Why Teacher Evaluation in the Early Grades is Different

Research
confirms what many of us intuitively know: better teachers lead to better
student outcomes on measures of academic achievement, college attendance, and
career earnings. In the last seven years, an increased focus on teacher
evaluation has raised many questions about what constitutes an “effective
teacher” and what systems best capture a teacher’s effectiveness. As states and
districts grapple with identifying and implementing the most appropriate
evaluation tools, one of the many outstanding questions is how such tools can
be most appropriately used in the early elementary grades, where learning and
instruction often looks different than in older grades.

 States and districts have had
systems in place to evaluate teacher performance for decades. Evaluation tools
vary, but have historically relied upon classroom observations and principals’
intuition. Unfortunately, many of these older systems do very little to
differentiate between high- and low-quality educators. In 2009, TNTP (formerly
The New Teacher Project) published an influential and oft-cited report, The Widget Effect, based upon
the study of evaluation systems in 12 diverse school districts. The findings
were startling. Nearly all teachers were evaluated positively, with fewer than
one percent of teachers receiving unsatisfactory ratings. Additionally,
classroom observations didn’t translate into professional development or
staffing decisions. Nearly three out of four teachers reported that they never
received specific feedback from their observations, and half of the districts
had not dismissed a tenured teacher for poor performance in five years. Evaluation
systems seemed to be more of a bureaucratic exercise than a system meant to improve the quality of
the teaching workforce.

Not long after The Widget Effect was published, the Obama Administration announced
the landmark Race to The Top grant competition. The
competition’s cornerstone was a call for states to innovate their teacher evaluation
models, and it offered more than one-quarter of the competition’s points for
systems that promote “great teachers and leaders.” Many states applied for
these grants and have since overhauled their teacher evaluation systems in an
attempt to better measure teacher quality.

The Administration also made
teacher evaluations a priority with its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers. To escape
the unrealistic expectations of the law, states were required to develop
evaluation systems that used multiple measures to evaluate teachers, including
at least one measure of student growth. Desperate for flexibility under NCLB,
almost all states applied for waivers despite controversies
around teacher evaluation. By the end of 2015, 43
states required student growth to be taken into account in teacher
evaluation. 

Needless to say, teacher evaluation
looks markedly different today than it did seven years ago in most parts of the
country. These new systems differ by state, but often include some combination
of classroom observations and measures of student growth, as well as, more
recently, student feedback. These changes have not come without growing pains
and most states are still adjusting their systems to find what works best for
teachers, administrators, and most importantly, for students.

One challenge has been determining
the best way to evaluate early education teachers, particularly in the
“untested grades,” pre-K through second grade. During the same time that
teacher evaluation systems have been changing, there has also been an
increasing recognition of the importance of early education at the federal,
state, and local level. We have a better understanding now than ever before
about how important the early years of school are to children’s development and
future success. And much learning in these early years depends on the quality
of children’s interactions with adults and the relationships formed with
teachers and peers.

Based on what we know about child
development, teaching and learning should look different in pre-K,
kindergarten, and the early grades of elementary school than it does for older
students. Yet many states have developed “one-size-fits-all” evaluation systems
that were not created with the needs of young children in mind. Early grade
teachers and evaluators have questioned whether the way older grade teachers
are evaluated is appropriate for teachers of younger children. Should teachers
be observed and held accountable to the same rubrics, regardless of their
students’ age? Is it appropriate or even possible to accurately measure
children’s gains in pre-K and kindergarten? Based on what tests? Can young
children accurately give feedback about their teachers? States and districts
have grappled with these questions and others as they have implemented new
teacher evaluation systems. 

In 2013, New America released An Ocean of Unknowns: Risks and Opportunities in Using
Student Achievement Data to Evaluate PreK–3^rd Grade Teachers,
a policy paper examining the best way to measure teacher impact on student
learning. This summer, New America’s Early & Elementary Education Policy
team revisited this topic. We examined how several states and districts are
differentiating their systems by grade level as they implement new teacher
evaluation processes. We looked at three components of teacher evaluations and
how they are used in the early grades: classroom observations, student-growth measures
(commonly known as student learning objectives, or SLOs), and student surveys.
Over the next few days, we will look at how states are incorporating these
components into their evaluation systems in a three-part series on teacher
evaluation in the early grades. 

State and district teacher
evaluation systems are likely to continue to change as states implement the new
Every Student Succeeds Act. As evaluation practices are revised and improved,
it is imperative that the unique demands and circumstances of the early grades
are not lost in the shuffle.