A MINNCAN Issue BrIef

BuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

This report was published in April 2011 by the Minnesota Campaign for Achievement Now (MinnCAN).

To order copies of this reportplease contact MinnCANat info@minncan.org

Minnesota Campaign forAchievement Now (MinnCAN)www.minncan.org

Design & Layouthouse9design.ca

table of contents

Introduction 4

1 dusty data 5

2 Ineffective evaluations 7

3 Connecting the data dots 10

4 seeing this through 13

MINNCAN 4BuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

IntroductionMinnesota’s schools are in a state of emergency. Our schools serve many students well, but they fail many students, too. We must treat this dispar-ity as the emergency it is and pursue reforms now to close our abysmal achievement gaps and ensure great schools for every Minnesota child.

One of the first and most important steps to ensure that every Min-nesota student has access to a great public school is to provide excellent teachers. Common sense tells us that great teachers matter, and decades of research confirm this intuition. Teachers have a bigger impact on stu-dents’ success than anything else at school. Regardless of their back-grounds, students assigned to great teachers can learn about three times more in one year than those assigned to the least effective teachers.1

Unfortunately we can’t identify where Minnesota’s great teachers are teaching, or what they’re successful at because our educator evaluation systems are disjointed, inconsistent, and rarely incorporate evidence of student learning. As a result, top teachers are seldom recognized for their skills, and struggling teachers do not receive the support or guid-ance they need to improve their teaching. Administrators rarely use data to assess teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom or their contributions to student learning, and typically do not differentiate teachers based on their performance.2

Minnesota is perfectly positioned to build on our nationally recog-nized data systems to create a trusted barometer of teacher effective-ness across the state. With regular assessments of teachers’ work, in-cluding data about their students’ academic growth, education leaders will have the crucial information they need to assess teachers’ work in the classroom and help them improve. Teachers will be better able to differentiate learning and teaching for their students. Administrators will be better instructional leaders and parents and others involved in education will be able to advocate more effectively for their children. School, district and state administrators will have reliable data upon which to base key decisions about staffing and teachers’ careers. Making better use of data in this way will help bring accountability to everyone involved in educating Minnesota’s children.

In this brief, we show three ways in which Minnesota is failing to use its school data, four reasons our teacher evaluations are ineffective, and six policies to fix the problem and get us closer to our dream of a great public school for every Minnesota child.

1 Hanushek, E. A. (2010). The difference is teacher quality. In K. Weber (Ed.), Waiting for Superman: How we can save America’s failing public schools (pp. 81–100). New York: Public Affairs.

2 Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project. Available: http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf ;Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007, November). Examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the Midwest Region. Regional Education Laboratory Midwest, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Depart-ment of Education. Available: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/ midwest/pdf/rel_2007030.pdf

MINNCAN 5BuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

dusty dataMinnesota is a national leader in collecting data about schools and student performance. We received national attention as one of the first states to create a data system that tracks student progress from pre-K through college.3 In 2007, leaders from the Minnesota Department of Education and the Office of Higher Education received an award from the Data Quality Campaign—a Washington-based national nonprofit dedicated to using data to improve student achievement—as national Policymakers of the Year for their work connecting student data from preschool through 12th grade with postsecondary data on college and beyond.4

As of 2011, Minnesota has every major element deemed essential for a state data system, according to the Data Quality Campaign (see Figure 2).5

But collecting the right data is only the beginning. Right now, Min-nesota’s rich trove of data is left to collect dust. In 2010, the National Council on Teacher Quality gave Minnesota a “D” for our ability to iden-tify effective teachers, and the Center for American Progress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave Minnesota a “D” for the quality of our teacher evaluation systems.6

Minnesota fails to use data in three ways:

We fail to provide teachers with timely access to information about student performance, making it difficult for them to offer valuable help and appropriately challenging instruction

The Data Quality Campaign makes this disconnect clear. Despite Minne-sota’s stellar marks for the quality of data we collect about students, in 2010 we met only five of the 10 markers for actually using data to improve student achievement (see Figure 1).7 Minnesota does not provide teach-ers and principals with adequate or timely access to information about the students in their classrooms and schools. We do not provide training so that educators can access, analyze, and interpret it. We also do not regularly provide information to inform parents, legislators and other members of the public about what the data show.8

We fail to use data about strengths and weaknesses to guide professional development

The New Teacher Project, a national nonprofit dedicated to closing the achievement gap by providing schools with high-quality teachers, stress-es the importance of professional development that is linked to perfor-mance standards, differentiated based on individual teachers’ needs, and demands intensive support for teachers who fall below the stan-dards. In its 2009 study of Minneapolis Public Schools, The New Teacher Project found that only 22 percent of principals believed the district’s process enabled them to effectively assess their teachers’ instructional

