John: Teacher Evaluation Systems—The South Carolina Model

On Oct. 24th, I attended a meeting hosted by the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. I was joined by more than 600 fellow special education and general education teachers. The topic of the meeting was teacher evaluation systems – one of the most hotly debated issues for teachers today. I have held off writing about this topic for a few reasons. First, I don’t like talking about issues that are political. Second, I wasn’t sure that it was an appropriate topic for Reality 101. Finally, I was too angry to have a rational discussion about it.

I decided now is a good time to write about this change for a couple reasons. First, I don’t think teacher evaluation is as much about politics as it is about education. Second, the more I think about the South Carolina plan, the more I can see real-life, everyday implications for the reality of a teacher as a result of the changes that are being proposed. Third, I have had time to review the proposed South Carolina plan in its entirety, listen to the explanation from the State Department of Education, and think reasonably and rationally about the topic.

The South Carolina State Department of Education has proposed changing the teacher evaluation system to an A-F grading scale that relies on classroom value-added and school value-added formulas to calculate a teacher’s grade. For those of you still in college, think of ADEPT or SAFE-T. This system will replace ADEPT and SAFE-T in South Carolina.

I won’t go into all the details of this plan, but this link will give you more information if you would like to read more about it. Basically, classroom value-added is judged by student growth on test scores by students in your class. School value-added is based on how your school as a whole performs. For high school teachers, it is based on HSAP (exit exam) scores and graduation rates.

Ironically, on the same day I was attending this meeting on the South Carolina teacher evaluation system, CEC published a Position on Special Education Teacher Evaluation. I highly encourage all special education teachers—or general education teachers for that matter—to read it and evaluate your state’s system based on CEC’s Position.

I am against the proposed plan in South Carolina for several reasons, and am pleased to note that justifications for most of these reasons can be found in CEC’s Position.

1. Not all teachers have the same formula to calculate a grade.
Teachers in state-wide tested grades and content areas have the following formula: Teacher Observation and Performance Scales (TOPS) count 60 percent, classroom value-added counts 30 percent, and school value-added counts 10 percent.

For teachers in grades and content areas not tested statewide, 70 percent of the grade is based on TOPS, and 30 percent is based on school value-added. The state superintendent said that the teachers in South Carolina would be split approximately 70/30 with 70 percent following the 70/30 formula, and 30 percent following the 60/30/10 plan. I would like to see a teacher evaluation system that was the same for all teachers.

2. The proposed system does not take into account the varying responsibilities and roles of a special education teacher.
I have often wondered how much time I spend on things such as IEP development, progress monitoring, collaborating with general educators and families, and implementing accommodations. My guess would be that these responsibilities take up easily half of my time at work. The proposed system does not take into account these aspects of a special educator’s job.

3. Special education advocates must be involved in the development, implementation and evaluation of the teacher evaluation process.  
I spoke to Dr. Kathryn Meeks from the State Department of Education after the meeting to address some of my concerns regarding the plan. One thing I asked was how many special educators were involved in the development of this system. She could not say that special educators were involved in the development of the system although she did say that they received feedback from a handful of schools and special education teachers at those schools gave feedback on the system.

I also asked if they had sought input from the CEC. She said they had not. To her credit she said she had worked with the South Carolina Office of Special Education Programs, but I would have appreciated an effort to include and collaborate with the world’s largest advocacy organization for educators of students with disabilities, as well as the students with disabilities themselves.

4. The proposed system uses a statistical model that does not have consensus acceptance among researchers as to its estimate of student growth.
Several times during the meeting, the teachers in attendance showed great displeasure with the State Department of Education. One of those times was when the state superintendent discussed how this formula calculates what growth a student should be able to achieve.

I’m no statistician, but calculating what my students will be able to do from day to day is nearly impossible. Calculating student growth is actually a significant portion of the formula. Some 20 percent or 30 percent (depending on if your students participate in state-wide testing) of the grade is based on classroom value-added, but a significant portion of the TOPS section is calculated based on student growth. When combined, the student growth and student value-added portions account for over half of the teacher’s final grade. Over half of my reputation as a teacher will be based on measures that do not have sufficient research to support them.

