An Amendment to the New Teacher Evaluation Instrument

The State Board of Education recently approved an "amendment" to the new Teacher Evaluation Instrument, adding a sixth standard to an assessment tool that has been in use for only one year..  As reported in the Raleigh News and Observer, teachers and principals will also be evaluated based on the amount of student progress or growth that occurs during a school year.  While I recognize the importance of student growth in measuring a teacher's effectiveness, my opposition to End of Grade and End of Course testing leaves me with mixed emotions when it comes to this decision.

Without question, all students have the right to a well-rounded education.  Students and their parents should expect that classrooms will be filled with effective teachers, regardless of grade, subject, or the level at which a course is being taught.  And, while there are many ways to measure teacher effectiveness, student growth is a great indicator.  Effective teachers are equipped with the passion and know-how to get the most from each student.  Sometimes, that cannot be measured through EOG and EOC proficiency.  For example, consider the following two cases:

1. A teacher has motivated a low performing student to reach, and even exceed, their full potential in a course.  That student has achieved more in this particular course than in any previous grade or class.  Still, when the EOG or EOC test is given, the student fails to score at or above proficient.  When indicators such as EVAAS data are measured, it is obvious that the student achieved tremendous growth during the year.  Should that teacher be judged "ineffective" because the student did not score a Level 3 on their final exam?  I say no.
2. A teacher is fortunate enough to have a class full of gifted, intelligent students who have tremendous academic ability (and also happen to test well).  This particular teacher plans poorly and fails to motivate or inspire their students.  Throughout the span of the course, many of the students lose interest and fail to reach their full potential.  Still, because of their abilities, these students score well on the test.  After examining the data, it is obvious that limited growth occured with these students.  In fact, many of them achieved scores that were below their predicted levels.  Because they were proficient, should that teacher be judged as "effective"?  I say no.

While only examples, these cases reveal the need for better methods to determine teacher effectiveness.  Among other things, this is why I like the new evaluation instrument.  Instead of relying merely on test scores, it takes other factors into account, giving a more well-rounded picture of a teacher and their performance.  Thus, I believe that this new standard has some merit.  However, as I previously indicated, I do have some reservations.  Included among those concerns are:

• Presently, student growth can be measured using indicators such as EVAAS, which compares a student's actual EOG or EOC score to a predicted score (an example is given below).  Given the fact that high school EOCs for Civics, US History, Algebra II, and Physical Science will no longer be given, I am concerned at how student growth will be measured. 

• Although I work at the high school level, I do have concerns with regards to using EOG results to measure student growth and teacher effectiveness at the elementary level.  In particular, those teachers who are preparing 3rd graders for EOG testing have limited previous data from which to work.  These students have taken no prior EOGs, leaving their teachers with less data at their disposal.  I also wonder if and how predictions can be made for student scores.  If no predictions are made, how will growth be measured?
• EOGs or EOCs for any grade or course have many flaws and issues, including cultural bias, inaccurate questions, etc.  It is unfair to connect any flawed instrument with evaluating teacher performance and effectiveness.
• Regardless of the level of a teacher's effectiveness, questions of test security also arise.  Many teachers can "score well" in their area by "teaching to the test" or even by giving students the answers to questions prior to the test. 
• If student growth is measured by "other means", what will those means be, and how reliable will they be? 
• Given recent budget cuts (and anticipated future cuts), can the state afford to develop and implement new means of measuring student growth and teacher effectiveness?

Obviously, I am torn on the issue.  It will be interesting to see if recently dropped EOCs are re-implemented in order to provide more data for measuring student growth.  Either way, I do believe that GROWTH is more important than proficiency.  Undoubtedly, any teacher who is able to show consistent and true growth with students is an effective one.  Anything that we can implement to identify and retain effective teachers should be given a chance.