Teacher Evaluation and Professional Learning: Lessons from Early Implementation in a Large Urban District. REL 2016-115
Author: Shakman, Karen
Date: 2016-03-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teacher Evaluation,Faculty Development,Urban Schools,School Districts,Evaluation Methods,Feedback (Response),Teacher Competencies,Teacher Effectiveness,Teaching Methods,Family Involvement,School Community Relationship,School Culture,Teacher Surveys,Teacher Characteristics,Standards,Curriculum,Planning,Alignment (Education)

Policymakers and researchers increasingly recommend aligning educator evaluations and professional development to improve instruction and student learning. However, few empirical studies have examined the relationship between new educator evaluation systems and the professional development in which teachers engage following their evaluation. This study looked closely at one large urban district's educator evaluation system from May 2013 to May 2014. The study examined the written feedback evaluators provided to teachers who were rated less than proficient in one or more standards of effective teaching practice: curriculum, planning, and assessment (standard 1); teaching all students (standard 2); family and community engagement (standard 3); and professional culture (standard 4). The data for this study consisted of teacher characteristics and evaluation ratings, prescriptions, a district-administered teacher survey in which teachers reported on their professional activities related to each standard, and a small number of teacher and principal interviews. The following are the key findings from the study: (1) Teachers received prescriptions across all four standards, usually for one or two professional activities per prescription, and they received more prescriptions with professional practice activities than with professional development activities; (2) Teachers reported participating in more professional activities, including both professional development and professional practice activities, for instruction-based standards (standards 1 and 2) than for non-instruction-based standards (standards 3 and 4); (3) For all standards, less than 40 percent of teachers who responded to the survey participated in all the activities their evaluators prescribed. However, at least 75 percent of teachers who received a prescription for standard 1 (curriculum, planning, and assessment) or standard 2 (teaching all students) and responded to the survey reported participating in at least one professional activity that related to those standards. For standards 3 and 4, fewer teachers engaged in the prescribed activities, but many engaged in other types of professional activities, including professional development or professional practice activities, related to the standard; and (4) Of the teachers rated less than proficient who had received a prescription for standard 1 and then participated in any professional activities related to that standard, 64 percent received at least a proficient rating on a subsequent evaluation; 34 percent of the teachers with prescriptions for standard 1 who did not participate in related activities also raised their summative rating to proficient. Standard 1 was the only standard for which a statistically significant difference was detected in the subsequent evaluation of teachers who engaged in activities aligned to their prescriptions and those who did not. The percentage of teachers in the study group who received at least a proficient rating on their subsequent evaluation did not vary by whether they participated in the particular type of activity their evaluator prescribed. The following are appended: (1) Extended literature review; (2) Sample prescription; (3) Data and methodology; (4) Coding dictionary; (5) Supplementary tables; (6) Survey items; and (7) Interview protocols.