U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–991 PDF 2013

RAISING THE BAR: HOW ARE SCHOOLS 

MEASURING TEACHER PERFORMANCE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 

Serial No. 113–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 28, 2013 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ......................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cantrell, Steve, chief research officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Harper, Emanuel F. IV, French teacher, Herron High School, Indianapolis, IN ........................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

McIntyre, Dr. James P., Jr., superintendent, Knox County Schools, Knoxville, TN ......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Watson, Dr. Rodney E., chief human resources officer, Houston Independent School District, Houston, TX ......................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Additional Submissions: 

Chairman Rokita, question submitted for the record to: 

Mr. Cantrell ............................................................................................... 36 

Mr. Harper ................................................................................................. 37 

Dr. McIntyre .............................................................................................. 37 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, question submitted for the record to: 

Mr. Cantrell ............................................................................................... 37 

Mr. Harper ................................................................................................. 37 

Dr. McIntyre .............................................................................................. 38 

Dr. Watson ................................................................................................. 38 

Witnesses responses to questions submitted: 

Mr. Cantrell ............................................................................................... 38 

Mr. Harper ................................................................................................. 39 

Dr. McIntyre .............................................................................................. 40 

Dr. Watson ................................................................................................. 41 

(1) 

RAISING THE BAR: HOW ARE SCHOOLS 

MEASURING TEACHER PERFORMANCE? 

Thursday, February 28, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Petri, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, McCarthy, Scott, Davis, Polis, and Sablan. 

Staff present: Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and 

Human Services Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; 

Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; 

Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Sollberger, 

Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad 

Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jeremy Ayers, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Meg Benner, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jamie 

Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; Megan 

O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; and Michael Zola, Minority 

Senior Counsel. 

Chairman ROKITA. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing on 

teacher performance measurements. I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today to share their valuable insight on ways 

states and local school districts are working to ensure effective educators in our classrooms. 

Teachers are one of the most influential factors on a student’s 

academic success. I don’t think I even need to say that. I am sure 

I am not the only one in this room that can remember the teachers 

who inspired and motivated us as children. And now that I am a 

father of two boys I am again seeing firsthand the difference an engaging teacher can make on a child’s desire and ability to learn. 

Over the next few months we will renew our efforts to address 

the challenges facing K-12 schools, and what better place to start 
2 

than to discuss how states, school districts, and schools are evaluating teachers and exploring more innovative strategies that can 

help improve the academic success of children? 

We all agree No Child Left Behind helped the nation take enormous steps toward a better education system, but we now recognize 

the law’s shortfalls. One primary concern for many of us in this 

room is the way the law defined, quote-unquote—‘‘good teachers.’’ 

No Child Left Behind’s rigid ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ provisions require educators to have a bachelor’s degree, hold a state 

certification or license, and be able to demonstrate knowledge of 

the subject matter they plan to teach. That all sounds reasonable 

and great in theory, but in reality it meant schools were forced to 

value an educator’s credentials over his or her ability to effectively 

and successfully teach children. And we all want qualified teachers 

in the classroom but we must also recognize that a teacher’s excellence cannot be measured simply by degrees and diplomas alone. 

Recognizing the antiquated ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ requirements alone weren’t helping schools attract the most promising 

teachers to the classroom, some states and school districts have 

been working to implement alternative methods to better evaluate 

the effectiveness of their teachers. In recent years a growing number of states and school districts have started developing new 

teacher evaluation systems that incorporate multiple measures and 

student performance data. Not only does this data help measure a 

teacher’s success in the classroom, it also provides educators with 

valuable feedback to analyze and refine their methods. 

As a representative from the great state of Indiana, I am particularly pleased to welcome one of our Hoosier educators as a witness 

today and look forward to hearing his insights about the importance of teacher evaluation at the local level. 

In addition, in 2011 Tennessee became one of the first states in 

the country to implement a comprehensive student-outcomes-based 

evaluation system. This system uses traditional measures, such as 

teacher observations and personal conferences, but places significant emphasis on student achievement data. Additionally, the new 

system prevents ineffective educators from staying in the classroom 

by directly addressing teacher tenure laws and the ‘‘last in, first 

out’’ policies that seem prevalent. 

Within 1 year of implementing its new evaluation system, Tennessee students made the biggest single-year jump in achievement 

ever recorded in that state. 

In my home state of Indiana, the general assembly approved legislation that calls upon school districts to create their own plans for 

annual performance evaluations or adopt one recommended by the 

state. The law sets requirements that every school must meet but 

provides districts with resources and flexibility to find the methods 

that will help them meet those requirements. 

This is similar to a proposal based—passed out of this committee 

last Congress as part of our ESEA reform efforts, and I hope we 

will again consider such innovative policies in the 113th Congress. 

I am looking forward to a productive conversation this morning 

very similar, I hope, to our last committee hearing here with my 

colleagues and our witness panel about the way states and school 

districts are continuing to think outside of the box when it comes 
3 

to recruiting, retaining, measuring, and supporting the most effective educators in the classroom. 

And now I will recognize my distinguished colleague, Carolyn 

McCarthy, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning and welcome to our subcommittee hearing on teacher performance 

measurements. I’d like to thank our witnesses for joining us today to share their 

valuable insight on ways states and local school districts are working to ensure effective educators are in the classroom. 

Teachers are one of the most influential factors on a student’s academic success. 

I’m sure I’m not the only one in this room that can remember the teachers who inspired and motivated me as a child. And now that I’m a father of two boys, I am 

again seeing firsthand the difference an engaging teacher can make on a child’s desire and ability to learn. 

Over the next few months, we will renew our efforts to address the challenges facing K-12 schools. 

What better place to start than to discuss how states, school districts, and schools 

are evaluating teachers and exploring more innovative strategies that can help improve the academic success of children. 

We all agree No Child Left Behind helped the nation take enormous steps toward 

a better education system, but we now recognize the law’s shortfalls. One primary 

concern for many of us in this room is the way the law defined ‘‘good’’ teachers. 

No Child Left Behind’s rigid ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ provisions require educators to have a bachelor’s degree, hold a state certification or license, and be able 

to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter they plan to teach. That all sounds 

great in theory, but in reality it meant schools were forced to value an educator’s 

credentials over his or her ability to effectively and successfully teach our children. 

We all want well-qualified teachers in the classroom, but we must also recognize 

that a teacher’s excellence cannot be measured by degrees and diplomas. 

Recognizing the antiquated ‘‘Highly Qualified Teacher’’ requirements alone 

weren’t helping schools attract the most promising teachers to the classroom, some 

states and school districts have been working to implement alternative methods to 

better evaluate the effectiveness of their teachers. 

In recent years, a growing number of states and school districts have started developing new teacher evaluation systems that incorporate multiple measures and 

student performance data.Not only does this data help measure a teacher’s success 

in the classroom, it also provides educators with valuable feedback to analyze and 

refine their methods. As a representative from the great state of Indiana, I am particularly pleased to welcome one of our Hoosier educators as a witness today, and 

look forward to hearing his insights about the importance of teacher evaluation at 

the local level. 

In 2011, Tennessee became one of the first states in the country to implement a 

comprehensive student-outcomes based evaluation system. This system uses traditional measures such as teacher observations and personal conferences, but places 

significant emphasis on student achievement data. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

you again for calling this hearing. It is very important as we go forward. 

So, I also want to thank our panel of witnesses, especially bright 

and early. Usually we start around 10 and that difference one of— 

1 hour is appreciated by all of us on the last day. 

I do want to make a note that even before we dive into teacher 

performance and evaluation we have a duty to revisit teacher 

standards in general to ensure the best and the brightest are educating our children. This commitment begins at a very early age, 

and I am currently working on legislation that will encourage 

states to follow best practices in early education and commit to hiring teachers with at least a bachelor’s degree. 
4 

With that being said, it goes without saying that evaluating 

teacher performance is a tricky issue. There are many factors aside 

from student achievement that come into play when judging a 

teacher’s performance. These factors include but not are limited to: 

classroom environment, classroom resources, or school leader involvement. Let me break down what I mean by each of these. 

Classroom environment: Where schools are located and the 

make-up of the class all play important factors when we discuss 

teachers’ performance. Classroom resources: How much funding 

local schools are getting, both federally and locally, affect how 

teachers are able to do their work. 

Last but not least, school leader involvement, too: Too often our 

school leadership gets off the hook in underperforming schools. We 

need to take a look at how teachers are being supported by their 

school boards and administrators when conducting any evaluation 

of performance. 

While taking these three factors into consideration we must also 

recognize several important points about evaluation. Evaluations 

must be done frequently, with discretion, and with the input and 

corroboration of teachers. Evaluation systems must allow for teacher improvement and they must be refreshed periodically to ensure 

their effectiveness. 

Additionally, evaluators should be familiar with the localities 

they are working in. As with most issues involving school performance and standards, there must be a reasonable level of flexibility 

for states and localities to provide effective services. 

The other week, when this subcommittee, as the chairman had 

mentioned, addressing the issue of technology and innovation in 

the classrooms, we heard testimony from Mr. Smith from 

Rocketship Education. He noted that in his classroom, teachers receive real-time feedback through the headset. I am not suggesting 

that this is the solution for every classroom, but it is precisely that 

kind of outside-of-the-box thinking that needs to be explored when 

it comes to teacher evaluation. 

Any legislation that this committee endorses should provide a 

measure of flexibility. One bill I plan on reintroducing this Congress that provides such flexibility is the Teacher and the Principal 

Improvement Act. The bill provides grants to localities for the purpose of professional development and evaluation. 

We, as members of Congress, do not have all the answers. We 

rely on testimony, our own professional experiences, and our beliefs 

to guide us through this process. 

I look forward to hearing from the panel and thank you, again. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding another important hearing geared toward 

improving our schools nationwide. 

I also want to thank our panel of witnesses for joining us bright and early today— 

we all appreciate your time. 

I do want to make a note that even before we dive into teacher performance and 

evaluation, we have a duty to revisit teacher standards in general to ensure the best 

and brightest are educating our children. 
5 

This commitment begins at an early age and I am currently working on legislation that will encourage states to follow best practices in early education and commit to hiring teachers with at least a bachelor’s degree. 

With that said, it goes without saying that evaluating teacher performance is a 

tricky issue. 

There are many factors aside from student achievement that come into play when 

judging a teacher’s performance. 

These factors include, but are not limited to: 

• Classroom Environment; 

• Classroom Resources; 

• and School Leader Involvement. 

Let me breakdown what I mean by each of these. 

Classroom Environment: where schools are located and the makeup of the class 

all play important factors when we discuss teacher performance. 

Classroom Resources: how much funding local schools are getting both federally 

and locally effect how teachers are able to do their work. 

Last but not least, School Leader Involvement: too often our school leadership gets 

off the hook in underperforming schools. 

We need to take a look at how teachers are being supported by their school boards 

and administrators when conducting any evaluation of performance. 

While taking these three factors into consideration, we must also recognize several important points about evaluation. 

Evaluation systems must be done frequently, with discretion and with the input 

and collaboration of teachers. 

Evaluation systems must allow for teacher improvement and they must be refreshed periodically to ensure their effectiveness. 

Additionally, evaluators should be familiar with the localities they are working in. 

As with most issues involving school performance and standards—there must be 

a reasonable level of flexibility for states and localities to provide effective services. 

The other week, when this Subcommittee was addressing the issue of technology 

and innovation in classrooms, we heard testimony from Mr. Smith from Rocketship 

Education. 

He noted that in his classrooms teachers receive real-time feedback through a 

headset. 

I’m not suggesting that that is the solution for every classroom, but it is precisely 

that kind of outside of the box thinking that needs to be explored when it comes 

to teacher evaluation. 

Any legislation that this Committee endorses should provide for a measure of 

flexibility. 

One bill that I plan on reintroducing this Congress that provides such flexibility 

is the Teacher and Principal Improvement Act. 

The bill provides grants to localities for the purposes of professional development 

and evaluation. 

We, as Members of Congress, do not have all the answers. 

We rely on testimony, our own professional experiences and our beliefs to guide 

us through this process. 

I look forward to hearing from the panel. 

I yield back, thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 

for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

And now it is my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel 

of witnesses. First, Dr. Steve Cantrell is the chief resource officer 

for research and evaluation at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where he manages grants and contracts focused on teaching 

effectiveness, including the Measures of Effective Teaching, the 

MET project. 

Thank you for being here. 
6 

And I will turn to Dr. Roe to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And appropriately dressed in his orange tie from Knoxville, Tennessee, would be Dr. Jim McIntyre, superintendent of the Knoxville 

County School System. Dr. McIntyre served as the superintendent 

of the Knox County Schools—does serve. 

Prior to his appointment in 2008 Dr. McIntyre served as the 

budget director and chief operating officer for the Boston Public 

School System. During Dr. McIntyre’s tenure the Boston Public 

Schools were named one of the top-performing urban school systems in the nation. 

Earlier in his career he taught English, anatomy, and physical 

education at the Vincent Gray Alternative High School in East St. 

Louis, Illinois. Dr. McIntyre has served on numerous state-level 

working groups aimed at enhancing public education and was selected as a fellow in the Broad Foundation Superintendents Academy, an intensive 10-month fellowship in urban public school 

superintendency. 

Welcome, Dr. McIntyre. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Dr. Roe. 

We also have with us Dr. Rodney Watson. He is the chief of 

human resources for the Houston Independent School District. He 

has served in several positions related to juvenile corrections and 

student support services. 

Welcome. 

And finally, Mr. Emanuel Harper is a French teacher at the 

Herron High School, a public charter school in downtown Indianapolis that I am familiar with. He is also an adjunct faculty member 

at Marian University and a Teach Plus Policy fellow. 

Welcome. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have 5 minutes 

to present your testimony, and when you begin the light in front 

of you, as you might expect, will turn green. When there is 1 

minute left it will be yellow, and then when your time is expired 

the light will be red. 