5. The proposed system does not take into consideration the unintended negative consequences for students with disabilities.
The meeting was filled with emotion from the hundreds of teachers in attendance. On several occasions the speakers from the State Department of Education were interrupted by an angry shout from the crowd followed by a standing ovation and cheers from the fellow teachers. But in all of the emotional comments, I heard some teachers reveal opinions about students with disabilities in general education classrooms that, frankly, offended me.

Advocates for students with disabilities have made great strides toward including students with disabilities. I fear that if a teacher’s reputation is on the line (or his or her pay—as our state superintendent has stated he advocates) teachers will not readily welcome students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

I could go on with more reasons why I am opposed to this system. For example, a hostile work environment with teachers looking out for themselves and the fact that there would be absolutely no incentive for good teachers to teach at low performing schools each have enough content to make a whole new blog post.

I do think education needs reform. South Carolina has some of the lowest rankings for education in the country. While dozens of other factors play a part, I do think teachers play a big part in student growth. I do think some teachers are less effective than others. I do think student growth can be factored into a teacher’s evaluation in a way that is equitable for all teachers.

Education needs reform, but this system is not the answer. Many states are planning systems similar to the one in South Carolina. How is your state’s system incorporating student growth into its evaluation? What pitfalls or benefits do you see to your system?

Comments

[Jannette]

John

I am so very glad for your blog. It is an area that I must honestly say I do not know a lot about. I am now going to look at the perspective of New Jersey, the NJ NEA and the CEC viewpoints. Although I can readily say that there seems to a void in the connection between the qualitative aspects of the job and quantitative parts of teaching students with exceptional learning challenges. This includes those students who are gifted.
I do agree with you that the current plan for SC as you describe does not leave room for developing a positive teaching morale and I think it prohibits the current evidenced based strategy of "co-teaching" in the general education classroom.
Thank you for the heads up. jannette

[Andrew]

Hi John,
Sounds like you have a lot of knowledge on the teacher evaluation system. I can't help but feel sometimes politics has a way of trying to safe face while making life more difficult for everyone else around them. It is great that policies are in place to ensure competent and effective teachers are in our schools, but at some point they should just let the teachers teach. Thank you for your post.

[Jerry]

To be sure, what I said was that I do not know any other system of evaluation and that since I am a new teacher, I will not know any differently. There is a difference between being relatively ignorant and thus optimistically, if cautiously, excited about something someone else sees as 'new' and being passively 'pleased.' I am not passively pleased. I hope that clarifies my earlier point.

[Jerry]

@John--thanks for clearing that up.

[Brandi]

John-I think you have every reason to state your opinion on this evaluation system. The role and responsibilities of a special education teacher are definitely over looked and sometimes under appreciated. I live in Minnesota and I am currently student teaching. We are currently required to participate in the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) which doesn't accurately represent how special education teachers operate, or how the university is preparing teacher candidates for their future careers. States have these ambitions and goals with their evaluation systems, but does it really evaluate the important aspects of special education? I don't think so and I hope that they figure that our real soon.

[John]

@Tonya I couldn't agree anymore with your comment. You summed up the problems with a value-added model perfectly. I would add that the math formulas can be fairly accurate when dealing with very large populations (all the students in SC), but they become very innacurate predictors of growth when applied to the classroom or school level because of all the individual factors you mentioned.

[John]

@Jerry I'm glad you are pleased with the system in Ohio. In South Carolina, student growth is determined by students test scores on state-wide exams in comparison to what a statistical formula says they should achieve. So while I may have every piece of data available on my students and can show growth in a number of ways other than state-wide test scores, if my students don't perform on those state-wide assessments, none of the other growth matters.

[Tonya]

John,
What a nice blog entry. I would like to echo many sentiments already spoken here. A primary presumption of a value-added model is that a teacher’s effectiveness can be identified through students’ standardized test scores. This evaluation system makes teachers responsible for student success when, in reality, quite the opposite is true. Teachers do not work in isolation because schools are learning communities where all parts contribute to student development. An evaluation system that even partially bases an individual teacher’s evaluation on his or her students’ scores ignores the reality that student success is often predicated on the work of many in a school, including reading teachers, resource teachers, reading and English Language Learner specialists, guidance counselors, social workers, psychologists, and other personnel. Most importantly, out-of-school factors are actually more responsible for student success. Non-classroom- teacher factors, including parents’ income level and level of education, account for roughly 85-90% of the statistical variation in students’ tests scores.
There must be an answer to this, I just don't know what it is.

