How California's Local Education Agencies Evaluate Teachers and Principals. REL Technical Brief. REL 2012-No. 023
Author: White, Melissa Eiler
Date: 2012-04-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Teaching (Occupation),Charter Schools,Teacher Evaluation,Administrator Evaluation,Academic Achievement,School Districts,Educational Change,Data Collection,Teachers,Principals,School Personnel,Public Agencies,Federal Government,Education,Surveys,Educational Improvement,Professional Development,Teacher Persistence,Teacher Administrator Relationship

In the context of an emerging national focus on evaluating school personnel, the 2009 federal State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program requires that states collect data from all local education agencies about their practices for evaluating teachers and principals. In response, the California Department of Education designed and administered the California Teacher and Principal Evaluation Survey, the state's first comprehensive data collection effort focused on teacher and principal evaluation. More than 99 percent (1,482) of the state's 1,490 local education agencies returned the survey during the summer of 2010. Because the SFSF program did not require states to produce a summary report of the findings of their data collection, the California Department of Education has not aggregated the survey responses, instead posting them only by individual local education agency (California Department of Education 2011). Both the California Department of Education and the Integrated Leadership Development Initiative, a California cross-agency collaboration focused on improving school and district leadership, requested an analysis and summary report of the survey results not only to inform their work but also to help other California decisionmakers interested in reform of teacher and principal evaluation. In addition, they wanted to know whether the educator evaluations of districts and direct-funded charter schools differ in their consideration of student achievement outcomes or student growth data and in how evaluation results are used. Four research questions guided this analysis of the California survey data: (1) How did local education agencies describe their teacher and principal evaluation systems?; (2) To what extent did local education agencies report that student achievement out-comes or student growth data were used in evaluating the performance of teachers and principals? How did the responses of districts differ from those of direct-funded charter schools?; (3) To what extent did local education agencies report using evaluation results to inform personnel decisions for teachers and principals? How did the responses of districts differ from those of direct-funded charter schools?; and (4) To what extent did local education agencies report using evaluation results to distinguish teachers and principals across multiple rating categories? The key findings indicate that: (1) Sixty-one percent of the 1,482 responding local education agencies indicated that their teacher evaluation systems are based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession; (2) Forty-one percent reported that their local school board approves their teacher evaluation system; 64 percent reported that their local school board approves their principal evaluation system; (3) For teacher evaluation, 57 percent reported using student achievement outcomes or growth data as partial or primary evidence; for principal evaluation, 79 percent reported using these data; (4) Compared with responding districts, direct-funded charter schools reported greater use of student achievement or growth results as partial or primary evidence for educator evaluation. The differences were more pronounced in teacher evaluation: 82 percent of responding charter schools reported such use of student achievement or growth results, compared with 45 percent of districts. For principal evaluation, the figure was 85 percent of charter schools and 76 percent of districts; (5) Local education agencies reported using evaluation results in a variety of ways. They reported using results more often for high-stakes decisions about removal and retention and less often for decisions about compensation and promotion, particularly for teachers. Teacher evaluation results were reportedly used as partial or primary evidence for removal decisions in 96 percent of local education agencies, for retention decisions in 93 percent, for promotion decisions in 54 percent, and for compensation decisions in 20 percent. Principal evaluation results were used as partial or primary evidence for removal decisions in 96 percent of local education agencies, for retention decisions in 94 percent, for promotion decisions in 67 percent, and for compensation decisions in 37 percent; (6) A larger percentage of direct-funded charter schools (27 percent) than of districts (18 percent) reported using teacher evaluation results as the primary basis for decisions about professional development, promotion (17 percent versus 6 percent), and compensation (10 percent versus 1 percent). Both had a similar percentage report using evaluations in decisions on retention (41 percent in both) and removal (41 percent in both); (7) Differences between the two local education agency types in the use of principal evaluations were less uniform. A larger percentage of direct-funded charter schools (9 percent) than of districts (3 percent) reported using principal evaluation results as the primary basis for compensation decisions. However, a smaller percentage of direct-funded charter schools than of districts reported using principal evaluation results as the primary basis for decisions related to removal (36 percent versus 43 percent), retention (35 percent versus 40 percent), and professional development (19 percent versus 24 percent). Both direct-funded charter schools and districts had a similar percentage report using evaluations in promotion decisions for principals (13 percent and 14 percent); and (8) More than two-thirds of local education agencies reported having two or three performance rating levels for their teachers (37 percent had two levels, and 35 percent had three) and principals (40 percent had two levels, and 30 percent had three). Local education agencies with two rating levels reported that 98 percent of their teachers and 83 percent of their principals were rated in the highest category; agencies with three rating levels reported that 91 percent of their teachers and 98 percent of their principals were rated in the highest category. Appended are: (1) The literature on teacher and principal evaluation practices; (2) Study data and methods; (3) Additional data tables; (4) Instructions for completing the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Survey items, May 25, 2010; (5) Sample screenshots from the California Teacher and Principal Evaluation Survey; (6) Letter from the California Department of Education requesting corrections to the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Survey, July 15, 2010; (7) Letter from the California Department of Education requesting corrections to the to the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Survey, September 24, 2010; and (8) Excerpts from &quot;Federal Register&quot; and specific State Fiscal Stabilization Funds report requirements pertaining to the California Teacher and Principal Evaluation Survey. (Contains 1 box, 8 tables, 14 figures and 19 notes.)