Do states require student growth data to be included in teacher evaluations?
Yes: AL, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV
No: AK, AR, CA, DC, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MS, MT, NE, NH, NM, NC, ND, OK, OR, VT, WI, WY
Footnotes
AK Districts may incorporate "student learning data" into the evaluation process.
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23.
KS Kansas requires "student performance" to be considered in teacher evaluation scores. However, Kansas's teacher evaluation system does not guarantee that student performance will include objective measures of student growth.
NV For the 2021-2022 school year, student growth shall account for zero percent of a teacher's evaluation. Student growth shall account for 15% of a teacher's evaluation "for each academic year beginning with the school year 2022-2023."
NJ Median student growth percentiles were not used during the 2021-2022 academic year.
NC Student growth is tracked by the state but used only to drive professional development, and for school, district, and state reporting.
OH Student growth (high quality student data) will be used in 2022-2023 and in subsequent years.
OK Use of student growth is optional.
PA Evaluation ratings for probationary teachers are based 100% on observation and classroom scores. They do not factor in student growth.
TN Student growth data from tests administered in the 2020-2021 school year must be excluded from a teacher's evaluation score unless it results in a higher evaluation score.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
Do states require districts to use a specific system to evaluate teachers?
Yes. Districts must use the state's evaluation system.: AL, AR, DE, GA, HI, MS, OH, OK, WA, WV
No. Districts may either use the state's evaluation system or develop their own.: KS, MA, MO, MT, NE, NV, NC, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, WI
No. Districts may either use the state's evaluation system or develop their own.: AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, SD, UT, VA, WY
Footnotes
AR Districts may "opt out" of using T.E.S.S. and use a locally adopted system that meets federal and state requirements by obtaining state board approval.
DE New system (DTGSS) will be fully operational in SY 2022-23. LEAs may apply to use an alternative system.
HI Hawaii is a single statewide unified school district.
RI District-developed systems must adopt the state model for SLO ratings.
VT State's Guidelines for Teacher and Leader Effectiveness are recommendations, not requirements.
Updated: November 2022
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Requirements
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Requirements
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
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.