Indiana's Teacher Evaluation Legislation: Implications and Challenges for Policy, Higher Education and Professional Development. Education Policy Brief. Volume 11, Number 3, Summer 2013
Author: Cole, Sandi
Date: 2013-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Teacher Evaluation,Educational Legislation,State Legislation,Preservice Teacher Education,Educational Policy,Higher Education,Student Recruitment,Court Litigation,Legal Problems,Observation,Feedback (Response),Academic Achievement,Fidelity,Faculty Development,Alignment (Education),Financial Support,Educational Finance,Elementary Secondary Education

In 2011, the Indiana General Assembly passed a broad and ambitious reform package that significantly altered how teachers and principals are evaluated. Senate Enrolled Act 001 (SEA 1) requires: (1) annual evaluation for all certificated employees; (2) objective measures of student achievement and growth; (3) rigorous measures of effectiveness; (4) annual designation of each certificated employee in four rating categories; (5) explanation of the evaluator's recommendation for improvement and the time in which improvement is expected; and (6) a provision that a teacher who negatively affects student achievement and growth cannot receive a rating of &quot;effective&quot; or &quot;highly effective.&quot; Nearly all school corporations in Indiana are either implementing a new evaluation system for teachers and principals or are in the midst of developing their evaluation systems. From those school corporations that are currently implementing a system, much is being learned about the impact of the new system, as well as areas that will require refinement or change in the coming years. Initial findings include that the role of the principal must change in order to ensure the time and skills necessary to provide quality feedback to teachers, and that there is a great need for professional growth on assessment literacy. Evaluator training and re-training is critical; the development of assessments and student growth measures for the non-ISTEP+/ECA teachers has been a challenge; and transparency and collaboration in the development and implementation of evaluation systems is imperative. This brief is the second in a two-part series on the new era of teacher evaluation in Indiana. The first brief, &quot;Overhauling Indiana Teacher Evaluation Systems: Examining Planning and Implementation Issues of School Districts. Education Policy Brief, Volume 10, Number 4, Summer 2012,&quot; discusses the results of a survey of attitudes and beliefs of school corporation superintendents, the features of quality evaluation plans, and the essential elements of a planning process that ensures equitable, effective, and efficient plans for evaluating educators. The objectives of this second brief are: (1) to provide information and discussion on the implications of the Indiana legislation on teacher and administrator preparation programs; (2) to provide information and discussion on the implications for educational policy and the procedural challenges that the state, superintendents, and boards should formally address to limit the possibilities for legal challenges, and to ensure high-quality plans; and (3) to provide information and discussion on the implications for professional development as it relates to teacher and evaluator training and the use of teacher evaluation data to determine the focus of professional development. This brief includes the following Policy Perspective Letters: (1) Implementing Indiana's Teacher Evaluation System (Brenda Pike); (2) A New Era of Accountability is Forthcoming for Educator Preparation (Bradley V. Balch and Steve Gruenert); and (3) School Boards and Public Education Accountability (Frank A. Bush). Also included is a Policy Perspective: &quot;Implementing Indiana's Teacher Evaluation System (Brenda Pike). A list of Web Resources is provided. [For &quot;Overhauling Indiana Teacher Evaluation Systems: Examining Planning and Implementation Issues of School Districts. Education Policy Brief, Volume 10, Number 4, Summer 2012,&quot; see ED535616.]