Sounds simple. Not necessarily always for us. 

At that point I ask you to wrap up your remarks as best as you 

are able, and after everyone has testified, members, of course, will 

each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel. 

So without further ado, I would like to recognize Dr. Cantrell for 

5 minutes, sir? 

STATEMENT OF STEVE CANTRELL, CHIEF RESEARCH 

OFFICER, BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION 

Mr. CANTRELL. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, 

and committee members, I am Steve Cantrell, chief research officer 

at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and co-director of the 

Measures of Effective Teaching project. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify about the MET project. 

The Measures of Effective Teaching project set out to answer one 

question: Is it possible to measure teaching effectiveness? The answer is yes. 
7 

Drawing upon data collected from over 3,000 teachers at 300 

schools in six urban school districts, MET researchers, using a design that included randomly assigning students to teachers, demonstrated that effective teaching causes better learning. There are 

teachers whose students consistently learn more and teachers 

whose students consistently learn less. 

MET proved that these results are due to differences in teaching 

ability, not differences in student characteristics, and that more 

and less effective teachers can be identified through a combination 

of classroom observation, student surveys, and student assessments. Indeed, the combination of these measures does a far better 

job predicting teaching effectiveness in raising student performance 

than master’s degrees or years of experience. 

Furthermore, these measures have the potential to provide 

teachers with much better feedback and more tailored supports. 

Given these results, it is now time for school systems to put into 

practice feedback and evaluation using multiple measures that 

teachers can trust. 

Alongside its findings, the MET project issued a second report 

entitled ‘‘Feedback for Better Teaching.’’ In it are nine principles to 

guide those who develop feedback and evaluations systems. We organized the nine principles into three categories: measure effective 

teaching, ensure high-quality data, and invest in improvement. 

As school systems set out to measure effective teaching there are 

three important considerations. First, the measures should emerge 

from and help establish expectations for what constitutes effective 

teaching. Second, since no single measure can fully capture the 

complexity of teaching, states and districts should use multiple 

measures. And third, our research demonstrated that balance is 

best when deciding how much emphasis to place on any single 

measure. 

As school systems collect effectiveness data there are three important considerations for establishing and maintaining trust in 

the data. First, the measures should be valid predictors of student 

learning; second, the measurement should be reliable; and third, 

when data are used for accountability there should be a good match 

between the teacher’s data and the students’ data. 

As systems use effectiveness data it is important to understand 

and communicate that improvement is the goal. Relatively few 

teachers in the MET sample exhibited uniformly poor or uniformly 

great practice. We found that most teachers scored average, and 

yet they displayed different strengths and different weaknesses. 

Still, we know that average teaching is not good enough to get 

all of our students career and college ready, and so improvement 

is necessary. That most teachers are in the middle means that 

school systems need to share the responsibility to improve teaching 

by providing targeted and high-quality support. 

If teachers are to believe that the feedback and evaluation system is designed to help them improve then these three principles 

should be evident: First, a system built for improvement will not 

exaggerate small differences, but the performance categories will 

make meaningful distinctions between teachers. Teachers in adjacent categories should have demonstrably different impacts on student learning. 
8 

Second, a system built for feedback and improvement will 

prioritize that in all its communications. And third, the measures 

of effective teaching naturally focus on classrooms; that information 

should be used at all levels of the system. 

How else would a school system know what professional development to offer which teachers and whether the professional development investments make a difference to improving teaching practice? 

In closing, I want to reiterate one important point: Better feedback and evaluation systems are essential to improving teaching 

and learning. If done well, in ways that teachers can trust, school 

systems can use this information to provide better supports which, 

in turn, will lead to better performance for students. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present. 

[The statement of Dr. Cantrell follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Steve Cantrell, Chief Research Officer, 

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and committee members, I am 

Steve Cantrell, Chief Research Officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and 

co-Director of the Measures of Effective Teaching project. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify about the MET project, a research study with great relevance for those 

who design and implement teacher evaluation and feedback systems. 

Overview 

The Measures of Effective Teaching project set out to test if it is possible to measure teaching effectiveness using multiple measures of a teacher’s performance. The 

answer is yes. Drawing upon data collected from nearly 3,000 teachers from over 

300 schools across six urban school districts, MET researchers demonstrated that 

effective teaching causes better learning. There are teachers whose students consistently outperform their peers and teachers whose students consistently underperform 

their peers. MET proved that these results are due to differences in teaching ability 

rather than differences in student characteristics, and that more and less effective 

teachers can be identified through a combination of classroom observations, student 

surveys, and evidence of student learning. These measures have the potential to 

provide teachers with much better feedback and more tailored supports to improve 

their practice and to help their students succeed. 

Data Collection and Findings 

The study looked at several dimensions of teaching. This is important because, 

as you know, teaching is complex and any single measure cannot fully reflect all 

important aspects of teaching. We measured four distinct aspects of teaching practice. We used two different student assessments to measure student learning. We 

used five different classroom observation protocols to assess the quality of classroom 

teaching (we are, of course, not recommending that districts adopt five different protocols). We tested teachers’ ability to represent, identify, and increase students’ conceptual understandings. Finally, we surveyed students themselves to assess how 

they experience the instructional environment. 

This work was conducted by some of the nation’s finest researchers and technical 

assistance providers using state-of-the-art methods and technology. The researchers 

used a value-added model (VAM) to calculate the differences between the actual and 

predicted performance of a teacher’s students on both state tests in math and ELA 

in grades 4 through 9 and an additional more cognitively challenging assessment 

in the same grades and subjects. Classroom lessons were observed using panoramic 

video cameras and scored by highly trained and certified raters. The test of teacher 

knowledge and the student perception of the instructional environment survey both 

built upon more than a decade of prior research. 

Preliminary MET findings demonstrated that three measures—student assessments, classroom observations, and student surveys—helped predict whether teachers would raise the performance of future groups of students. Indeed, the combination of these measures does a far better job predicting which teachers will succeed 

in raising student performance than master’s degrees and years of teaching experience. 
9 

In the study’s second year, researchers took the unusual step to randomly assign 

classes of students to teachers. We did this to see if teachers previously identified 

as more effective based on these measures actually caused students to learn more. 

Random assignment allowed researchers to isolate teaching effectiveness from any 

unmeasured student characteristics. Furthermore, the researchers detected no bias 

in the teacher effectiveness estimates, as long as the estimates were adjusted to account for differences in measured students’ characteristics, such as prior performance and demographics. 

Final MET findings literally proved that effective teachers cause their students 

to learn more. Furthermore, the final findings showed that when combining measures into a single composite index, balanced weights are best. Composites that 

weigh state test results between 33% and 50% are more stable from year to year 

and better predict student performance on higher order assessments than composites that place more than 50% of the emphasis on state tests. 

Nine Principles for Feedback and Evaluation Systems 

It is now time for school systems to put into practice MET’s research findings by 

building and implementing feedback and evaluation systems using multiple measures that teachers can trust. The MET project’s final report, Feedback for Better 

Teaching, provides 9 principles to guide school systems as they develop feedback 

and evaluation systems. These 9 principles fall into three categories: Measure Effective Teaching, Ensure High Quality Data, and Invest in Improvement. 

As school systems set out to measure effective teaching, there are three important 

considerations. First, the measures should emerge from and help establish expectations for what constitutes effective teaching practice. Second, since no single measure of effectiveness can capture the full complexity of teaching, states and districts 

should use multiple measures. Third, our research demonstrated that balance is 

best when considering how much emphasis to place upon any one measure within 

a set of multiple measures. 

As school systems collect effectiveness data, there are three important considerations for establishing and maintaining trust in the data. First, the measures 

should be valid predictors of increased student learning. A school system enters into 

a bargain with its teachers when it adopts a measure within an evaluation system. 

The bargain states that if teachers work hard to improve on this measure, then 

their students will be better learners. It is this bargain that animates the feedback 

promise of multiple measures. By annually validating each measure, the school system guarantees that effort toward improving practice will not be wasted. Second, 

the measurement process should be reliable. Teachers have been especially wary of 

classroom observation processes because they perceive the process as potentially 

subjective. MET project research discovered three ways to increase reliability of 

classroom observation: test and certify raters, have at least two raters observe each 

teacher, and observe at least two lessons. Third, when data are used for accountability, it is essential that the data match the right teachers with the right students. 

If the data are mismatched then one could easily draw the wrong conclusion about 

the effectiveness of a given teacher or school. 

As school systems use effectiveness data, it is important to understand and communicate that improvement is the goal. Relatively few teachers in the MET sample 

exhibited uniformly poor or great practice across all measures. The data led us to 

conclude that most teachers are average, but for different reasons. Indeed, the majority of teachers scored very close to the mean on both the classroom observation 

instruments and on the survey of students’ perceptions of the instructional environment. Yet, we know that average teaching is not good enough to help students 

achieve college and career success, so improvement is necessary. The realization 

that most teachers are in the middle means that school systems need to share the 

responsibility to improve teaching by providing targeted, high quality support. 

As school systems begin this work, there are three important considerations for 

signaling an improvement-focused feedback and evaluation system. First, a system 

built for improvement will not exaggerate small differences, but will use performance categories to make meaningful distinctions among teachers. Teachers in adjacent categories should have demonstrably different impacts on student learning. 

Otherwise, there is no need for the additional category. Second, a system built for 

improvement will prioritize feedback and support in all communications with stakeholders. Third, though measures of effective teaching naturally focus on classrooms, 

the data from these measures should be used for decision-making at all levels of 

the school system. The measures will indicate areas where teachers need better support and this data should be used to determine which professional development to 

offer to which teachers and whether the professional development investments in 

place are making a difference to improve teaching practice. Furthermore, the meas-
10 

ures will indicate the schools where teaching is getting better over time. This seems 

like a natural indicator of the quality of instructional leadership. 

In closing, I want to reiterate one important point: Better evaluation and feedback 

systems are essential to improving teaching and learning. If done well, in ways that 

teachers can trust, these systems will enable better teacher supports which, in turn, 

will lead to better student performance. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present. 

REPORTS TO ACCOMPANY THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY

‘‘Ensuring Fair and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the MET Project’s Three-Year Study,’’ may be accessed at the following 

internet address: 

http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf 

‘‘Feedback for Better Teaching: Nine Principles for Using Measures of Effective 

Teaching,’’ may be accessed at the following Internet address: 

http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Feedback%20for%20Better%20Teaching_Principles%20Paper.pdf 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. McIntyre, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES P. MCINTYRE, JR., 

SUPERINTENDENT, KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member 

McCarthy, members of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Good morning. My name is 

Jim McIntyre and I have the privilege of serving as the superintendent of the Knox County Schools in the great state of Tennessee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to talk 

about this important issue. 

Over the last 5 years Tennessee has embarked on a remarkable 

journey of education reform and improvement. Radically higher 

academic standards, support for performance-based pay, fundamentally restructured teacher tenure, and the introduction of an interest-based labor dialogue called ‘‘collaborative conferencing’’ are but 

a few of the significant policy initiatives that have been put in 

place to enhance schooling for our children. 

But perhaps no other recent change has greater potential to improve the quality of education in our state than the adoption of a 

new teacher performance evaluation system. 

Tennessee law requires, now, a performance evaluation of every 

teacher every year, and at least 50 percent of that evaluation must 

be based on student academic outcomes. The Tennessee Educator 

Acceleration Model, or TEAM, as the standard evaluation model is 

called, is based on multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, incorporating elements of student academic results, multiple observations of classroom practice, and indicators of teacher professionalism. 

The TEAM evaluation system features an excellent classroom observation instrument, or rubric, as it is called, which begins with 

a detailed and research-based definition of good teaching and allows educators to understand how their instruction measures up 

against a very rigorous standard. The classroom observation protocol requires an objective assessment based solely on the evidence 

an evaluator observes in the classroom or during lesson-planning 

activities. 
11 

Our new teacher evaluation system, now in its second year, has 

several important strengths. First, requiring every teacher to be 

evaluated every year based on multiple classroom observations connects the performance of our—the performance evaluation of our 

teachers to the day-to-day work of teaching students. This was not 

the case in the past, where performance evaluation was an isolated 

and infrequent event which had, at best, a marginal impact on student—excuse me, on instructional practice. 

Second, Tennessee’s teacher performance evaluation system incorporates both student achievement results—and student achievement meaning measuring student learning at a point in time—as 

well as value added growth outcomes, which is measuring learning 

over a period of time, providing for a reasonable picture of teacher 

effectiveness. 

Third, I appreciate that a significant proportion of the teacher 

evaluation is now based on student outcomes. This makes sure that 

our focus is not just on teaching the material but ensuring that 

students actually learn it. 

Fourth, the approach we have taken in Knoxville, and generally 

taken across the state of Tennessee, has been to ensure that our 

evaluation system is a developmental process rather than a punitive one. That is, the evaluation system primarily is focused on 

helping our teachers to improve their instructional practice. 

Finally, I believe that our new evaluation system is well aligned 

to the more in-depth and rigorous academic standards that Tennessee has adopted and will better prepare our students for success 

in today’s increasingly complex and competitive world. 

I believe the power of TEAM and any strong performance evaluation system is that it provides consistent and useful information regarding teacher effectiveness that can be utilized in human capital 

decisions, such as retention, termination, promotion, tenure, appointment to teacher leadership roles, and even compensation. In 

Knoxville we use the data from teacher evaluations to support all 

of these critical personnel decisions. 

TEAM data is used to identify teachers who might need additional assistance or teachers who could potentially be effective peer 

evaluators, what we call lead teachers. Evaluation information is 

an important factor in the decision to terminate chronically ineffectual teachers and it is used to discover potential candidates for consideration in school leadership roles. 

As I mentioned earlier, the state of Tennessee has significantly 

restructured teacher tenure. In the past, teachers were automatically granted tenure if they were on the job for 3 years and 1 day. 