1

3 Laird, E. (2008, February). Developing and supporting P–20 education data systems: Different states, different models. Washington,DC: Data Quality Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/meetings -dqc_quarterly_issue_brief_011508.pdf

4 For more on the Data Quality Campaign’s recognition program, see http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/recognition_program/2007

5 Data Quality Campaign (2010).10 essential elements checklist. Retrieved from http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/stateanalysis/states/MN/elements/

6 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2009). 2009 state teacher policy yearbook. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/area.jsp?num=3;Center for American Progress, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, & Hess. F. M., at the American Enterprise Institute. (2009, November). Leaders and laggards: A state-by-state report card on educational innovation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/pdf/leaders_and_laggards.pdf

7 Data Quality Campaign (2010).

8 Data Quality Campaign (2010).

MINNCAN 6BuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

fIgure 1 Ten State Actions to Ensure Effective Data Use

ten actions

1 Link data systems across the preschool-to-postsecondary and workforce spectrums, so Minnesota can evaluate whether its students are college- and career-ready.

2 Create stable, sustained support for robust state data systems.

3 Develop governance structures to guide data collection, sharing, and use.

4 Build data warehouses that integrate student, staff, financial and facility data.

5 Implement systems to provide all stakeholders with timely access to information while protecting student privacy.

6 Create progress reports with individual student data that provide information that educators, parents and students can use to improve student performance.

7 Create reports that include longitudinal statistics on school systems and groups of students to guide improvement efforts at the school, district and state levels.

8 Develop a purposeful research agenda and collaborate with universities, researchers and others to explore the data for useful information.

9 Implement policies and promote practices, including professional development and credentialing, to ensure that educators know how to access, analyze and use data appropriately.

10 Promote strategies to raise awareness of available data and ensure that all key stakeholders, including state policymakers, know how to access, analyze and use the information.

source Data Quality Campaign

MINNCAN 7BuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

performance, and only 31 percent said the evaluation process helped teachers improve that performance.9

We fail to use data to gauge and make decisions about teacher effectiveness

We can’t improve teacher quality without accurately measuring teacher effectiveness. Across Minnesota, teachers and principals alike are clam-oring for better information about their classroom performance to make critical decisions not only about instructional approaches, but also about key personnel actions during a teacher’s career. In its study of staffing in Minneapolis Public Schools, The New Teacher Project found a wide variety of teacher evaluation and development tools used across the district, but only 39 percent of teachers and 29 percent of principals were satisfied with the evaluation system at their school.10

Ineffective evaluationsMinnesota educators receive few realistic appraisals of their performance. Our state’s teacher evaluations are weak and ineffective for four reasons:

Formal evaluations are rare

Minnesota, unlike 21 other states, does not require annual evaluations for tenured teachers, which means that most teachers stop receiving annual appraisals of their performance after just three years in the class-room.11

The New Teacher Project’s study of the Minneapolis school system revealed that two-thirds of teachers and 96 percent of principals agreed that all teachers should be evaluated regularly, and 98 percent of prin-cipals said that evaluating all teachers regularly is an important part of building and maintaining a strong instructional team. Nearly half of the district’s principals believed they should spend more than half their time visiting classrooms and observing teachers—but only 11 percent do so regularly.12

As these educators know, without annual evaluations, we cannot ensure that all teachers—seasoned or new—receive the feedback and ongoing support they deserve. Strengths and weaknesses change over the years for both new and veteran teachers; professional growth does not happen only in a teacher’s early years. Annual evaluations hold school leaders accountable to their teachers’ professional development needs, and give them the information necessary to make staffing deci-sions in service of students.13

29 The New Teacher Project. (2009, May). Strengthening school staffing in Minneapolis Public Schools. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/files/TNTP_Minneapolis_Report_May09.pdf

10 The New Teacher Project. (2009).

11 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). 2010 state teacher policy yearbook: Blueprint for change in Minnesota. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/updates/docs/stpy_minnesota.pdf

12 The New Teacher Project (2009, May). Strengthening school staffing in Minneapolis.

13 The New Teacher Project. (2010). Teacher Evaluation 2.0. Brooklyn, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher -Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf

8MINNCANBuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

tABle 2 Ten Essential Elements of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems

ten eLeMents

1 A unique statewide student identifier that connects student data across key databases, across years.

2 Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information.

3 The ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure academic growth.

4 Information on untested students and the reason they were not tested.

5 A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students.*

6 Student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned.

7 Student-level college readiness test scores.

8 Student-level graduation and dropout data.

9 The ability to match student records between the P–12 and higher education systems.

10 A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability.

source Data Quality Campaign

* Minnesota has this system for students in high school, but not middle or elementary school.

