DOI: 10.3886/icpsr34798
title: Measures of Effective Teaching: 4 - District-Wide Files, 2008-2014
title: MET 4 - District-Wide Files, 2008-2014
title: Archival Version

description: The Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET)
The MET project is based on two premises: First, to a significant extent a teacher's evaluation should depend on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain.
Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were Stanford 9 Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8, Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8, and the ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology.
Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols:

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia; 
Framework for Teaching, developed by Charlotte Danielson; 
Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan; 
Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University; 
Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University; 
A subset of the videos also are being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).
Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following six, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology.
The District-Wide Files
The district wide files are comprised of one data file per district for each of the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 school years, for a total of thirty-six data files. Each file contains information on each student in the school district including student demographic variables, such as race, age and gender, specialty student status variables such as free lunch, English language learner, and gifted and talented program participation, and student-level test rankings for math and reading. Also included are the aggregate means of those student demographic, specialty status, and test score variables for each teacher.
Two versions of the SAS code used for creating the original value-added measures for teachers in each district are also provided with the data files. The non-aggregated version of the code uses the individual math and reading test rankings for each of a teacher's students to calculate predictive score estimates. The aggregated version of the code uses the mean math and reading test rankings for all of that teacher's students to calculate estimates.
description: The MET Study addressed several related research questions: How reliable and valid are the specific measures of teaching effectiveness under study? Do the various measures identify distinctive dimensions of teaching effectiveness, and if so, what dimensions are identified? What measures of effective teaching are empirically related to student learning gains? What does effective teaching look like, and how does it compare to less effective teaching? For example, what is the distribution of teacher scores on measures of effective teaching, and how much difference is there in teacher knowledge scores, teaching practice scores, and student outcome scores among teachers at different points in the distribution of measures of effective teaching? Can multiple sources of data on teachers and their teaching be combined to develop a set of fair, valid, and reliable indicators of teaching quality for use in teacher evaluation systems intended to rank teachers for personnel decision making and to promote teachers' professional learning and development?
description: Teachers at targeted grade levels (4th-9th grade) and in targeted subject areas (English Language Arts, Math and Biology) were recruited from schools in six school districts. Video was captured of these teachers' classroom sessions and these videos were scored using multiple measures to rate teaching method and classroom environment. Multiple assessment instruments and standardized test scores were used to gather student achievement data. Multiple surveys were administered to gather student, teacher and principal opinion on topics such as classroom instruction as well as classroom, school and working environment. Year Two of the study included a teacher randomization.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of 
				disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major 
				statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to 
				these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
			   		Performed consistency checks.; Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Response Rates: 
					2,746 teachers began Year 1 of the MET project and 1,868 completed Year 2 of the MET project.
description: Datasets: 
					
						DS0: Study-Level Files
						DS1: 2008-2009 District 56 District-Wide File
						DS2: 2008-2009 District 75 District-Wide File
						DS3: 2008-2009 District 21 District-Wide File
						DS4: 2008-2009 District 18 District-Wide File
						DS5: 2008-2009 District 33 District-Wide File
						DS6: 2008-2009 District 71 District-Wide File
						DS7: 2009-2010 District 56 District-Wide File
						DS8: 2009-2010 District 75 District-Wide File
						DS9: 2009-2010 District 21 District-Wide File
						DS10: 2009-2010 District 18 District-Wide File
						DS11: 2009-2010 District 33 District-Wide File
						DS12: 2009-2010 District 71 District-Wide File
						DS13: 2010-2011 District 56 District-Wide File
						DS14: 2010-2011 District 75 District-Wide File
						DS15: 2010-2011 District 21 District-Wide File
						DS16: 2010-2011 District 18 District-Wide File
						DS17: 2010-2011 District 33 District-Wide File
						DS18: 2010-2011 District 71 District-Wide File
						DS19: 2011-2012 District 56 District-Wide File
						DS20: 2011-2012 District 75 District-Wide File
						DS21: 2011-2012 District 21 District-Wide File
						DS22: 2011-2012 District 18 District-Wide File
						DS23: 2011-2012 District 33 District-Wide File
						DS24: 2011-2012 District 71 District-Wide File
						DS25: 2012-2013 District 56 District-Wide File
						DS26: 2012-2013 District 75 District-Wide File
						DS27: 2012-2013 District 21 District-Wide File
						DS28: 2012-2013 District 18 District-Wide File
						DS29: 2012-2013 District 33 District-Wide File
						DS30: 2012-2013 District 71 District-Wide File
						DS31: 2013-2014 District 56 District-Wide File
						DS32: 2013-2014 District 75 District-Wide File
						DS33: 2013-2014 District 21 District-Wide File
						DS34: 2013-2014 District 18 District-Wide File
						DS35: 2013-2014 District 33 District-Wide File
						DS36: 2013-2014 District 71 District-Wide File
description: Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project Series
description: cognitive assessment test
description: Teachers and students within the six participating school districts.
				   		Smallest Geographic Unit: School District
description: The MET Study began with a process of "opportunity" sampling that took place during July - November 2009 and resulted in six, large school districts volunteering to participate in the study. The process of opportunistic sampling then continued as elementary, middle, and high schools within each district were recruited into the study. Once schools were recruited, opportunity sampling continued as teachers (at targeted grade levels and subject areas) within these schools volunteered for the study. The sampling process resulted in 2,741 teachers from 317 schools in six large school districts being recruited into the first year of the study. Attrition in the teacher sample in Year Two of the study resulted from schools that dropped out of the study (11 schools; 60 teachers). Additionally, individual teachers dropped out when they left their school or district, began teaching a different subject or grade, lost interest in the study, or became ill. Overall, the Year Two sample of teachers included 2,086 teachers in 310 schools. Of the 582 4th and 5th grade teachers in Year Two, the majority continued to be subject-matter generalists who taught English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics to a single class of students, although the sample also included a small number of subject matter specialists (who taught ELA or Mathematics to more than one class section of students) and teachers who volunteered only to have their teaching of a single subject be studied. Of the 841 middle-school grade teachers in Year Two, about half continued to be teachers of ELA in grades 6-8, and the other half teachers of Mathematics at these grades. Of the 479 9th grade teachers in Year Two, about a third were teachers of 9th grade English, another third were teachers of 9th grade Algebra I, and another third were teachers of 9th grade Biology.