Now, new teachers in Tennessee are not eligible for tenure until 

after 5 years of service and only if they perform at one of the highest two levels on the new evaluation system for 2 consecutive 

years. 

In the Knox County Schools we have also developed a strategic 

compensation, or performance-based pay, initiative that relies 

heavily on the data from the teacher evaluation system. 

In the Knox County—and our outcomes have been very good, and 

Chairman Rokita made reference to that. In the interest of time I 

will leave that to the questioning, but our outcomes have been very 

good for students, but our outcomes certainly aren’t where we 
12 

would like them to be yet. But I do believe that our teacher evaluation system is an important strategy in our efforts to improve the 

quality of public education in Knoxville and across the state of Tennessee. 

Tennessee’s teacher evaluation system is not perfect but it is a 

vast improvement over our previous evaluation process, and I think 

it will prove to be a very valuable professional growth and instructional improvement tool. 

[The statement of Dr. McIntyre follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. James P. McIntyre, Jr., Superintendent, 

Knox County Schools, Knoxville, TN 

Chairman Rokita, Members of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, 

and Secondary Education, distinguished guests: My name is Jim McIntyre, and I 

have the privilege of serving as the Superintendent of the Knox County Schools in 

the great state of Tennessee. As the public school system for Knoxville and its surrounding area, the Knox County Schools is approximately the 75th largest school 

system in America, serving more than 55,000 students from urban, suburban and 

rural environments in 88 schools. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here 

this morning to discuss the important topic of teacher performance evaluation. 

Over the past five years, Tennessee has embarked on a remarkable journey of 

education reform and improvement. Radically higher academic standards, support 

for performance-based pay, fundamentally restructured teacher tenure, and the introduction of an interest-based labor dialogue called ‘‘collaborative conferencing’’ are 

but a few of the significant policy initiatives that have been put in place to enhance 

schooling for our children. But perhaps no other recent change has greater potential 

to improve the quality of education in our state than the adoption of a new teacher 

performance evaluation system. 

Tennessee law now requires a performance evaluation of every teacher, every 

year; and at least fifty percent of that evaluation must be based on student academic outcomes. While district-specific plans that meet these parameters can be approved in Tennessee, the standard evaluation system is called the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model or TEAM. The TEAM evaluation system is based on multiple 

measures of teacher effectiveness, incorporating elements of student academic results, multiple observations of classroom practice, and indicators of teacher professionalism. This year we will even pilot using some student feedback on a limited 

basis. 

The TEAM evaluation system features an excellent classroom observation instrument (or ‘‘rubric’’ as it is called), which begins with a detailed and research-based 

definition of good teaching, and allows educators to understand how their instruction measures up against a very rigorous standard. The rubric incorporates specific 

instructional practices that have been demonstrated to increase student achievement. The classroom observation protocol requires an objective assessment based 

solely on the evidence that an evaluator observes in the classroom or during lessonplanning activities. 

Our new teacher evaluation system, now in its second year, has several important 

strengths: 

First, requiring every teacher to be evaluated every year connects the performance evaluation to the day-to-day work of teaching students. In the past, teacher 

evaluations took place only twice every ten years in Tennessee, and teachers felt 

this process was oddly separate from their daily efforts in the classroom. Because 

it occurred so infrequently, the previous evaluation system had, at best, a marginal 

impact on instructional practice. With evaluation happening for every teacher each 

year, it is now part of the daily work of the school. Evaluation visits are routine 

and frequent, professional conversations center around the instructional strategies 

in the rubric, and the evaluation process can actually have a significant impact on 

improving the quality of teaching in our schools. 

Second, Tennessee’s teacher performance evaluation system incorporates both student achievement and academic growth outcome measures. We are all familiar with 

student achievement data, which gauges where a student measures against a particular standard at a point in time, and is typically expressed as to whether the student is deemed ‘‘proficient’’ in the subject matter for a particular grade level. 

But Tennessee also includes ‘‘value-added’’ growth measures as a significant proportion of its evaluation system. Value-added growth, as the name implies, measures student learning over time, and whether the student exceeds or falls below the 
13 

expected level of academic progress over a specified period of time, usually a school 

year. It therefore measures the amount of ‘‘value’’ added by the teacher (or the ‘‘effect’’ of the teacher) over and above the expected academic growth. The Tennessee 

Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) is a well-regarded statistical model, refined over the past 20 years, that calculates the growth measures used in the TEAM 

evaluation system. 

Value—added growth is a useful measure to include in a teacher evaluation 

model, as it quantifies each student’s learning over the period that the educator has 

taught them, but does not disadvantage the teacher if a student came to him or her 

behind academically. Value-added growth, therefore, provides useful information regarding the effectiveness of the teacher. As quantitative measures of student academic success are increasingly integrated into teacher evaluation systems across the 

country, academic growth models will be critical in helping to ensure a fair, appropriate measurement of teacher effectiveness. 

Third, I appreciate that a significant proportion of the teacher’s evaluation is now 

based on student outcomes. Our new performance evaluation system puts a premium not only on good teaching, but also on student learning. No longer is it acceptable for a teacher to say, ‘‘Well, I taught a great lesson, but my students just didn’t 

learn it.’’ The new evaluation system reinforces the urgency we all must feel in ensuring that our students meet the much more rigorous academic standards that we 

have put in place in Tennessee—and higher expectations for our teachers will help 

us get there. 

Fourth, the approach we have taken in Knoxville, and generally across the state 

of Tennessee has been to ensure that our evaluation system is a developmental 

process. That is, it is focused on helping our teachers to improve their instructional 

practice. 

I believe we must view teacher performance evaluation primarily as a professional 

growth tool, rather than purely as an accountability mechanism. Don’t get me 

wrong, there will be teachers who will fail to secure tenure or who will be terminated because of issues surfaced through their performance evaluation. But for the 

overwhelming majority of our teachers, those who are solid performers to truly extraordinary educators, our evaluation system will be about continually improving 

and enhancing their instruction. 

Finally, I believe that our evaluation system is well aligned to the new Common 

Core academic standards that Tennessee and 44 other states have adopted. As a 

state-led initiative, Common Core will require our teachers to explore curricular topics in greater depth, and to facilitate important 21st century skills such as critical 

thinking, applying knowledge, and identifying creative solutions. Accordingly, the 

instructional rubric includes indicators that evaluate in-depth questioning, teaching 

different modes of thinking, and problem-solving—exactly the types of skills that 

will prepare our students for success in today’s rapidly changing world. 

The TEAM evaluation system, like any system, is not without challenges. Because 

our state assessments only cover grades 3-8 and certain subjects in high school, 

close to half of the teachers in Tennessee are without individual value-added growth 

data. Our state has committed to increasing the number of grades and subjects with 

such assessments, but this remains an important concern. For the most part, nontested teachers share in the growth data for their whole school or particular discipline. I think this is a very appropriate short-term solution, as music and art 

teachers do influence the learning of all students in their elementary school, and 

certainly a great physics teacher will bolster the academic growth of her students 

in mathematics. 

The other challenge to highlight is ensuring that there is consistency of implementation of the evaluation system, and that we attain inter-rater reliability within 

schools, districts, and across the state. Our new evaluation system has significantly 

raised the bar for expectations of teacher effectiveness. If our evaluators are true 

to their training and consistently rigorous, then TEAM will provide an excellent assessment of teacher performance and an outstanding professional growth tool. If 

they are not, TEAM will be an expensive and time-consuming failure. 

Allow me to outline some of the ways that TEAM data is used. The power of 

TEAM, and any strong performance evaluation system, is that it provides consistent 

and useful information regarding teacher effectiveness that can be utilized in 

human capital decisions, such as retention, termination, promotion, tenure, appointment to teacher leadership roles, and even compensation. In Knoxville, we use the 

data from teacher evaluations to support all of those critical decisions. 

TEAM data is used to identify teachers who may need additional assistance, or 

those who could potentially be effective peer evaluators (Lead Teachers). Evaluation 

information is an important factor in the decision to terminate chronically ineffec-
14 

tual teachers, and it is used to discover potential candidates for consideration in 

school leadership roles. 

As I mentioned earlier, the state of Tennessee has significantly restructured 

teacher tenure. In the past, teachers were automatically granted tenure if they were 

on the job for three years and one day. It was a sometimes difficult structure because about two and a half years into a teacher’s career, a principal had to decide 

whether to give a teacher tenure, essentially for the rest of their professional career, 

or fire them. 

Now, new teachers in Tennessee are not eligible for tenure until after five years 

of service, and only if they perform at one of the two highest levels (on a five point 

scale) on the evaluation system for two consecutive years. This is obviously a very 

different perspective on teacher tenure, but a worthy experiment in exploring if a 

radically different conceptualization of tenure will make a difference in teacher effectiveness. 

In the Knox County Schools, we have developed a strategic compensation (performance-based pay) initiative that relies heavily on the data from the teacher evaluation system. APEX (Achieve, Perform, EXcel), provides either $1,500 or $2,000 to 

our teachers based on great instruction, strong student academic results, teacher 

leadership and/or providing consistent high-quality instruction in our high needs 

schools. Data from the TEAM evaluation system determines 70% of the eligibility 

for this $3.6 million incentive pay program (funded in part through Race to the Top 

funding). 

One important but somewhat unique aspect of our implementation of the teacher 

evaluation system in Knoxville has been the development of a Lead Teacher role. 

Lead teachers are some of our most outstanding and respected classroom teachers 

who are paid an additional stipend to be observers and evaluators of their fellow 

educators. 

Our Lead Teachers are able to play an important leadership role while remaining 

as classroom teachers, and they lend credibility, instructional expertise, and much 

needed support to the teacher evaluation process. Utilizing peer evaluators can be 

a tricky business, but when done right—with the right people, training, and structure—it can be an incredibly powerful asset in the effective evaluation and development of teachers. 

One more important note on teacher evaluation systems: they are not, by themselves, a panacea. Rigorous, developmental teacher evaluation systems can be an 

important instructional improvement tool, but must be implemented in the context 

of a larger education reform and improvement effort. 

In the Knox County Schools, we have certainly embraced the TEAM teacher evaluation system, but we have also crafted a detailed five-year strategic plan, invested 

in professional development and teacher support, embraced research-based instructional practices, focused on school leadership, initiated performance-based compensation, facilitated professional learning communities, and built the capacity to 

utilize data to support great instruction. These strategies all support and compliment the centerpiece teacher evaluation system, and these strategies are collectively indispensable to our educational success. 

Finally, you may be wondering how the new teacher evaluation system in Tennessee is impacting teaching and learning. So, I will leave you with just a few perspectives on outcomes: 

In 2011-12, Tennessee saw some of the highest gains in student achievement on 

state assessments in recent history. Likewise, this past year in the Knox County 

Schools we have seen strong academic progress by virtually every quantifiable 

measure of student learning and success. Proficiency for our students increased 

overall in grades 3-8 in all four tested subject areas: English/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies. Graduation rates, academic growth, and ACT 

scores also posted strong results. 

In our school system, we have experienced substantial gains in teacher valueadded scores in the last two years. Our district experienced a significant decrease 

in the number of teachers performing at the two lowest effectiveness levels from 

2011 to 2012, declining from 18% to 9%. 

Over that same time period, the percentage of our teachers scoring in the highest 

category of teacher value-added performance, those making the greatest impact on 

student learning, increased from 27% to 36%. 
15 

TABLE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS TENNESSEE VALUE–ADDED 

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (TVAAS) TEACHER EFFECT SCORES 2010–2012 

[Teachers with individual TVAAS scores] 

Year 1 2 3 4 5 Count 

2012 ..................................................................... 4% 5% 32% 23% 36% 2,050 

2011 ..................................................................... 9% 9% 38% 16% 27% 2,417 

2010 ..................................................................... 13% 13% 34% 16% 24% 1,738 

In the Knox County Schools, our student outcomes are not nearly where we want 

them to be yet—and we are certainly not declaring victory—but I believe that our 

teacher evaluation system is an important strategy in improving the quality of public education in Knoxville and across our state. Tennessee’s teacher evaluation system is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement over our previous evaluation process, and I think it will prove to be a very valuable professional growth and instructional improvement tool. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Dr. McIntyre. 

Dr. Watson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RODNEY WATSON, CHIEF OF HUMAN 

RESOURCES, HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Mr. WATSON. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My 

name is Rodney Watson. I am the chief human resources officer for 

the Houston Independent School District. 

Under the leadership of Superintendent Terry Grier and our 

board of trustees, we have been working to improve teacher evaluation and professional development for the past 3 years. This work, 

or the impetus for this work, stemmed from a major disconnect between our old teacher and evaluation system and student achievement. 

In Houston our old system gave teachers acceptable performance 

ratings, so we had about 97 percent of our teachers who received 

acceptable ratings when, in fact, we have over 70,000 students that 

could not read at grade level. As a result, two-thirds of Houston 

ISD teachers are now aware of at least one specific area in which 

they need to improve. 

I would like to spend my time sharing with you a few of the most 

important lessons we have learned over the past few years, which 

I think will help you as you make key and critical decisions as we 

tackle these issues. 

First, we have learned that better teacher evaluations are not 

the end goal; they are one part of a solution to one of the most critical challenges that most school districts face today. Nothing we 

can do for our students matters more. 

In Houston, our work on evaluations and professional development is just one part of our Effective Teacher Initiative, which we 

launched in 2009. Specifically, we have made human capital acquisition a focus as a district to recruit and select teachers earlier because research shows the earlier we are able to attract and retain 

good teachers, the more likely they are to have success in the classrooms. 

We are also offering potential trips to campuses that are also 

likely to yield high-performing teachers. Steps like these allow us 

to be able to compete with other districts and charter networks 
16 

who have historically sought out and hired the best candidates earlier. 

