Evaluation of Effectiveness

2011 Identifying Effective Teachers Policy

2011 Goals for Evaluation of Effectiveness

The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation.

Best practices

NCTQ has not singled out any one state for "best practice" honors. Many states have made significant strides in the area of teacher evaluation by requiring that objective evidence of student learning be the preponderant criterion. Because there are many different approaches that result in student learning being the preponderant criterion, all 10 states that meet this goal are commended for their efforts. 

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Evaluation of Effectiveness national results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/national/Evaluation-of-Effectiveness--8
Best practice 0

States

Meets goal 10

States

Nearly meets goal 4

States

Meets goal in part 9

States

Meets a small part of goal 18

States

Does not meet goal 10

States

Do states require districts to use a specific system to evaluate teachers?

2011
Figure details

Yes. Districts must use the state's evaluation system. : AL, AR, DE, GA, HI, LA, MS, NM, PA

No. Districts may either use the state's evaluation system or develop their own. : CO, IL, IN, ME, MI, OK, RI, SC, TN, TX

No. Districts design their own evaluation system based on specific criteria from the state. : AZ, CA, CT, FL, IA, ID, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV, WY

How we graded

Teachers should be judged primarily by their impact on students. 

While many factors should be considered in formally evaluating a teacher, nothing is more important than effectiveness in the classroom. Unfortunately, districts use many evaluation instruments, including some mandated by states that are structured so that teachers can earn a satisfactory rating without any evidence that they are sufficiently advancing student learning in the classroom. It is often enough that teachers appear to be trying, not that they are necessarily succeeding.

Many evaluation instruments give as much weight, or more, to factors that lack any direct correlation with student performance—for example, taking professional development courses, assuming extra duties such as sponsoring a club or mentoring and getting along well with colleagues. Some instruments hesitate to hold teachers accountable for student progress. Teacher evaluation instruments should include factors that combine both human judgment and objective measures of student learning.

A teacher evaluation instrument that focuses on student learning could include the following components:

A. Observation
  1. Ratings should be based on multiple observations ideally by multiple persons within the same year to produce a more accurate rating than is possible with a single observation. Teacher observers should be trained to use a valid and reliable observation protocol (meaning that it has been tested to ensure that the results are trustworthy and useful). The observers should assign degrees of proficiency to observed behaviors.
  2. The primary observation component should be the quality of instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class time.
  3. Other factors often considered in the course of an observation can provide useful information, including:
  • Questioning techniques and other methods for engaging class
  • Differentiation of instruction
  • Continual student checks for understanding throughout lesson
  • Appropriate lesson structure and pacing
  • Appropriate grouping structures
  • Reinforcement of student effort 
  • Classroom management and use of effective classroom routines
Other elements commonly found on many instruments, such as "makes appropriate and effective use of technology" and "ties lesson into previous and future learning experiences" may seem important but can be difficult to document reliably in an observation. Having too many elements can distract the observer from the central question: "Are students learning?"

B. Objective Measures of Student Learning

Apart from the observation, the evaluation instrument should provide evidence of work performance. Many districts use portfolios, which create a lot of work for the teacher and may be unreliable indicators of effectiveness. Good and less-cumbersome alternatives to the standard portfolio exist, for example:
  • The value that a teacher adds, as measured by standardized test scores
  • Periodic standardized diagnostic assessments
  • Benchmark assessments that show student growth
  • Artifacts of student work connected to specific student learning standards that are randomly selected for review by the principal or senior faculty and scored using rubrics and descriptors
  • Examples of typical assignments, assessed for their quality and rigor
  • Periodic checks on progress with the curriculum (e.g., progress on textbook) coupled with evidence of student mastery of the curriculum from quizzes, tests and exams

Research rationale

Reports strongly suggest that most current teacher evaluations are largely a meaningless process, failing to identify the strongest and weakest teachers. The New Teacher Project's report, "Teacher Hiring, Assignment and Transfer in Chicago Public Schools (CPS)" (July2007) at: http://www.tntp.org/files/TNTPAnalysis-Chicago.pdf, found that the CPS teacher performance evaluation system at that time did not distinguish strong performers and was ineffective at identifying poor performers and dismissing them from Chicago schools. See also Brian Jacobs and Lars Lefgren, "When Principals Rate Teachers," Education Next (Spring 2006). Similar findings were reported for a larger sample in The New Teacher Project's The Widget Effect (2009) at: http://widgeteffect.org/.  See also MET Project (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

A Pacific Research Institute study found that in California, between 1990 and 1999, only 227 teacher dismissal cases reached the final phase of termination hearings. The authors write: "If all these cases occurred in one year, it would represent one-tenth of 1 percent of tenured teachers in the state. Yet, this number was spread out over an entire decade." In Los Angeles alone, over the same time period, only one teacher went through the dismissal process from start to finish. See Pamela A. Riley, et al., "Contract for Failure," Pacific Research Institute (2002).
That the vast majority of districts have no teachers deserving of an unsatisfactory rating does not seem to correlate with our knowledge of most professions that routinely have individuals in them who are not well suited to the job. Nor do these teacher ratings seem to correlate with school performance, suggesting teacher evaluations are not a meaningful measure of teacher effectiveness. For more information on the reliability of many evaluation systems, particularly the binary systems used by the vast majority of school districts, see S. Loeb et al, "Evaluating Teachers: The Important Role of Value-Added." The Brookings Brown Center Task Group on Teacher Quality (2010). 

There is growing evidence suggesting that standards-based teacher evaluations that include multiple measures of teacher effectiveness—both objective and subjective measures—correlate with teacher improvement and student achievement. For example see T. Kane et al, "Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness." Education Next Vol 11 No. 3 (2011); E. Taylor and J. Tyler, "The Effect of Evaluation on Performance: Evidence from Longitudinal Student Achievement Data of Mid-Career Teachers." National Bureau of Economic Research (2011); as well as Herbert G. Heneman III, et al., "CPRE Policy Brief: Standards-based Teacher Evaluation as a Foundation for Knowledge- and Skill-based Pay," Consortium for Policy Research, 2006.

  • © 2018 National Council on Teacher Quality. All rights reserved.

  • 1440 G Street NW Ste. 8207, Washington, D.C., 20005

  • 202 393-0020

Map