Contact legislators to oppose teacher evaluation changes
02/17/2015

 

TAKE ACTION: Oppose bills that further erode local control in teacher evaluations. Contact members of the House Education Committee and your own representative and urge them to vote NO on HB 1072 and HB 1639. There is still time to contact committee members before HB 1639 is up for a vote Wednesday morning. HB 1072 will move to the full House.

Teacher Evaluations

Another far-reaching change Tuesday was the return of language granting the State Board rulemaking authority over teacher evaluation changes, namely over the determination of minimum and maximum percentages for student test scores that would “significantly inform” evaluations. The State Board approved recommendations from The New Teacher Project (TNTP) at its Feb. 4 meeting, although the board did not adopt specific percentage ranges at that time.

 

In response to TNTP’s recommendations, DOE released public documents at the Feb. 4 State Board meeting illustrating that 51 percent of districts already currently use a range of 30 to 50 percent. A majority of existing local plans, therefore achieve a rigorous range on their own without a top-down mandate from the State Board, which effectively removes all local control in the development of evaluation plans. Local control was part of the agreement in 2011 when the teacher evaluation bill passed.

 

The teacher evaluation language was originally included in HB 1486 – a bill that transferred a number of roles and authorities from DOE to the State Board and duplicated DOE’s existing duties at additional taxpayer expense. HB 1486 was all but dead shortly before the House deadlines. However, the language was reinserted into HB 1072, which was initially a higher education bill dealing with Harrison College before it was drastically amended today and now bears no resemblance to the original legislation.

 

HB 1072 also includes the following provisions carried over from HB 1486:

• For purposes of A-F grade calculations, uses norm-referenced growth (i.e., peer cohort comparisons) instead of individual-level growth.
  • As Rep. Terri Austin, D – Anderson, pointed out, this move negates the work of the Accountability Panel over the past year that focused on fixing this very problem.
• State Board would approve modifications to evaluation plans (currently under DOE).
• State Board would oversee administration of ISTEP.

HB 1072 passed 9-4 out of committee.

 

Student Surveys

Yet another bill (HB 1639) today attempted to make changes to teacher evaluations by including the use of student and parent surveys.

 

ISTA raised concerns about the subjectivity of survey results attached to high-stakes consequences for teachers. Based on research from other states that have piloted similar surveys, such open-ended language is problematic:

 

• Common complaints show that surveys are time-consuming and lead to even less instructional time in addition to testing.
• Surveys are developmentally inappropriate for earlier grades and students have difficulty understanding the questions. Students in higher grades tend not to take the surveys seriously.
• Students in all grades lack understanding about survey items such as classroom management, curriculum and content knowledge.
• Surveys have led students to feel pressure over evaluating their teachers, and similarly teachers may be incentivized to seek approval from students.
• There is no consensus on the percentage weight for student surveys (although this bill also leaves weights open-ended).
• There is no consensus on the number of student surveys that should be given each year.
• Any data should be filtered through the evaluator, not put directly into a formula to quantify teacher effectiveness ratings.
• The fiscal impact could cost the state up to $4.8 million to administer the survey on top of taking away learning time.