In addition, as part of our Effective Teacher Initiative, we are 

thinking how we can use compensation and career pathways to retain and reward our best teachers. Using data from our evaluation 

system, we are able to identify our best teachers and use a multipronged approach to retain them in HISD. For years our district 

has been a leader in the field of performance pay by rewarding our 

top-performing staff with significant bonuses through our ASPIRE 

program. 

Second, we have learned that rigorous evaluations and better 

professional development go hand in hand. Some people suggest 

that these two things are mutually exclusive—that better evaluations undermine professional development, for example—but what 

we have found is that nothing could be farther from the truth. 

We expect a lot from our teachers, and for our new evaluation 

system, our processes reflect that providing them with specific expectations for their classroom practice, we are able to help them 

and support them as they reach their goals. But we also designed 

the evaluation system to give teachers more and better development opportunities than they ever had in our old system. 

In addition, all of our teachers have the opportunity to work with 

one of 130 teacher development specialists, which are master 

teachers in specific subject areas whose job it is—which is their 

only job—is to offer advice and connect teachers with resources 

that can help them improve. This is a position that was created 

and staffed as part of our Effective Teaching Initiative. 

Setting a high bar for excellence is critical to good professional 

development because we can’t help teachers reach their full potential unless we are honest about what they need and how they are 

going to improve, and it is our responsibility to provide them with 

the necessary resources and also with a picture of what excellence 

looks like. 

Third, we have learned that better evaluations can help us hold 

on to our best teachers. A lot of people worry that more rigorous 

evaluations will push good teachers out the door. That hasn’t been 

our experience. In fact, we see teacher evaluation systems as a critical tool that helps us keep even more of our best teachers. After 

all, we can’t retain our best teachers if we don’t know who they 

are. 

As we began to look at retaining our ‘‘highly effective’’ teachers, 

our goal this year is to retain at least 95 percent of them after retaining 92 percent last year. We are also taking steps to attract 

more promising teachers to our schools by offering sign-on bonuses 

up to $5,000 in our hardest-to-staff subject areas and our schools. 

During the first year of implementation we made it a priority to 

gather feedback from our teachers and appraisers on their experience with the new system at several checkpoints throughout the 

year. We found that teachers who reported that their system—that 

their appraiser consistently applied the expectations articulated in 

our rubric and who received useful feedback about their practice 

from their appraiser were 10 times more likely to report that the 

evaluation system was fair and believed that their rating to be accurate—an accurate reflection of their performance. 
17 

I conclude with you the obvious point: This is extremely hard 

work. Getting the logistics of a teacher evaluation system right is 

hard enough, but on top of that you are really asking schools across 

the nation to embrace an entirely new paradigm, a new culture of 

honest feedback and accountability for results in the classroom. 

No school system can hope to get this exactly right on the first 

try, but perfection shouldn’t be the standard. Our experience in 

Houston shows that it is possible to make big strides in teacher 

evaluation and development right away, at the same time, keeping 

improvements going as you go along. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Dr. Watson follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Rodney E. Watson, Chief Human Resources 

Officer, Houston Independent School District, Houston, TX 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rodney Watson, and 

I’m the Chief Human Resources Officer for the Houston Independent School District. 

Under the leadership of Superintendent Terry Grier and our Board of Trustees, we 

have been working to improve teacher evaluation and professional development in 

our district for the last three years. 

This is work we undertook because we saw a major disconnect between our old 

traditional teacher evaluation system and student achievement. This was a system 

not unlike those in effect in most districts across America. In Houston, this old system gave acceptable performance ratings to 97 percent of teachers, despite the fact 

that 70,000 Houston students were reading below grade level. To their credit, Houston teachers told us they wanted a useful evaluation system that treats them like 

the professionals they are. 

As a result, thousands of teachers joined with other educators, parents, and community members to help design a new teacher evaluation and development system 

that is now in its second full year of implementation. Today, two-thirds of Houston 

ISD teachers are aware of at least one specific area in which they need to improve. 

More importantly, they are getting the guidance and tools to make it happen. We 

think it’s one of the most innovative approaches to teacher evaluation in the country, and I would be happy to address some of the specifics during the question and 

answer period. 

I would like to spend my time sharing a few of the most important lessons we 

have learned so far, which I think will help you and especially education leaders 

in your states and districts who are tackling these issues. 

First, we have learned that better teacher evaluations are not an end goal. They 

are one part of a solution to the most critical challenge our schools face today: how 

to find and keep teachers who can prepare our students for success in today’s ultracompetitive economy. Nothing we can do for our student’s matters more. 

In Houston, our work on evaluations and professional development is just one 

part of our Effective Teachers Initiative, which we launched in 2009. This initiative 

is a commitment to refocus nearly every aspect of our human resources operation 

on putting great teachers in every classroom. That commitment has led us to reexamine everything from the way we recruit teachers to the way we pay them to the 

way we encourage our best teachers to stay in HISD. 

Specifically, we have made human capital acquisition a focus as a district to recruit and select teachers earlier because research has shown that teachers who are 

hired earlier have high student achievement results in the classroom. We kick off 

our recruitment season as early as October to ensure our recruiting trips to campuses that are likely to yield high performing teachers. We also offer potential 

teaching candidates early contracts which support our ability to hire teachers in the 

winter and spring instead of late in the summer. Steps like these allow us to finally 

compete with many of our surrounding suburban districts and charter networks, 

who have historically sought out and hired the best candidates far earlier than we 

ever could in the past. 

In addition, as part of the Effective Teachers Initiative, we are rethinking how 

we can use compensation and career pathways to retain and reward our best teachers. Using data from our evaluation system, we are able to identify our best teachers and use a multi-pronged approach to retain them in HISD. For years, our district has been a leader in the field of performance pay by rewarding top performing 

staff with significant bonuses through the ASPIRE award program. And this past 
18 

year, we engaged teachers and principals from around the district to develop teacher 

leader roles and a career pathway framework that is currently being piloted in 23 

schools. These opportunities allow our best teachers to specialize and extend their 

reach to more students and colleagues, without having to leave the classroom. 

Second, we have learned that rigorous evaluations and better professional development go hand in hand. Some people suggest that these two things are mutually 

exclusive—that better evaluations undermine professional development, for example—but nothing could be further from the truth. We expect a lot from our teachers, 

and our new evaluation process reflects that by providing them with specific expectations for their classroom practice. But we also designed the evaluation system to 

give teachers more and better development opportunities than they ever had under 

the old system. We’ve raised the bar, but we are also helping our teachers meet 

those expectations. For example, as part of the evaluation process, our teachers 

meet regularly with their administrators to discuss their performance and create an 

Individualized Professional Development Plan. This plan not only connects teachers 

to development opportunities that fit their needs and interests but is also matched 

directly to the specific instructional practice criteria that make up the observation 

part of their evaluation—a far cry from the one-size-fits-all workshop approach to 

professional development that prevails in most districts. 

In addition, all teachers have the opportunity to work with one of 130 Teacher 

Development Specialists, master teachers in specific subject areas whose only job it 

is to offer advice and connect teachers with resources that can help them improve. 

This is a position we created and staffed as part of Effective Teaching Initiative 

using existing funds. We have also created a library of exemplar videos that showcase some of our best teachers engaging in best practice around each of the 13 instructional practice criteria found in our teacher appraisal and development rubric. 

Our evaluation system has helped us create a roadmap for our teachers to know 

and meet the expectations we have for the quality of instruction they deliver to our 

students on a daily basis. 

None of this means we’ve lost sight of our high standards: Under our old evaluation process, about 97 percent of our teachers were told they were essentially perfect 

and had absolutely nothing to work on. Now, nearly two-thirds of teachers have a 

development area identified on their evaluation. 

Setting a high bar for excellence is critical to good professional development, because we can’t help teachers reach their full potential unless we are honest about 

what they need to improve, and provide examples of what excellence looks like. 

Third, we have learned that better evaluations can help us hold on to our best 

teachers. A lot of people worry that more rigorous evaluations will push good teachers out the door. That hasn’t been our experience. In fact, we see our teacher evaluation system as a crucial tool that helps us keep even more of our best teachers— 

after all, we can’t work to retain great teachers unless we can identify them in the 

first place. Thanks to our evaluation system, we know who our best teachers are, 

and we’re aiming to keep at least 95 percent of them this year after retaining 92 

percent of teachers rated ‘‘highly effective’’ last year. We are also taking steps to 

attract more promising teachers to our schools by offering signing bonuses of up to 

$5000.00 in the hardest-to-staff subject areas and schools. 

Our research and experience suggests, more rigorous evaluations are actually directly related to higher levels of teacher satisfaction with the evaluation process. 

During the first year of implementation, we made it a priority to gather feedback 

from teachers and appraisers on their experience with the new system at several 

checkpoints throughout the year. We found that teachers who reported that their 

appraiser consistently applied the expectations articulated in the rubric and who received useful feedback about their practice from their appraiser were 10 times more 

likely to report that the evaluation system was ‘‘fair’’ and believed their rating to 

be an accurate reflection of their performance. Likewise, teachers who saw and received feedback about their performance from their Teacher Development Specialist 

more frequently during the year were more satisfied with the evaluation process as 

a whole. What this tells us is that our teachers welcome and embrace high standards and high quality feedback, which ultimately supports their overall improvement. 

I’ll conclude with an obvious but important point: This is hard work. Getting the 

logistics of a new teacher evaluation system right is hard enough, but on top of that 

you are really asking schools to embrace an entirely new culture of honest feedback 

and accountability for results in the classroom. No school system can hope to get 

this exactly right on the first try, but perfection shouldn’t be the standard. Our experience in Houston shows that it’s possible to make big strides in teacher evaluation and development right away—and keep making improvements as you go along. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. 
19 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Harper, you are recognized for 5 minutes? 

STATEMENT OF EMANUEL HARPER, FRENCH TEACHER, 

HERRON HIGH SCHOOL 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and members of 

the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak 

on this important subject. As a French teacher at Herron High 

School in Indianapolis it is my priority to expose students to different cultures as we become a more globalized society. I am also 

an adjunct faculty member at Marian University for transition-toteach candidates and also a Teach Plus Policy fellow. 

So at my core I am a teacher, and while there is no oath teachers 

take before entering into the classroom, for all of us there is an 

abiding promise that we do and must make, one that has to transcend the rancor of socioeconomic conditions and decades of preconceived conclusions. This promise we make as teachers is that 

every day we go into the classroom working towards ending the 

achievement gap that has and continues to jeopardize our students’ 

futures. 

Unfortunately, we are here today because this promise has not 

been kept. Fortunately, there are at least two remedies: One, implementing stronger evaluative tools for teachers, appropriately 

weighing student performance and student voice; and giving more 

local flexibility in gathering a culture that drives student growth. 

I know this because as I began my first year teaching at my first 

school I recognized that enthusiasm was the benchmark by which 

teachers were deemed effective. No longer was the focus on how 

you taught but how the administration thought you taught. It created a stagnant environment where students sat in their desks 

numb. 

And in this system I knew that there were areas of growth for 

me that simply were not being addressed, even despite my hard 

work. Without having an objective account of my practice with substantive measurements and indicators, I was left to tease out my 

performance based on what I felt. It was unsustainable and I decided to leave the school. 

And so I spoke out against this ineffective practice by testifying 

before the Indiana House Education Committee in favor of the 

newly implemented Senate Act 1, which strengthens teacher evaluations. This new act bases effectiveness not on degrees and years 

in the classroom, but on composites like student outcomes and observations. And it is schools like Herron High School, where I currently teach, that are leading the way in this regard. 

Herron High School, which is a public charter school located in 

the heart of downtown Indianapolis, has a mission to create worldclass citizens of the 21st century. In fact, US News & World Report 

ranked Herron in the top 30 best high schools in the United States. 

This is possible due to a rigorous evaluation tool used to measure 

our impact on students. With announced and unannounced visits 

we are continually assessed on our effectiveness. This maintains a 

constant loop of evaluation, critical feedback, and actionable next 

steps. 
20 

In the evaluation process, non-tested subjects, such as French, 

undergo the same amount of scrutiny as tested subjects, with curriculum and assessments analyzed for their fidelity to A.P. exams. 

Thus, with end-of-year performance conversations, teachers who 

continually meet our high instructional bar are rewarded with 

leadership opportunities and salary increases. Those who do not 

are either placed on a targeted and demanding teacher assistance 

plan or removed from the classroom. Retaining and recruiting top 

talent translates to educating and preparing all students for college, which is our singular and overriding objective. 

But if the system at large inhibits the cultivation and retention 

of great teachers, a more rigorous evaluative tool will be for 

naught. Local flexibility in staffing will ensure that only the highest-qualified teachers are selected to enter into the classroom, and 

at Herron our professional development is built around using our 

teachers as experts to increase student performance. We generate 

targeted cross-curricular interventions for at-risk students and reinforce the vertical alignment of our disciplines to challenge all students. 

No one finishes their crosswords in this space. It is eagerly anticipated and an opportunity to hone our mission of closing the 

achievement gap. 

And this is why I know that I don’t make the promise to close 

the achievement gap in vain. It is possible and is happening as we 

speak at Herron and hundreds of other schools across the United 

States. But action has to be taken now for our students to properly 

inherit what we all aspire to, which is the American dream, and 

it starts with me. 

It starts with me testifying here on the importance of stronger 

evaluative tools for teachers. It starts with us allowing local schools 

and school districts the flexibility to innovate and retain talent to 

drive student success. And it starts with reaffirming the right of 

every student to a high-quality and rigorous education. 

And it must end with student achievement, because despite a 

student’s surroundings or background, graduating from high school 

and college empowered to do anything they choose will be their 

destiny, but only when we do everything we can, starting today, to 

ensure effective teachers in every classroom. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Harper follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Emanuel F. Harper IV, French Teacher, 

Herron High School, Indianapolis, IN 

Chairman Rokita and Ranking Member McCarthy: Thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to speak on this important subject. 

