Measures of Student Growth: Maryland

2019 Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy

Goal

The state should require objective measures of student growth to be included in a teacher's evaluation score.

Meets
Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2019). Measures of Student Growth: Maryland results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/MD-Measures-of-Student-Growth-95

Analysis of Maryland's policies

Impact of Student Growth: Maryland requires student growth to account for a "significant" portion of a teacher's evaluation rating and to be one of the multiple measures used. No single criterion is allowed to comprise more than 35 percent of the overall evaluation rating. Maryland's default model requires 50 percent of a teacher's overall rating to be comprised of student growth. Maryland also provides a "local model," which requires student growth to count for 50 percent of a teacher's overall rating, with student assessment scores counting for 20 percent of that 50 percent. It is unclear whether Maryland requires these percentage weights in local evaluation systems in order to earn state approval.

For elementary and middle school teachers providing instruction in state-assessed grades and content, student growth consists of aggregate assessment ratings, student learning objectives, and the schoolwide index. For all remaining teachers, student growth consists of student learning objectives and the schoolwide index. 

State's role in Evaluation System: Maryland districts may either adopt the state model or use the state's framework to develop their own model. Models developed by districts must be approved by the state.

Citation

Recommendations for Maryland

Due to Maryland's strong policies in this area, no recommendations are provided.

State response to our analysis

Maryland indicated that the department of education is in the process of revising student growth measures. An Evaluation Improvement Workgroup was convened to make recommendations for improvement. The recommendations of the Workgroup are currently being shared with local school system leaders for input prior to revising evaluation regulations.


Updated: June 2019

Last word

NCTQ looks forward to reviewing the state's future progress in polices around Measures of Student Growth.

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
The full goal score is earned based on the following:

  • 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.