Identifying Effective Teachers Policy
The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers.
Although veteran, nonstruggling teachers must only be evaluated once every three years, student and school learning objectives—a measure of student outcomes—are required of all teachers every year.
New teachers (in their first three years of teaching) and struggling teachers (those with a summative rating at the lowest level) are required to receive annual evaluations.
Wisconsin requires teachers to be observed at least twice. Postobservation conferences are required. Informal and unannounced walkthroughs (three to five) are also conducted with either written or verbal feedback.
Change for 2014-15: Removed long unannounced observation. Now state requires one announced observation with post-obs conf; plus 3-5 unannounced mini-observations (15-20 mins), with at least 2 unannounced mini-observations during summary year.
THIS POLICY CHANGE WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE STATE'S SCORE.
Wisconsin Administrative Rule PI8.01(q) Evaluation Schedule http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/eesystem/evaluation-schedule Roles and Responsibilities http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/teacher/t-responsibilities
Ensure that new teachers are observed and receive feedback early in the school year.
It is critical that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers. Wisconsin should ensure that its new teachers get the support they need, and that supervisors know early on which new teachers may be struggling or at risk for unacceptable levels of performance.
Wisconsin was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis.
Annual evaluations are standard practice in most professional jobs.
Although there has been much progress on this front recently, about half of the states still do not mandate annual evaluations of teachers who have reached permanent or tenured status. The lack of regular evaluations is unique to the teaching profession and does little to advance the notion that teachers are professionals.
Further, teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere formalities rather than as important tools for rewarding good teachers, helping average teachers improve and holding weak teachers accountable for poor performance. State policy should reflect the importance of evaluations so that teachers and principals alike take their consequences seriously.
Evaluations are especially important for new teachers.
Individuals new to a profession frequently have reduced responsibilities coupled with increased oversight. As competencies are demonstrated, new responsibilities are added and supervision decreases. Such is seldom the case for new teachers, who generally have the same classroom responsibilities as veteran teachers, including responsibility for the academic progress of their students, but may receive limited feedback on their performance. In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an effective teacher before he or she begins to teach, it is critical that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of new teachers.
The state should specifically require that districts observe new teachers early in the school year. This policy would help ensure that new teachers get the support they need early and that supervisors know from the beginning of the school year which new teachers (and which students) may be at risk. Subsequent observations provide important data about the teacher's ability to improve. Data from evaluations from the teacher's early years of teaching can then be used as part of the performance-based evidence to make a decision about tenure.
Frequency of Evaluations: Supporting Research
For the frequency of evaluations in government and private industry, see survey results from Hudson Employment Index's report: "Pay and Performance in America: 2005 Compensation and Benefits Report" Hudson Group (2005).
For research emphasizing the importance of evaluation and observations for new teachers in predicting future success and providing support for teachers see, D. Staiger and J. Rockoff, "Searching for Effective Teachers with Imperfect Information." Journal of Economic Perspectives. Volume 24, No. 3, Summer 2010, pp. 97-118.