As a French teacher at Herron High School, It’s my priority to expose students 

to different cultures as we become a more globalized society. I am also an adjunct 

faculty member for Best Practices in World Language for Marian University’s Master of Arts in Teaching program. It’s here where I prepare the next generation of 

transition-to-teach candidates on how to most effectively teach world languages. The 

community is also an important stakeholder as I am a founding member of the Indianapolis chapter of Stand For Children—a grassroots parent and student advocacy 

non-profit. And, as a policy fellow for Teach Plus, it is important that I help shape 

the policies that will affect my students. 

Of all the great professions, there is no oath teachers take before entering the 

classroom. But deep within us is an abiding promise we do and must make. It is 

one that must transcend the rancor of socio-economic conditions and decades of pre-
21 

conceived conclusions, one we are entrusted to perform and must faithfully execute. 

It is one that if broken stunts our nation’s prosperity and (more critically) a student’s access to the American Dream. This promise we as teachers must make is 

that every day we go into the classroom working towards ending the achievement 

gap that has and continues to jeopardize our students’ futures. 

Unfortunately we are here because this promise has not been kept. Fortunately 

there are at least two remedies—1) implementing stronger evaluative tools for 

teachers, appropriately weighing student performance and student voice and 2) giving more local flexibility in generating a culture that drives student growth. 

I have a deep abiding love and respect for the teaching profession and my content. 

But as I began my first year teaching at my first school, I recognized that enthusiasm was the benchmark by which teachers were deemed effective. No longer was 

the focus on how you taught but how the administration thought you taught. It created a stagnant environment where students sat in their desks numb. Matt, a 

former student, exemplified this tendency until he realized that I wasn’t going to 

let him give up. With a lot of effort on both of our parts, he became one of the best 

students in my class, pleading with me to Skype with him over Spring Break to 

work on more French. I assure you I obliged. 

Yet, I knew there were areas of growth that were simply not being addressed. 

Without having an objective account of my practice with substantive measurements 

and indicators, I was left to tease out my performance based on what I ‘‘felt’’. It was 

unsustainable. I had to leave the school. 

I spoke out against this ineffective practice by testifying before the Indiana House 

Education Committee in favor of a newly implemented Senate Act 1 which strengthens teacher evaluations. This new act establishes higher standards for teacher performance, basing effectiveness not on degrees and years in a classroom, but on composites like student outcomes and observations. And it is schools like Herron High 

School, unlike the school I was formally at, where I currently work that are leading 

the way in this regard. 

A public charter school located in the heart of downtown Indianapolis, Herron’s 

mission is to create world class citizens of the 21st century. US News and World 

Report ranked Herron in the Top 30 Best High Schools in the United States. This 

was possible due to a rigorous evaluation tool that our Dean of Faculty Greg 

Lineweaver uses to measure our impact on students. With unannounced visits, we 

are continually assessed on our effectiveness. This maintains a constant loop of evaluation, critical feedback, and actionable next steps. In the evaluative process, nontested subjects (such as French) undergo the same amount of scrutiny as tested subjects with curriculum and assessments analyzed for their fidelity to AP exams. 

Thus, with end-of-the-year performance conversations, teachers who continually 

meet our high instructional bar are rewarded with leadership opportunities and salary increases. Teachers who do not are removed from the classroom. Recruiting and 

retaining top talent translates to educating and preparing all students for college— 

our singular and overriding objective. 

But if the system at large inhibits the cultivation and retention of great teachers, 

a more rigorous evaluative tool will be for not. Local flexibility in staffing will ensure that only the highest qualified teachers are selected to enter into the classroom. And at Herron, our Professional Development is built around using our teachers as experts to increase student performance. In-housed, every Friday we dive into 

data about our students. We generate targeted cross-curricular interventions for atrisk students and re-enforce the vertical alignment of our disciplines to challenge 

all students. No one finishes their crosswords in this space. It’s eagerly anticipated, 

an opportunity to hone our mission of closing the achievement gap. 

And this is why I know that I do not make the promise to close the achievement 

gap in vain. It is possible and is happening as we speak at Herron and hundreds 

of schools across the country. But action has to be taken now for our students to 

properly inherit what we all aspire to—the American Dream. And it starts with me. 

It starts with me testifying here and now on the importance of stronger evaluative 

tools for teachers. It starts with us allowing local schools and school districts the 

flexibility to innovate and retain talent to drive student success. It starts with affirming the right of every student to a high quality and rigorous education. And it 

must end with students like Matt. He is why closing the gap is important. Because 

despite his surroundings and background, graduating from high school and college 

empowered to do anything he chooses will be his destiny, but only when we do everything we can to ensure effective teachers in the classroom. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Harper. 
22 

I am going to reserve my question time for a little bit later and 

recognize, instead, Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for putting 

together this subcommittee hearing. My experience is as a—you 

know, an accurate, appropriate, thoughtful employee evaluation 

really is a baseline of, you know, of—for proficiency improvement 

towards high performance, and whether we are talking about 

teachers or whatever field, it is extremely important tool and sometimes we don’t do that so well. 

And so I really appreciate expertise. I want to thank the experience that all the panelists bring in coming here today. 

And I want to start with Mr. Harper. Mr. Harper, how is—in 

your opinion, how is professional development at your school related to the information gleaned from the evaluation? Can you give 

an example of how it specifically targeted to meet your professional 

needs and professional development? 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you for the question. At Herron High School 

we collect data from assessments and from evaluations that we 

take from our students, and Friday, when we have our meetings 

an hour and a half before school, we look over that data to make 

sure that the students who are coming up short are assisted by 

their teachers. 

So we make sure that we target students who need office hours, 

so those are reserved periods for teachers to help students individually, and we also have structured academic supports for one-onone meetings with students before and after school. So it is really 

a time for us to analyze what we need to do as a school to make 

sure that we are encouraging growth for all of our students. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I know in my time I served—I am a recovering 

school board member, and, you know, frequently we would get 

those requests during those monthly, or bimonthly, or—they told 

me it was only going to be 1 hour a month, which was a bit of a 

lie, when I went on the board—you know, we would get those requests for continuing education, but they were—sometimes I didn’t 

find they were really related, in any data sense, to kind of gaps or 

proficiency issues that our teachers had. I am hoping that whatever models are developed on school districts or states, you know, 

tie in so that we are always looking to increase the performance 

level, you know, to—you know, because no matter what you do 

there is always an opportunity to improve and to be better. 

Dr. McIntyre, have your local teachers brought in and responded 

to the district’s teacher evaluation system, and do they feel that it 

helps improve their practice in the classroom? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

You know, if you had asked me that question about 18 months 

ago I would probably give you a very different answer. I think at 

the beginning there was a lot of uncertainty and maybe even some 

anxiety about this new evaluation system, and what it looked like, 

and how it was going to be implemented. 

But I will tell you, over time, having worked through it and lived 

with it last year and half way through this year, I think the vast 

majority of our teachers have begun to see the value of this evaluation system. Having lived through it, they see that it is fair. Having lived through it, they see that it actually—we really do mean 
23 

that it is developmental and meant to help enhance their practice, 

and that they have learned a few things from it. 

I think that the experience of—and I say this half in jest—you 

know, we didn’t fire half our teachers this summer probably, you 

know, helps. They realize that we really do mean for this to be a 

developmental process. And I think that we saw some very strong 

outcomes for student learning last year, and I think we have—we 

are very fortunate at Knox County Schools to have extraordinary 

teachers, and if something is going to—if they see that something 

is going help them enhance student learning they are going to be 

game for it. 

So I think I see, you know, the vast majority of our teachers, I 

think, have come to realize that there is value in this evaluation 

system. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Any time we implement change, I mean, that is 

hard, because it is just in the nature of it. Were there barriers or 

problems that you ran into in implementation of this, and how did 

you address those? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I think there always are, and I think that what 

we tried to do was try to be as thoughtful as we could about the 

implementation. And I think that is one of the most important 

things, as we think about teacher evaluation nationally, and think 

about how we implement it well in schools systems, is to do it 

thoughtfully. 

I think you have to have buy-in from leadership and make sure 

that this is something that is important to, you know, district leadership, but also our school principals. They are key to making sure 

that this is a process that is going to be valuable and helpful. 

I think communication is incredibly important and making sure 

that there is information available to teachers, that there is training available to teachers, as Mr. Harper said, that there is professional development that actually is really rationally related to the 

evaluation that is going to occur. 

We have done a couple of things that I think have been very 

helpful. We had a, what we called a—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Oh, I am sorry. 

Chairman ROKITA. It is all right. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. McIntyre. 

Chairman ROKITA. See, it is not that easy. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. No. 

Chairman ROKITA. Mrs. McCarthy is recognized for 5 minutes? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Dr. Watson, I want to thank you for your testimony and I appreciate your emphasis on teacher retention as well as the inclusion 

process your school district embarked on when reexamining teacher 

evaluation. You mentioned in your testimony that two-thirds of the 

teachers were aware of at least one area in which they needed to 

improve. 

Can you go into that a little bit deeper on how you basically were 

able to improve on those certain skills once the evaluation had 

been made? 
24 

And also, with evaluations—a number of you had said, you know, 

at the end of the year you look at everything. I think that is one 

of the biggest problems, trying to get the information to the teachers sooner than at the end of the year. I don’t know how we do 

that. The hearing we had last week, that was using high technology to do a weekly evaluation, which is obviously better for the 

student. But if you could answer my first question. 

Mr. WATSON. Sure. We have taken great strides in being able to 

provide our teachers with the necessary information they need to 

be successful. Paramount to that is our development of individualized professional development plans. 

So at the very beginning of the year our teachers go through a 

goal-setting process—— 

[Audio gap.] 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Nope. 

Chairman ROKITA. Is the green light on? 

Can you share? 

Mr. WATSON. Thank you—at which time they sit down with their 

administrator and they go through and develop specific goals. Now, 

those goals can be related to the actual performance areas that 

they have shown they need development in as well as other areas 

that they want to be successful with. 

Also, with our school principals and our school support officers 

we sit down once a year at the very beginning of the year as well 

as at the middle of the year and we do what we call a ‘‘fall checkin’’ or ‘‘staff review.’’ During this time, we go through every single 

teacher’s data within that particular building and we are able to 

talk about those development areas that teachers need. 

Now, in my testimony I specifically talk about, it is not only our 

ability to be able to identify those areas of need but also our ability 

to be able to provide specific support. So we have developed a litany of exemplar videos based upon all 13 exemplar areas on our— 

in our effectual ratings, where teachers are able to go through and 

watch videos of best practices as it relates to instruction. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. You know, when you talked about your program ASPIRE—— 

Mr. WATSON. Yes. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Where do you find the funding for 

that? Because that seems to be the biggest problem on—when we 

are talking about any school developing programs for the teachers. 

Money is always an issue. 

And recruiting early, too. Tell me how that plays into such an 

important part. 

Mr. WATSON. Recruiting early is extremely important. As I said 

earlier, when we go out and select teachers the earliest we can we 

are able to find the best teachers. As we know, the best teachers 

are out looking for jobs right now, versus teachers that sometimes 

wait a week or 2 or a month before school starts. And so by looking 

at how we recreate—how we go out and recruit teachers as well as 

what we do to recruit teachers, we have been able to change our 

processes to free up budgets—campus budgets—where principals 

are early to go through and look at who exactly—what positions 

they need to fill as well as those positions that they may not be 

filling on their campuses. 
25 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Just one quick question, and I know this is, you know, for early 

education that we are working on, but the—you all mentioned 

about getting the best teachers from the schools. How prepared are 

the teachers when they graduate? Have they had enough training? 

Mr. WATSON. Well, I don’t think you could ever have enough 

training. I don’t think any college or private education can ever 

provide enough, but one of the things that we have done is we have 

begun to be proactive and go out and network with area colleges 

and universities in our area, and we have let them know specifically what we need teachers to be able to do. And so we have infused that and actually have had them go back and redevelop their 

programs to meet the needs that we have within our district. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Dr. Harper—very quickly, because my time is 

running out—when you went to your first school, how soon was it 

that you were into it that you saw that the school was not functioning well? Was it the atmosphere of the teachers or was it more 

on the principal and the superintendent’s part? 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you for the question. For me, I thrive on 

feedback, and so the MET study and actually the Teach Plus Policy 

study, ‘‘Great Expectations,’’ found that teachers like myself need 

feedback—effective feedback for—and actionable next steps to be 

able to perform well. 

So when I was at my first school I didn’t have anyone come into 

my room until the second semester, and they came in with a checklist and then went out and that was all of 5 minutes, and I realized 

that that would be great if I was simply going into teaching as a 

secondary job, but teaching is what I love and I want to make an 

impact on the next generation, and so I knew I needed to be in a 

place that would provide me with structural support so that I can 

get better, and having a continued dialogue and being able to be 

effective for my teachers—or for my students was something of priority to me, so that is when I knew. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy. 

Mrs. Foxx is recognized for 5 minutes? 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank our witnesses here today. 

Dr. Cantrell, in your opinion and using your knowledge of the 

MET study findings, can we trust the results of teacher evaluation 

systems if implemented using multiple measures with balanced 

weight? Is it fair to use the results of teacher evaluation systems 

to make decisions about personnel, both positive and negative, to 

improve the teaching profession? 

Mr. CANTRELL. Absolutely. Where the measures agree, we can 

have the confidence to act. One of the benefits of having multiple 

measures is the error is actually uncorrelated. So you know that 

any single measure isn’t going to be perfect, but when you have 

several measures the mistakes that they make correct one another, 

and so the average from multiple measures is much more reliable 

than any single measure could provide alone. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you. 