[Jerry]

I just spent the last half hour or so watching youtube videos on the new teacher evaluation system in Ohio. I'm not so conflicted as some may be. On the one hand, I am a new teacher so evaluation is expected, but I'm not used to any particular system. Whatever system is in place is what I will be accustomed to.

Second, it factors in student growth at a rate of 50% of the evaluation. While I am a bit bothered that out of the 20+ minutes of videos there was mention of special education for about 30 seconds, I also think that to an extent it is easier for special educators to demonstrate than it is for others. I know in my situation, I am a slave to data collection. I collect data on everything and use many tools and charts and forms to keep track of it.

I am actually kind of excited about the new evaluation process (in Ohio) precisely because those teachers who do their jobs well and keep good records shouldn't have any problems receiving a very good rating from their principal and those who will evaluation student progress.

[John]

@Naomi thanks for the comment. I could have written an entire blog just about objections to the value added formulas. I think they can be somewhat accurate (emphasis on somewhat) when dealing with very large populations. When bringing those formulas to smaller groups, like schools or classrooms, there are simply too many dependent variables affecting the test scores to make accurate predictions. Part of the problem with the proposed system is that the formulas are very technical and require and advanced math degree to begin to understand them. When teachers try to argue against the formulas they can sometimes be like a dog barking up the wrong tree simply because they don't understand the formula.

This whole paragraph and I haven't even mentioned what you said about how we need a more holistic approach to measuring growth. You are right on.

[Naomi Katz]

Sorry, my line regarding the measuring of teaching and learning should have read that "it must be done using QUALITATIVE measures..." not quantitative. Thank you!

[Naomi Katz]

Thank you, John, for this critique. It is interesting to note that the same CEC news brief that features your blog, also features a story about Michigan receiving a $24 million federal grant from the U.S. Department of Education, who "believes in looking at a more holistic approach to education." The quote continues, "Part of the program’s beliefs is that helping a student achieve greatness can't be done by academics alone, that some students may have other issues that affect their ability to learn." Amen! This admission belies the basic flaw with using "value-added" evaluation systems, mainly; that student growth is not an even, sterile process that can be distilled and analyzed as the result of standardized test scores. Neither can teaching be measured quantitatively. Teaching and learning are necessarily holistic processes and any efforts to measure them must use quantitative measures (ie. portfolio analysis, observations, etc.) As you state in your blog, the research is just not there to support value-added evaluations. Thanks for underscoring the flaws in this system and please take note that even the Federal Dept. of Ed., which has championed the value added method, now maintains that a more holistic approach to education is critical. Ironic but true!

[Brenna]

John,
Great information in this blog -- it is something that every teacher should be aware of and as a student teacher myself, I am beginning to form my own opinions on this subject. It is unfortunate to hear that some general education teachers don't want to include students with disabilities in their classes just because they would not "look good" as teachers if these students didn't perform well in their class. I really resonated with the point you made in #2. I truly believe that many of the duties and responsibilities of special education teachers are overlooked by other teachers... our job involves WAY more than the instruction of students. This needs to be considered when making teacher evaluation systems.

[John]

@Sabrina I agree it is hard to judge a teacher based on student growth. Student growth can mean lots of different things: behavior, social skills, maturity, job skills, etc. None of these things will show up on test scores. I am not completely against student growth being factored into a teacher's score. It just needs to be equitable for all teachers.

[John]

@Brittany thanks for the comment. You bring up a good point. This isn't just a South Carolina issue. These types of systems are coming to all states sooner or later. You also hit on a topic that I didn't spend much time elaborating on, but the rating systems can encourage and discourage you from teaching at certain schools.

[John]

@Kristin thanks for the comment. I highly recommend you to research these systems and be informed before you start applying for jobs. The school you teach at will have a major impact on your score as a teacher.

[John]

@Kari thanks for the comment. I encourage you to get informed and make your own opinions about these type of systems. No matter where you teach, this type of system is either already in the works or coming soon.

