will not be a factor in those teachers’ ratings. Also according to The Oregonian, state officials say they need another year to figure out what works  best. There is something to be said for trying to make the measures as fair and accurate as possible.  in a number of districts, helping to identify promising models from which other districts can pick. Districts in Oregon are experimenting with student learning objectives for the untested grades and subjects, which ask teachers to work with their administrators to construct one or more measurable goals for their students, set rigorous but attainable growth (or achievement) targets, and identify or create an assessment or other tool to measure students’ progress toward the goals.

Washington: Nine districts in Washington are currently piloting systems, at least one of which is experimenting with student learning objectives. Another lists tools or assessments that could be used to demonstrate growth, but does not specify the process for doing so. Some districts, however, , which is a sticking point for the state’s flexibility waiver. Also, under Washington state law, student growth must be based on multiple measures, which can include classroom-based tests, schoolwide tests, districtwide tests, and statewide tests. The department requires that state tests be used when they are available.

The impact a teacher has on student learning should be part of how he is evaluated. But there is limited research on how to do it in a fair and accurate way and how to generate data that can be used to compare teachers in the same school or across a school district, especially for PreK-3rd grade teachers. There are distinct challenges for this set of teachers. The developmental growth of children in the early grades is directly linked to their academic growth. The paper-and-pencil tests used with older kids will not work with children in pre-K, kindergarten, and the early grades. And measures of literacy and numeracy alone do not allow for a full picture of a young child’s learning or his teacher’s impact on laying the foundation for their long-term success in school.

So as these states take extra time to try to get the student growth measures right, we hope district and state officials are taking into account and addressing the specific attributes of PreK-3rd grade teachers and students.