Dr. McIntyre, how does the Knox County teacher evaluation system interact with the state evaluation system of Tennessee, and 
26 

were you given flexibility to implement specifics in a way best suited to your local needs? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

The Knox County Schools’ evaluation system is actually the 

standard or default system for the state of Tennessee, the TEAM 

model. Tennessee actually allows for different districts to define an 

alternative model as long as it meets the basic criteria of evaluating every teacher every year and at least 50 percent being based 

on student outcomes. So there are a few different models, actually, 

in the state of Tennessee, but the vast majority of districts use the 

TEAM model. 

We have been given some flexibility in terms of how we implement, in terms of some of the measures that we look at. We have 

been given flexibility, for example, as to there is an opportunity to 

do fewer observations of teachers who are on the higher end of the 

scale. But that is an option; you can do that or you can not do that. 

And because we believe that the evaluation process is developmental, we have chosen to continue with the number—the same 

number of observations even for teachers on the higher end of the 

scale because we think it is beneficial. Even great teachers can become even better. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Harper, I am so glad that we have a teacher here today and 

I want to say to you, when I taught—I taught for 15 years at Appalachian State University—we were only required to do an evaluation every 2 years or 3 years but I did one every semester, so I 

identify with you. I liked to get the feedback from the students— 

the student evaluation, and so I am glad to hear you saying you 

like to get that feedback. 

Talk a little bit, if you would, on your thoughts on teacher tenure 

and policies such as the ‘‘last in, first out.’’ How have you observed 

those, and what do you think about those as the way to operate in 

the school systems? 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. I think teacher tenure is great only if 

the teachers that are retained are really effective teachers. And unfortunately, ‘‘last in, first out’’ has negatively impacted a lot of 

school districts because you see really motivated candidates who go 

into the classroom let go because of tenure. I think it is important 

that we don’t necessarily look at how long a teacher has been in 

the classroom, but more so, look at what impact they are making 

and allow that to be a really strong and driving force for how we 

evaluate whether or not they stay in the classroom, because all of 

us are here because we want to make sure that students make the 

appropriate gains, particularly if they come into the classroom lagging in certain categories, and so that is why it is really important 

that we look not necessarily at how long they have been in the 

classroom but how effective they are inside the classroom. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

And Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. I really appreciate it. 

As a former school board member in San Diego Unified, this 

evaluation issue was something that I always felt was terribly im-
27 

portant and I was quite frustrated that we weren’t able to move 

forward. And, of course, a number of years have taken place. 

I wanted to just mention, along with Mr. Polis, we have authored 

the STELLAR Act, which I hope you will all take a look at, Securing Teacher Effectiveness, Leaders, Learning, And Results Act. 

What I wanted to focus on quickly is—are just a few issues. 

One is the federal role. In your experience—and what this bill focuses on, Title 1 schools, particularly, and putting in place over a 

period of time with teacher buy-in and hopefully professional development, it is a flexible idea, in terms of making certain that there 

is buy-in and that there is very, very active participation in terms 

of the creation and design, but I am wondering what you think 

about that. I mean, do you think that there should be a federal role 

in this, and should we put some guidelines out there and then hold 

people accountable if they are not able to follow through? 

Anybody want to tackle that? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Gosh, I think that if there is a federal role to be 

had it is probably setting broad parameters and giving a lot of 

flexibility to states and localities. You know, I think that certainly 

we believe, in Tennessee, that, you know, having the flexibility to 

implement something like a teacher evaluation system that makes 

sense for our state and for our local school district makes a lot of 

sense, and that there are, you know, differences in terms of how— 

what that might look like. Even in Knoxville versus Memphis 

versus—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Sure, absolutely. 

Mr. MCINTYRE [continuing]. Versus Nashville. And so I think you 

know, perhaps either the federal level or the state level setting 

broad parameters, making sure that there is, you know, adequate 

and appropriate evaluation of teachers, but maybe leaving lots of 

flexibility for local school districts to do what they need to do to 

make it work. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. That certainly is our intent. But I also 

see that sometimes school districts and states, as well, get a little 

tripped up along this process, and that is—you know, that is very 

important to be sure that you have all these elements in place. 

What is it, do you think, about trying to define and develop an 

evaluation system that does trip up those organizations—school entities—that are trying to move forward? 

Mr. WATSON. I would say one of the areas that trips up is just 

the mere understanding of the various methods or measures we 

can use to accurately evaluate teacher performance. So long teachers have not had to use student performance as a measure of their 

effectiveness, and so better understanding around that, the use of 

EVAS as one of the measures, but also the ongoing educational 

training that is needed to be able to support teachers—more importantly, helping them also be able to understand and link up the 

professional development to those areas that have been deemed to 

be ‘‘highly effective’’ or ‘‘areas of improvement.’’ 

Mrs. DAVIS. And in terms of professional development, then, I 

think one of the difficulties is defining, what is the best kind of 

professional development, and then, do you have the resources to 

back that up? How have you seen in your work that school districts 

are able to carve out the resources that they need to actually pro-
28 

vide the kind of teacher professionalism program that they know 

is best? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. You know, in Knoxville we just—we find that 

there is extraordinary capacity and expertise already in our classrooms and we seek to leverage that. A lot of our professional development is teacher-led. You know, we provide opportunities for 

teachers to step up and be in leadership roles, either in instructional coaching roles or providing professional development, and I 

think that has an enormous—it is incredibly high-quality professional development when our teachers do it because they take it extremely seriously, and it is incredibly powerful when it is teacherto-teacher, as well, so that is one of the strategies that we use. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I wonder—— 

Mr. CANTRELL. You know, one more thing about evaluation as 

professional development, I think too often we think about evaluation as something that is just about measurement rather than is 

about feedback and the ability to mark progress and improvement 

over time and to make adjustments and to see if you are actually 

changing the outcomes that you have for students is incredibly valuable. And so we think about professional development as something that happens to teachers rather than as a process of improvement that requires evaluation and good information. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

Gentlelady’s time is expired. 

We will now hear from Dr. Roe for 5 minutes? 

Mr. ROE. Thank the chairman, and I am sorry I had to step out 

but the Tennessee Department of Transportation director was out 

there and any time you are talking about roads you go talk to that 

guy. 

Dr. Cantrell, I want to thank you and the Bill & Melinda Gates 

Foundation for your support of the Niswonger Foundation of Distance Learning in East Tennessee. It has been a phenomenal success, and just a personal thank you. 

On the evaluations—and this is Mr. Harper, or Dr. McIntyre, or 

any of you that have been in the classroom—let me give you a narrative here that I see and hear from former patients of mine who 

are teachers, many of them I know well. I went to read to a class— 

a second grade class—and as I got up to leave I said, ‘‘Well, how 

is this young fellow doing?’’ 

And my friend who is the teacher said, ‘‘Well, he is going to be 

with me again next year.’’ 

And I said, ‘‘Why is that?’’ 

She said, ‘‘Well, he missed 60 days of school.’’ 

First thing a doctor asks, ‘‘Has he been sick?’’ 

And she said, ‘‘No. His dad is in prison and his mother won’t get 

up and get him out of bed to get him out the door to get him to 

school.’’ So he is going to be held back, and that evaluation, that 

student didn’t make adequate yearly progress, so he didn’t learn 

what he is supposed to learn. 

And yet my teacher friend is being evaluated on someone—so 

how do you do that, because I hear that from teachers. There are 

things totally out of their control that are societal issues that they 

are being evaluated on. 
29 

I absolutely think—we are in medicine right now we are doing 

outcomes-based, meaningful use criteria. Education is doing the 

same thing, try to standardize what we are doing and try to see— 

put a metric out here and see if we have actually made progress. 

Let me just throw that out to anybody. Dr. McIntyre? Anybody— 

Mr. Harper? 

Mr. HARPER. That happens in schools across the country and I 

am glad you brought that up. For me personally, even if you have 

students who are coming from these different backgrounds, ultimately the buck stops with me and if I am not making the appropriate gains for these students I am ultimately held culpable. However, it is important to recognize that you look at the student’s 

growth and progress and make sure that that is taken into consideration on how the teacher is evaluated. 

So yes, will students come from disadvantaged backgrounds and 

all these extraneous situations that you can’t control? Yes. But effective teachers will seek out resources inside and outside their 

school to make sure that there is a plan for these specific students 

who might need extra support. 

Mr. ROE. Well, your job is a lot easier if you have got a mom and 

dad helping you out. I can tell you that. 

Mr. HARPER. I definitely agree, sure. 

Mr. ROE. It is just, what you just described was making your job 

of teaching French or—I think you are a French teacher or—— 

Mr. HARPER. Correct. 

Mr. ROE [continuing]. Whatever, much harder. 

Dr. McIntyre, how—when you do those evaluations, how do 

you—— 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, sir. You know, I think that that certainly is 

an important consideration, and I think that is also why it is important that you look at multiple measures. I think it is important 

that you, you know, for the Tennessee system you look at classroom observation and you go in and look at instructional practice 

and you do that frequently. You do that at least a couple times if 

not—you know, for newer teachers, you know, up to four times in 

a year you have conversations with the teachers about that. 

So I think having multiple measures certainly is important in 

that. And then I think, as Mr. Harper said, if you are measuring 

student growth over time, as well, and the Tennessee Value-Added 

Assessment System is, you know, is said to take into account, statistically, some of those challenges of where a student starts and 

where they end the year, and make sure that the—that a teacher 

isn’t penalized based on, you know, if a student starts the year 

below proficient. If they start the year academically behind but 

that teacher grows them over time that they, you know, essentially 

get credit for that, that that is taken into account in the measurement. 

And certainly the issue that you raised around supports for students and families is incredibly important, and that shouldn’t necessarily be our job, but if it impacts student learning it sort of becomes part of our job, and having to work with our students and 

our families to broker services or provide support is an important 

part of what we do in schools today. 
30 

Mr. ROE. Do you think, Dr. McIntyre, that you—we have enough 

data in Tennessee to recommend—I know we are—our Race to the 

Top is called First to the Top, but do we have enough data, now, 

to recommend these—this teacher evaluation system or some variant of it to the rest of the country or should we have—wait a little 

more time on that? 

Any of you can take that on. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I believe the basics of the model in Tennessee are 

the right ones. I don’t think the system is perfect. I think there are 

certainly some areas that need to be improved upon; there are 

some areas that need to be tightened up; there are some challenges 

that still need to be worked through in the system that we have 

in place right now, and I think, you know, one area is teachers who 

don’t have individual growth data and how to make sure that we 

address that. 

But I do think the basic parameters of what we have put in place 

in Tennessee is quite good, and I think it is something that, as we 

look to replicate the model elsewhere, I think it would be very valuable in terms of having support for teachers, providing an experience where they get feedback on a regular basis, where they are 

reflecting on their practice. And it is—I see it improving instructional practice in the Knox County Schools. 

Chairman ROKITA. Gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. ROE. Thank the chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

We will now hear from Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes? 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this hearing, and good morning, everyone. 

I come from a place way out in the Pacific where, unlike many 

school districts where you can reach into the next county and pull 

teachers in, we don’t have that capacity. But I would also like to 

say that we have some bright spots in our school system, and it is 

through a rough diamond, but there are bright spots and potential. 

And I also notice that because of the federal mandates our 

schools were actually forced, in some instances, to take teachers 

and move them into a lower level in terms of pay and things like 

that. Federal mandates have required that, and actually some of 

my—two of my best teachers won’t qualify as teachers. They happen to be my parents, and I also—but for now I would like to—Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to yield my time to Mr. Polis—the remainder of my time. 

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I deeply appreciate the time. 

As mentioned by my colleague, Susan Davis, we are working on 

the STELLAR Act, and we know that teacher quality is the single 

most important in-school factor that affects student achievement. 

The STELLAR Act would require school districts to work with 

school staff to implement fair teacher and principal evaluation programs. It is the flexibility to do what works, and this is an intensely local discussion, of course, between teachers and principals 

and school boards, and we want to make sure that there is the 

flexibility to work as systems like the one that Dr. McIntyre has 

outlined. 

At the same time, I think it is reasonable to say that there is 

nothing so special about any district that somehow they could 
31 

argue that, ‘‘Oh, in this area of the country teachers don’t need to 

be evaluated. Teachers don’t—their performance doesn’t need to be 

tracked.’’ So I think that that is a reasonable balance between a 

federal role and a local role, simply saying this needs to be done. 

We also feel, again, leave it entirely open, but the STELLAR Act, 

that performance data, achievement data needs to be a part of the 

discussion. Now, that certainly doesn’t mean nor should it as a best 

practice be 100 percent of anything, but I think in every instance 

where we have seen a real meaningful performance agreement and 

evaluation system that teachers agree to and districts have agreed 

to there have been multiple indicators, and certainly academic 

growth on student assessments has been one of the multiple measures, as Dr. Roe mentioned. 

It is never statistically perfect, and surely there are, you know, 

situations that are beyond any teacher’s control, and it affects a 

student here, a student there, that is why in the—these numbers 

need to be looked at in the—in an aggregate way, a way that is 

fair to teachers. 

Colorado has recently implemented a teacher evaluation system. 

We have similar discussions at the state level about whether this 

should be a one-size-fits-all for the state or districts. Basically we 

have created a—or are creating, I guess—a default out-of-the-box 

state approach and then districts can, if they choose, do their own. 

Frankly, for many smaller districts that have a few hundred or a 

few thousand people it is much easier to take something that is 

fully formed, if it is agreeable locally. Most of the major districts 

will want to go through their own work. 

My question for Dr. McIntyre is, what do you think we can do 

more of at the federal level to help ensure that more districts move 

in the direction that you have and to facilitate that however we 

can? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you. You know, as I said, I think that if 

there is a role at the federal level it probably is to just, you know, 

to encourage and support the evaluation of teachers across the 

United States. I think that we have found having an evaluation 

system that is—that evaluates every teacher every year, that incorporates student achievement data, and is based on multiple measures is an incredibly important and powerful structure. 

