States
States
States
Progress on this goal since
- Improved
- Stayed the same
- Regressed
Do states require student growth data to be included in teacher evaluations?
Somewhat: OH
Yes: AL, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NJ, NV, NY, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV
No: AK, AR, CA, DC, IA, KS, KY, ME, MT, NC, NE, NH, NM, OK, VT, WI, WY
Footnotes
NC: Student growth is tracked by the state but used only to drive professional development, and for school, district, and state reporting.
OH: Objective measures of student growth are only required for teachers of tested grades and subjects.
Do states require student growth to be a determinative factor in a teacher's overall rating?
Yes. Teachers must earn at least an effective rating on student growth to earn an overall rating of effective.: IN
Partially. Teachers rated ineffective on student growth are not eligible for an overall effective rating. However, teachers rated needs improvement are eligible for an overall effective rating. : HI, NV, NY
Unlikely. Student growth constitutes at least 33 percent of a teacher's overall rating; however, teachers are not required to earn at least an effective rating on student growth to earn an overall rating of effective.: AZ, CO, CT, FL, LA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, OH, PA, TN, WI
Unlikely. Student growth constitutes less than 33 percent of a teacher's overall rating, and teachers are not required to earn at least an effective rating on student growth to earn an overall rating of effective. : AL, DC, DE, GA, ID, IL, MA, MD, ME, MO, MS, ND, OR, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WY
No. State does not require student growth data in its evaluation system.: AK, AR, CA, IA, KS, KY, MT, NC, NE, NH, OK, VT
Footnotes
NC: Student growth is tracked by the state but used only to drive professional development, and for school, district, and state reporting.
Do states require districts to use a specific system to evaluate teachers?
Yes. Districts must use the state's evaluation system. : AL, DE, GA, HI, LA, MS, OK, PA, SC, WA, WV
No. Districts may either use the state's evaluation system or develop their own. : KS, MO, NC, OH, RI, TN, TX, WI
No. Districts design their own evaluation system based on specific criteria from the state. : AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, SD, UT, VA, VT, WY
Updated: June 2019
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
- Teaching Methods
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Deficiencies
- Adolescent Literacy
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Deficiencies
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
- Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Provisional and Emergency Licensure
- Licensure for Substitute Teachers
- Supporting New Teachers
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded
7A: Measures of Student Growth
- Student Growth: The state should require:
- That districts use an evaluation instrument that includes objective student growth measure
- Full credit: The state will earn full credit if it requires teacher evaluations to include objective measures of student growth.
Research rationale
Many factors should be considered in formally evaluating a teacher; however, nothing is more important than effectiveness in the classroom. Value-added models are an important tool for measuring student achievement and school effectiveness.[1] These models have the ability to measure individual students' learning gains, controlling for students' previous knowledge and background characteristics. While some research suggests value-added models are subject to bias and statistical limitations,[2] rich data and strong controls can eliminate error and bias.[3] In the area of teacher quality, examining student growth offers a fairer and potentially more meaningful way to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness than other methods schools use.
Unfortunately, districts have used many evaluation instruments, including some mandated by states, which are structured so that teachers can earn a satisfactory rating without any evidence that they are sufficiently advancing student learning in the classroom.[4] Teacher evaluation instruments should include factors that combine both human judgment and objective measures of student learning.[5]
[1] Hanushek, E. A., & Hoxby, C. M. (2005). Developing value-added measures for teachers and schools. Reforming Education in Arkansas, 99-104.; Clotfelter, C. & Ladd, H. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance based reform in education (pp. 23-64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.; Ladd, H. F., & Walsh, R. P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21(1), 1-17.; Meyer, R. H. (1996). Value-added indicators of school performance. In E. A. Hanushek (Ed.), Improving America's schools: The role of incentives, (pp. 197-223). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.; Braun, H. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Educational Testing Service.
[2] Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education, 4(4), 537-571.; McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A., & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 67-101.; Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.; McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Monograph. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
[3] Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633-2679.; Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37-65.; Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. The American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593-2632.
[4] Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D., Schunck, J., Palcisco, A., & Morgan, K. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New Teacher Project.; Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
[5] Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 587-613.; Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628-3651.