[Sabrina]

What a loaded question, "How is your state’s system incorporating student growth into its evaluation? What pitfalls or benefits do you see to your system?" I am excited to answer, and I apologize if it feels like a rant...I am sure the people who decided Minnesota needed to do their Teacher Evaluations this way may have had a reason. Keep in mind I am a student teacher and I do not know how this looks beyond college, I know this is a requirement from the State of Minnesota. I just don't understand. So, here it goes (as much as I know anyway, since it is so new), in Minnesota we have adopted a system called Teacher Performance Analysis (TPA) which is tracked by using a program online called TaskStream, an online portfolio system. This online portal is a place to put lesson plans, connect them to standards, explanations of what you did and on and on. My trouble is coming from realizing that this program was definitely not made with Special Education in mind because it does not fit the assignments I have to put on it. I do not know how Minnesota is going to evaluate teachers who are already teaching. This is how they are evaluating us newbies.
On the subject of "teachers getting paid according to student growth" this statement is familiar in regards to already-in-the-field educators. I can't help but think, "What about me?" Some of my students will not move forward after they hit a certain threshold in the academic world, what then? Does that mean I am not an 'effective' teacher, which means I will get paid less than the general education math teacher whose class made extensive progress? That seems unfair...maybe I don't understand it at all. I just know that there must be a way teachers can be deemed 'effective' or
'non-effective' on the basis of something other than academic growth.

[Brittany]

Thank you for researching this and bringing attention to it. I am a pre-service teacher and I didn't realize how much your first year of teaching could affect your rating. I think that the states need to think twice about rating teachers and schools because we could have a surplus of teachers wanting to teach at the better rated school to help their score and a shortage of teachers at schools that could negatively affect their rating. I feel that it should not matter which school district or building you are teaching in but it should matter what you are teaching and how effective your teaching is to the students. If they are not learning the material then as the teacher I feel it is my job to figure out why and how I can present this information and skills to them so they have a chance to learn these skills.
As a pre-service teacher in Minnesota they are trying to use a system to rate us during our student teaching. I personally feel that this system is a lot of extra paper work and that it is taking my time away from learning things that I could not have in lectures. I am sure there are good intentions behind it and that is has good points. Hopefully these rating systems are thought out and they find a way to incorporate students with disabilities and have it not be a negative process. Thank you again for taking this overwhelming topic and bringing out the important points/ issues that need to be thought of and considered.

[Kristin]

John-
Thats a lot to think about- and to be honest I am not teaching yet so I have not really thought about teacher evaluation system. But Thank you for asking your state people some good hard question. Keep up the great post and most of all keep up the great work you are doing with your students!!

[Kari]

John,

Thank you for all the information about teacher evaluations. I have heard about them recently in school and they seem to be a bit overwhelming. I agree that I think it is difficult to judge a teachers ability based on these certain criteria. I also find it saddening that soon general education teachers will have this negative attitude toward students will disabilities. Thank you for all the useful information and I will be sure to look further into the links you provided.

[John]

@Jill Thanks for the support! I really appreciate everyone reading.

[John]

@Jamie I know--a lot of information, right? I tried making it shorter. This is actually shorter than it was before editing, but thanks for taking the time to read it. I wanted to make a well-thought out argument about this system. Right now, a lot of people are just writing about it and saying, "This is stupid, and I don't like it!" essentially. While I may agree, that kind of thinking doesn't get anyone at the state department to change their mind.

As a pre-service teacher, I would recommend that you take some time to learn about the system before you start applying for jobs. If you teach in South Carolina, the school you end up teaching at will make a huge impact on your score. If you don't teach in SC, your state is probably going through a similar process. Some states are doing a really good job. Others have some problems with them.
Thanks for the comment!

[Jill]

Once again, you make your fellow SC CEC members proud, John. I appreciate your thoughtful reflection...and I agree!
Keep up the good fight, always focussing on the students we serve. Your circle of influence is growing as you lead us and keep us informed.
Jill

[Jamie]

John,
Wow, what a lot of information to take in! Thank you for taking the time to research this issue and for providing your thoughts on it. As a pre-service teacher, I have not yet had to worry about teacher evaluation systems. Thus, I feel I cannot offer my won opinion on the matter. Thank you so much for posting the links. I plan to save the links for future reference. Thank you again for this valuable information.