And you know, so again, I think that whether that comes from 

the federal level or whether that comes from each of the 50 states, 

you know, I guess I am a little bit agnostic about, but I do believe 

the value of ensuring that we have those important evaluation 

structures and evaluation conversations, because I think that is 

one of the most important parts, and I think Mr. Harper said as 

well, getting that feedback and reflecting on practice is incredibly 

important and powerful, and that is what really moves the dial on 

instructional practice and, therefore, moves the dial on student 

achievement. 

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for his time. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes. 

Again, I would like to thank each of you for coming today. 
32 

Dr. Cantrell, let me start with you. If I heard your testimony correctly—I will try to paraphrase it now—you said that student characteristics are a lesser matter compared to the effectiveness of 

teachers in realizing high student achievement. Is that fair? 

Mr. CANTRELL. Yes. Absolutely—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Can you go further in that? 

Mr. CANTRELL. Happy to do that. Yes, irrespective of the students who came into a teacher’s classroom, we could see high-and 

low-quality practice. So it points back to Mr. Roe’s earlier question 

about is this fair, and we saw that there were great teachers in 

places where kids were really struggling and there were poor 

teachers in places where kids were really advantaged. And it really 

didn’t matter where a student was starting—— 

Chairman ROKITA. Right. Okay. Thank you. 

Does anyone else want to react to that? Agree? Disagree? 

Okay. For the record, I am hearing three agreements from the 

other witnesses. [Laughter.] 

Dr. Cantrell, you also indicated that student surveys, along with 

classroom observations, et cetera, do a far better job of predicting 

which teachers will succeed in raising student performance. So it 

wasn’t so long ago that I haven’t forgotten my high school days and 

what I did and didn’t do during those days. I was never empowered 

to evaluate a teacher, I would say now for good reason. 

But in all seriousness, I have heard some anecdotal stories— 

maybe just one or two—where teachers were said to be forging the 

surveys because they were fearful of certain or maybe most students in their classrooms, depending on the school or area, and 

that empowerment and that they were—you know, if their salaries 

or whatever else were dependent on this, the students knew that 

and, in a teacher’s view, would have sabotaged that. Is that black 

helicopter stuff, or is that a concern, not—any of you could respond. 

Mr. CANTRELL. So in the MET project teachers weren’t held accountable for these surveys, so it was just a study—— 

Chairman ROKITA. So it was just part of your feedback loop that 

you were talking about—— 

Mr. CANTRELL. What we found when talking to students is they 

appreciated the opportunity and took it very seriously—the opportunity to give voice. And we weren’t asking students about—to 

make judgments that they weren’t highly qualified to make. We 

were asking them about the quality of their instructional environment, and that is something where they are the experts. 

Chairman ROKITA. And you haven’t heard any stories about the 

likes that I have been talking about? 

Mr. CANTRELL. No black helicopters. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. 

Doctor? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I think there are structures you can put in place 

to make sure that those surveys are done actually by the students, 

and we are actually piloting some student surveys this year. They 

won’t count toward the evaluation, but we think it is—it will be interesting information, and based on the MET study, it is said to be 

highly reliable. So we are going to take a look at that this year. 

Chairman ROKITA. Dr. Watson? I think that one is working for 

you if you want. It is up to you. Now you are in stereo probably. 
33 

Mr. WATSON. Yes. 

We are actually going to implement student surveys this spring 

for the first time. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. No worries? 

Mr. WATSON. No worries yet. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay. 

Mr. Harper? 

Mr. HARPER. They are a powerful tool, and I use them in my 

classroom, and they are important for me to reflect on my own 

practice and see how I need to grow with my students. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thanks for clearing that up. 

We will stick with you, Mr. Harper, for my last question. I was 

intrigued when you said that teachers don’t take an oath. I have 

never heard of a teacher taking an oath; maybe there are some out 

there. 

Philosophical question to end out my minute or so of time left: 

Should there be an oath, and if so, who gets to write it? 

Mr. HARPER. I think there should be a higher standard to which 

teachers are held accountable, because I think too often teachers 

don’t have the supports in the classroom or teachers don’t have the 

feedback that they need to make sure that they make appropriate 

gains. So, you know, I think there should be an oath but the oath 

that should be made should be to continue to increase student 

achievement in the classroom. 

Who writes that? You know, that is a great question. I will have 

to get back to you. 

Chairman ROKITA. We will expect it in 7 days. 

Anyone else, really quickly? We have about 30 seconds left between the three of you on that last question. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I think most teachers are deeply committed to 

children and deeply committed to the work that they do. I think 

in a lot of senses they take an oath to themselves and perhaps to 

a higher power when they go in the classroom. Making that a formal, you know, opportunity might be an interesting and useful 

thing to do. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Cantrell, anything to add? 

Mr. CANTRELL. Amen. 

Chairman ROKITA. Dr. Watson? 

Mr. WATSON. They should have an oath, and I think they take 

that oath every day when they go. We just need to make sure that 

the oath that they take and the professional development and support match up so they can actually do it. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. My time is expired. 

I now recognize Mr. Scott for 5 minutes? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this 

hearing. It is interesting that all of the witnesses have confirmed 

that the teacher’s resume is a totally inadequate measure of their 

effectiveness, that you have to do more than just look at the resume to ascertain whether or not the teacher is a good teacher. 

One of the things that concerns me is we keep trying to improve 

teacher quality without talking about pay scales. 

Dr. McIntyre, if you had more money and could offer higher salaries could you get better teachers? 
34 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you for the question. You know, I think 

resources, in terms of compensation, certainly is one thing that can 

be helpful. I don’t think it is the sole criteria and I don’t think it 

is, in and of itself, is going to make a difference. 

We have put in place a strategic—— 

Mr. SCOTT. When you get down to the last few teachers you are 

trying to hire and there is a quality challenge, I mean, if you had 

higher salaries you could attract a better pool of candidates, 

couldn’t you? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, sir. I think that is—I think that is fair to 

say. I think where that would be valuable is in competing with 

some of the other industries that teachers have the opportunities 

to go into. And we do—we have had a—we have put in place a strategic compensation initiative that recognizes great performance and 

provides incentives and rewards for great teaching and student 

outcomes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Cantrell, you mentioned multiple measures for teaching and 

the student component would be part of it. Do you have multiple 

measures for the students, including, as Dr. McIntyre mentioned, 

a growth model rather than a pass-fail model? 

Mr. CANTRELL. The MET project looked at two different student 

assessments—the state assessment and a supplemental higherorder thinking skills test that was characteristically different than 

the state test and that allowed students to demonstrate and answer more complex problems, and we saw that the results were 

similar, independent of which test that we used. They both were 

adequate for identifying teaching effectiveness. 

Mr. SCOTT. One of the problems I see in—we are trying to get 

the best teachers in the most challenging schools. What incentive 

would a teacher have to go into a challenging school, because it 

seems to me if you are going to be based on student achievement 

a bad teacher at a good school would have a better chance of keeping a job than a good teacher at a bad school. 

Mr. CANTRELL. So what is nice about how these growth models 

work is they don’t privilege the status of the student; they actually 

reward a teacher for making progress with the student. And so 

there is no real advantage. It would be very hard for a teacher to 

figure out which student, based on their prior scores, is going to 

grow more, and yet growth is the coin of the realm. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, in some schools, you know, everybody is going 

to do all right. 

Dr. Watson, do you see that same challenge? 

Mr. WATSON. Yes, we have seen that as a challenge, but one of 

the things that we have done in Houston is not only to look at just 

the growth, meaning from our lowest-performing schools to our 

highest-performing. We have looked at our highest-performing 

schools and how much growth are they making above the grade 

level. And so when we are looking at growth it is not just looking 

at low student achievement, but if you are already at the level, are 

you 1 or 2 years above that level? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you have got a classroom where everybody 

knows everybody is going to achieve because the parents are helping and everything else in that community, any teacher is going to 
35 

be able to do okay. And so why would a good teacher want to go 

to a bad school where you may get—may have a lot of people not 

achieving? 

Mr. WATSON. Well, in the recruitment process one of the things 

that we have found is there are those teachers that have that special mission where they do want to work with the most underserving kids. We do offer financial incentives as well, but most likely those teachers go because of the support of administrators and 

their ability to provide them very good feedback to grow. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. Time for about one more question. 

Mr. Harper, some students are going to be problem students for 

everybody. What does evaluation do to collaboration, where a 

teacher across the hall may notice that a student is disruptive, 

‘‘Send Johnny over to me and see if I can work with him.’’ Why 

would a teacher do that if you are going to get gigged and possibly 

lose your job because Johnny is going to bring down your average? 

Mr. HARPER. I think any effective teacher will seek out resources 

to make sure that they are behaving appropriately inside their own 

classroom as they are in the classroom across the hall, so I don’t 

see behavior management as being something that could be detrimental to a teacher’s—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you have a student that you know is going 

to be a problem, why would you invite the student into your class 

to help your colleague across the hall when you might be able to 

do better with that particular student than the teacher across the 

hall when that might affect your average? 

Mr. HARPER. Because any time you are wanting to build a culture inside of a school where all students achieve it is incumbent 

upon you to make sure that all of the—your teachers are able to 

perform at the same level at the higher expectation, so it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we have that culture in the first 

place, which is why you have local flexibility in developing school 

performance for our teachers to be able to perform. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. 

Gentleman’s time is expired. 

I would like to thank, again, the witnesses for taking the time 

to testify before the subcommittee today. Really appreciate it. Really educational. 

Mrs. McCarthy, do you have any closing remarks? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses. It was very informative. 

I always feel like these hearings—we want another hour or 2 because there are so many questions, but some of the questions I 

have I hopefully I will follow up with asking you, and—get back to 

us. 

But as I said in our opening remarks, we as members in Congress are looking for guidance from your insight. You are on the 

ground. You are doing the work that we need to hear about. 

Each of your testimonies have common themes, and I have to 

say, you are all really on the same page. I didn’t hear any differences whatsoever, which is always a good sign—most notably, 

that teacher effectiveness cannot be evaluated on the one dimension, and I think that came across very strongly. 
36 

Students’ needs have evolved greatly over time and educators 

have an obligation to identify those needs and develop teacher evaluation standards that are frequent and diverse in time, and that 

is the only area that I still wish we could get better data to the 

teacher and to everybody else so the students aren’t falling apart 

3 months, 6 months. Get them as early as we can to help them. 

I am looking forward to continuing to work on this issue with my 

colleagues, and it is my sincere hope that our panel will continue 

to share their progress on this issue with the subcommittee. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this hearing. I 

yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Ranking Member McCarthy. 

I agree with the ranking member about what she just said. We 

are looking for guidance and you all provided it. And I am going 

to assume, at least in part, that you are representative of your professions in your testimony today. 

And I appreciate your leadership. I think your professions—administrators and teachers alike—are unsung heroes, and it is almost cliche to say that these days but it can’t be said enough, in 

another sense. So thank you very, very much. 

Education, I think is the second biggest challenge we have as a 

country and culture today, second only to the disintegration of the 

family unit as a problem that we must address. And more and 

more you are being asked to do both those jobs, and I think that 

is unfair. But that is the reason I want to say thank you again for 

that kind of leadership. 

We continue to learn so much about teacher evaluation in the 

past years and, you know, I think it is time we move forward with 

ESEA reauthorization. This hearing today helped us—helped me, 

at least, as chairman, do that. So I look forward to working on and 

moving such ESEA legislation this Congress. 

With that and no further business being before the committee, 

this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Question submitted for the record follows:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, March 19, 2013. 

Dr. STEVE CANTRELL, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 

P.O. Box 23350, Seattle, WA 98102. 

DEAR DR. CANTRELL: Thank you for testifying at the February 28, 2013 hearing 

on ‘‘Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher Performance?’’ I appreciate your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than April 9, 2013 for 

inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or 

Dan Shorts of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

TODD ROKITA, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R–IN)

1. Dr. Cantrell, we’ve heard many researchers state that student achievement, especially state test results, should not be included in teacher evaluation systems because the state tests are ‘‘poor quality. What are your thoughts on this? Can student 

achievement, when weighted with multiple measures, provide an accurate picture 

of a teacher’s ability? 
37 

REP. ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT (D–VA)

2. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of ensuring that our 

nation’s children receive high-quality instruction. It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to become teachers in the first place, and one 

of the most attractive features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure have 

an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into the profession? That 

is, would highly-qualified individuals be less likely to apply to become a teacher if 

they knew that they could be fired at any time? 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, March 19, 2013. 

Mr. EMANUEL HARPER, Herron High School, 

7654 Woodmore Trace, Apt E7, Indianapolis, IN 46260. 

DEAR MR. HARPER: Thank you for testifying at the February 28, 2013 hearing on 

‘‘Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher Performance?’’ I appreciate 

your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than April 9, 2013 for 

inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or 

Dan Shorts of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

TODD ROKITA, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R–IN)

1. Mr. Harper, in your testimony, you state that we need to ‘‘give more local flexibility in generating a culture that drives student growth.’’ Why is providing the decision-making power to those closest to students so important? 

REP. ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT (D–VA)

1. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of ensuring that our 

nation’s children receive high-quality instruction. It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to become teachers in the first place, and one 

of the most attractive features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure have 

an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into the profession? That 

is, would highly-qualified individuals be less likely to apply to become a teacher if 

they knew that they could be fired at any time? 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, March 19, 2013. 

Dr. JAMES P. MCINTYRE, JR., Knox County Schools, 

P.O. Box 2188, Knoxville, TN 37901. 

DEAR DR. MCINTYRE: Thank you for testifying at the February 28, 2013 hearing 

on ‘‘Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher Performance?’’ I appreciate your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than April 9, 2013 for 

inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or 

Dan Shorts of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

TODD ROKITA, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R–IN)

1. Dr. McIntyre, in your testimony you mention that your district’s teacher evaluation system serves as both an accountability mechanism and a professional 

growth tool. We’ve heard from some organizations that teacher evaluation systems 

are unfair, because they serve dual roles. How does your evaluation system serve 
38 

as both an accountability mechanism and a professional growth tool? Is it adequate 

and fair in serving both purposes? 

REP. ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT (D–VA)

1. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of ensuring that our 

nation’s children receive high-quality instruction. It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to become teachers in the first place, and one 

of the most attractive features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure have 

an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into the profession? That 

is, would highly-qualified individuals be less likely to apply to become a teacher if 

they knew that they could be fired at any time? 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, March 19, 2013. 

Dr. RODNEY WATSON, Houston Independent School District, 

4400 West 18th St., Houston, TX 77092. 

DEAR DR. WATSON: Thank you for testifying at the February 28, 2013 hearing on 

‘‘Raising the Bar: How are Schools Measuring Teacher Performance?’’ I appreciate 

your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than April 9, 2013 for 

inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Lindsay Fryer or 

Dan Shorts of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

TODD ROKITA, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. 

REP. ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT (D–VA)

1. Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of ensuring that our 

nation’s children receive high-quality instruction. It is also important that we recruit the most talented individuals to become teachers in the first place, and one 

of the most attractive features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn tenure after years of high-quality performance on the job. Would removing tenure have 

an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into the profession? That 

is, would highly-qualified individuals be less likely to apply to become a teacher if 

they knew that they could be fired at any time? 

[Responses to questions submitted follow:] 

Mr. Cantrell’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

The Measures of Effective Teaching project demonstrated that states should include student assessments as one among multiple measures. Schools educate students to learn. Schools measure effective teaching for students to learn better. Ideally, each of the multiple measures supports this aim. Each measure provides, to 

teachers and to those who support teacher growth, feedback to indicate areas of 

strength and areas to develop. Without a measure of student learning, however, 

there would be no basis for drawing teacher attention and effort to any particular 

aspect of teaching. The point is to identify teaching practices that help students 

learn better. 

Certainly, smart people disagree about the best ways to assess learning. State 

tests are often criticized for being overly narrow representations of what students 

should know and be able to do. To the extent this is true, the solution is for the 

tests to be supplemented, not abandoned. There are two ways to accomplish this: 

The Measures of Effective Teaching project did both. First, to the extent that the 

state assessment reflects only part of the outcomes valued by the school community, 

the assessment can be supplemented with other reliable assessments. MET administered a supplemental assessment designed to assess student’s higher order thinking 

skills, a commonly referenced gap in the skills addressed by most state assessments. 

Second, the use of multiple measures, such as classroom observation and student 

surveys, provides additional indicators to augment what the state tests measure. 

One important MET finding was when the multiple measures agree schools can 

act with confidence even though each individual measure is imperfect. Certainly, we 
39 

1Dan Goldhaber, Betheny Gross, and Daniel Player. 2007. ‘‘Are Public Schools Really Losing 

Their Best? Assessing the Career Transitions of Teachers and Their Implications for the Quality 

of the Teacher Workforce.’’ CALDER Working Paper No. 12. Washington, D.C.: National Center 

for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. 2 Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, Daniel M. O’Brien, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2005. ‘‘The Market for Teacher Quality.’’ NBER Working Paper No. 11154. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau 

of Economic Research, Inc. 3Donald Boyd, Pamela Grossman, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 

2009 ‘‘Who Leaves? Teacher Attrition and Student Achievement’’ CALDER Working Paper No. 

23 Washington, D.C.: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. 4TNTP. 2012. The irreplaceables: Understanding the real retention crisis in American’s urban 

schools. New York, NY: TNTP 

would not advocate using measures that have not been validated or are unreliable. 

But, most current state tests have been validated and their reliability is known. The 

new tests being designed to assess progress toward common core state standards 

will likely be even better. Even so, states need not wait, but can use their current 

tests now while the next generation of tests is developed. 

Most teachers come to the profession to help their students succeed, not for the 

employment guarantee of tenure. The most highly-qualified individuals have many 

career options outside of teaching. We have no evidence that these highly-qualified 

individuals would find teaching less attractive if their continued employment was 

unrelated to their success on the job. We have some limited evidence that among 

the most highly-qualified teachers, those who struggle most in the classroom leave 

voluntarily.1,2,3 Unfortunately, we also have evidence that many of the most talented teachers leave teaching without anyone having asked them to stay or having 

told them how remarkable they were. Furthermore, many of these would have remained in teaching had they known.4 Having tenure had no impact on their decision 

to stay or go. 

In most school districts, tenure is granted after completing two or three years of 

satisfactory teaching performance. In most districts, 99% of teachers are designated 

as satisfactory. This means that tenure has been nearly automatic, rather than a 

reward for high quality performance on any valid, objective measure. Tenure is not 

enough to signal success to the ‘‘irreplaceable’’ teachers whose internal sense of mission requires better indicators of success. A well-designed evaluation system does 

indicate success and, even more importantly, can help the most talented individuals 

mark their progress from novice to expert. There is no reason to leave these talented 

individuals guessing as to whether they are helping student learn or what they need 

to do to get better. 

Mr. Harper’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

Providing schools with additional flexibility facilitates decision-making opportunities that will directly and positively impact student achievement. Because teachers 

are the greatest agents of academic growth for students, it follows that they are also 

most receptive to their needs. The farther removed one is from the classroom, the 

harder it becomes to isolate key levers that will dramatically effect positive change. 

Teacher retention is another barrier to generating quality schools. Providing administrators with flexibility in retaining and releasing teachers will ensure that the 

school keeps and recruits top talent. School-based decision making also affords 

school leaders an opportunity to cultivate staff investment in the school. This sense 

of ownership enhances school culture. It also builds trust with community stakeholders like parents and the wider community. 

There is a definition of tenure that implies a sense of eventual immunity. It connotes protection from critical feedback for the duration of a teacher’s career. Under 

this definition tenure becomes a race to see who can rest on his or her laurels first. 

In reality, tenure must become a powerful tool to incentivize the teaching profession 

and recognize excellent teaching in the classroom. 

Under this new definition, only the highest performing teachers would earn tenure. Part of this measurement would be continually meeting high bars in instruction 

and management. It also recognizes that these teachers will continually be internalizing and implementing feedback from formal and informal evaluations from various 

stakeholders (school leaders, peers, students, etc.) to close the achievement gap. Incumbent upon such an honor would be targeted pay increases and additional instructional responsibilities tailored to the teacher’s strengths. Thus, tenure is not 

the end-point of the teaching profession, but the beginning. Because of its coveted 

status, tenured teachers would strive to keep that honor and become the driving 

force for excellence school-wide. 
40 

Tenure is needed in our schools to reward excellent teachers. However, tenure 

must be the starting point for highly effective teachers. Tenure is a needed incentive 

to the teaching profession if structured correctly. 

Dr. McIntyre’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

Following are my responses to the additional questions submitted by members of 

the subcommittee as requested in your letter dated March 19, 2013. 

Question: Dr. Mcintyre, in your testimony you mention that your district’s teacher 

evaluation system serves as both an accountability mechanism and a professional 

growth tool. We’ve heard from some organizations that teacher evaluation systems 

are unfair, because they serve dual roles. How does your evaluation system serve 

as both an accountability mechanism and a professional growth tool? Is it adequate 

and fair in serving both purposes? 

Accountability and professional growth seem to me to be two sides of the same 

coin. I think it is fair, and even important that the system serve dual roles. In that 

way every teacher has an opportunity to grow and get better under the rubric, but 

if they don’t * * * that’s going to surface pretty quickly. 

Honestly, we’re very fortunate in Knoxville, the vast majority of our teachers do 

a very good to truly outstanding job in teaching our kids, so most of what the evaluation system does is help teachers continuously improve. It’s a great support mechanism because we don’t just say ‘‘you’re doing a bad job.’’ We talk very specifically 

about the areas for refinement, and give specific strategies that the teacher can utilize in the classroom. 

But if a teacher in unable or unwilling to grow and get better, and they are chronically ineffectual, then the evaluation system does give us the evidence that they 

should perhaps be invited to explore other careers. 

In our experience great teachers expect to be held to high standards, and they 

expect their colleagues to be held to high standards as well. Tennessee’s evaluation 

system holds all teachers to the same high standards. Isn’t that the way it should 

be? 

Some additional thoughts: 

• Performance Appraisal separate from an on-going professional growth model is 

typically not successful and not strategically aligned to the goals of the organization. 

The appraisal becomes an HR compliance exercise rather than an integral part of 

performance management. 

Performance management is ‘‘a continuous process of identifying, measuring, and 

developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with 

the strategic goals of the organization’’ (Aguinis, 2009b, p. 2). On the other hand, 

performance appraisal is the depiction of the strengths and weaknesses of employees in a non-continuous manner, typically just once a year. This process is often perceived as a bureaucratic waste of time created by the human resource department. 

(Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2011, p. 504) 

So, therefore, teacher evaluation for accountability purposes and as a professional 

growth tool must be inextricably linked in order to effectively achieve the goals of 

both. 

• The strength of the TEAM/TAP model is the support that occurs between formal 

observations, utilizing instructional coaches, lead, master, and mentor teachers, as 

well as the professional growth plan that teachers work with their administrators 

to design at the conclusion of an academic year. 

• Our multiple measures evaluation tool also include goals for student growth 

that are integrated into the on-going instructional improvement structures for the 

school, like professional learning communities (PLCs). This encourages teachers to 

work together and collaboratively plan towards increasing student outcomes. 

• The administrator’s role as an instructional leader should include both the evaluation of classroom instruction, in addition to providing coaching to support teachers. This is no different than a supervisor who also becomes a mentor to individuals 

whom he or she manages. . 

• In the private sector, this notion of the duality of evaluation and professional 

growth is typically unchallenged. Employees have grown accustomed to the evaluation process informing and driving their professional development. 

Question: Well-designed teaching evaluations are an important part of ensuring 

that our nation’s children receive high-quality instruction. It is also important that 

we recruit the most talented individuals to become teachers in the first place, and 

one of the most attractive features of the teaching profession is the ability to earn 

tenure after years of high-quality performance on the job . Would removing tenure 

have an adverse effect on the process of recruiting new teachers into the profession? 
41 

That is, would highly qualified individuals be less likely to apply to become a teacher if they knew that they could be fired at any time? 

Tenure has been redefined for new teachers in Tennessee as a privilege for truly 

extraordinary teachers rather than a right for all teachers, even those who are only 

marginally effective. Only new teachers are subject to the new tenure provisions in 

the Volunteer State, and those coming into the profession today generally understand the high expectations and rigorous standards that are necessary in order to 

ensure that our students are prepared for success in today’s complex and competitive world. 

A few other thoughts: 

• Tenure is and has always been a mechanism to ensure due process rights for 

teachers in any employment decision. Tenure is not a guarantee of job security. It 

is not a license for unsatisfactory performance or other unprofessional behavior. As 

such, the notion of tenure as life-long job protection, though pervasive, is largely inaccurate. • Today’s workforce has evolved from that of 40 years ago. Many researchers say 

that most will work for 5-10 employers over the course of their careers with longevity averaging 5 years or less. 

• Many of today’s new graduates value opportunities for promotion and increased 

compensation (based on performance) over and above the potential for long-term 

service. 

• In particular, high performing employees value the recognition and reward for 

their work rather than arbitrary tenure status. 

• Moreover, the status and meaning of tenure is diluted when it is granted to 

every employee, without regard to their historical or continuing performance. 

• Since the change of tenure laws in the state of Tennessee in 2011, our district 

has seen no decline in the number of applicants for our vacancies nor the number 

of interns and student teachers who are requesting to work in our district. Over the 

past three years, we have averaged about 2,500 new applications for approximately 

300 open positions annually, and 2012 maintained this trend. 

• Thus, there is no evidence that change in tenure laws have adversely impacted 

the ability of our district to attract a high quality candidate pool. 

I was honored to have the opportunity to share my belief that our teacher evaluation system is an important strategy in our efforts to improve the quality of public 

education in Knoxville and across our state. Please do not hesitate to contact me 

if you have additional questions or concerns. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

JAMES P. MCINTYRE, JR., 

Superintendent. 

Reference: Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, K. R. (2011). Why we hate performance management—And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54, 503-507. 

Dr. Watson’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

In general, we have found there is not much evidence in research to support the 

claim that tenure is an attractive feature of the teaching profession; evidence actually suggests that removing tenure would not have an adverse effect on recruiting 

highly qualified individuals into the profession, especially if performance-based decisions include the ability for great teachers to earn a higher salary, faster, in lieu 

of using resources to provide job security. In a survey of over 6,000 teachers in Chicago, less than a quarter agreed or strongly agreed that ‘‘the protections of tenure 

are part of the reason I became a teacher.’’ The majority of teachers disagreed with 

this statement. In a survey of teachers in Chicago and in Indianapolis, when faced 

with layoffs during budget cuts to their districts, three-quarters of teachers in both 

districts believe that additional performance-based factors should be considered 

ahead of seniority when making layoff decisions. While not a perfect proxy for tenure, if tenure were truly an attractive feature of the teaching profession, it would 

follow that these teachers would want seniority to be the primary factor of employment decisions. 

Moreover, we cannot assume that the talent pool going into teaching today and 

in years’ past will be the same talent pool going into teaching tomorrow. We know 

that today’s generation of college graduates have a vastly different value proposition 

for what is important for them in a job and in a career. Tenure status is not on 

their list. 

• Only 9% of top-third college students are planning on going into teaching. 

• The most important job attributes for the other 91% include: the quality of coworkers, prestige, a challenging work environment, and high quality training. 
42 

Teaching lags far behind other professions on these attributes for this 91% of topthird college graduates. 

• Of the 10 top attributes in an attractive job, compensation factors make up 4 

of the 10. Again, tenure/job security is not on the list. 

Overall, the removal of tenure would not adversely affect the recruitment of effective teachers if other measures of support including compensation, feedback, and 

support and development are in place at the school level. 

[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