MINNCAN 9BuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

Evaluations are not linked to student learning

Under current Minnesota law, educator evaluations are not required to incorporate any type of evidence of student learning. The only evalu-ations in Minnesota that involve regular classroom observations and objective measures of student achievement are part of the optional

“Quality Compensation for Teachers” or “Q Comp” program, a nationally recognized effort that links a portion of an educator’s compensation to their performance. Part of the disconnect between student learning growth and teacher evaluations stems from a crucial shortcoming of our state data systems. As noted above, in 2010 Minnesota received a perfect score from the Data Quality Campaign for the elements of our statewide longitudinal data system. But still missing from this system is the ability to link teach-ers to individual students at the elementary and middle school level, enabling state and district administrators to gauge educators’ contribu-tions to student progress (see Figure 2).

Over the past several months, many states have made substantial progress on this key element of strong data systems: ten states current-ly require student learning to be the main criterion in teacher evalua-tions, and six others specifically require evaluators to consider student achievement data.14

Ratings don’t reflect differences in teacher effectiveness

In most states, teachers are almost always rated satisfactory and almost never rated unsatisfactory. Nearly 99 percent of teachers receive a satis-factory rating in a great number of districts, even in the lowest-perform-ing schools. Even in systems with multiple rating categories, more than 70 percent receive the highest rating, and 24 percent receive the second highest.15

In its study of the Minneapolis Public Schools, The New Teacher Project found that only 22 percent of principals believed that the evalu-ation process enabled them to accurately assess teachers’ instructional performance, and only 31 percent believed it would help them improve.16 Statewide, Minnesota schools are not required to use more than a binary rating system in their teacher evaluations.

A comprehensive evaluation system with multiple ratings would keep all teachers from being treated as essentially the same—or what The New Teacher Project calls the “widget effect.”17 Multiple, distinct rating options would enable evaluators to precisely describe, compare and address differences in teaching.

Evaluations are disconnected from key decisions

As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recognized in 2010, “our system of teacher evaluation… frustrates teachers who feel that their good work goes unrecognized and ignores other teachers who would

14 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010).

15 Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling. (2009).

16 The New Teacher Project. (2009).

17 Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling. (2009).

18 The New Teacher Project. (2010).

WhAt Could teAChers ANd the puBlIC leArN If MINNesotA put Its quAlIty dAtA to use?

Without releasing any data that personally identifies individual teachers, Minnesota could enable educators, parents, policymakers and other stakeholders to examine:

•The percentage of new teachers, how they were trained, and where they are working.

•Annual turnover and absenteeism rates among teachers with varying levels of experience and effectiveness ratings, and across districts and schools.

•The distribution of teacher performance ratings alongside information about student achievement.

•The number of teachers who receive tenure each year and their contributions in the classroom.

•The percent of students overall and within various subgroups who are assigned to a highly effective teacher.

10MINNCANBuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

benefit from additional support.”18 In Minnesota, as in most states, evalu-ations are not typically used to inform decisions about teachers’ promo-tion or continuing development, compensation, tenure, or dismissal.

One study of 12 districts across four states showed that nearly three out of four teachers come out of their evaluation process with no spe-cific feedback or plan to help them improve—including novice teachers, who may be most in need of such help as they begin their careers.19 And while Minnesota has the Q Comp program, only 15 percent of districts participated in the program in 2010-2011.20

Tenure awards are also made nearly automatically, with little to no consideration of a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom.21 Minnesota, unlike most other states, does not specify any consequences for teach-ers who consistently receive unsatisfactory evaluations.22 Additionally, when layoffs must be made, Minnesota’s teachers are let go based largely on seniority, not effectiveness. In 2008, 51 percent of Minneapolis Public School teachers with fewer than three years of experience were laid off or released, compared with just one percent of teachers with more than three years of experience. Nearly every principal in Minneapolis (98 percent) has lost a teacher he or she wanted to keep to a layoff—almost double the rate in other urban districts.23

Teachers, school leaders and the public must see that an evalu-ation process means something, with both positive and negative con-sequences. With a clear, transparent evaluation process that provides understandable results, policymakers and educators can make major decisions from rewards to layoffs, and all other decisions that affect the quality of teaching.

Connecting the data dotsBy capturing and using data about student learning, providing educators with better information about what is working for students and what is not, and recognizing the outstanding educators in our state, we can close achievement gaps and ensure excellent learning opportunities for every child.

Making use of strong data systems to build a barometer of teacher effectiveness will require a multi-pronged approach in Minnesota. In de-signing and supporting new policies, state legislators, education leaders and other stakeholders must support six key principles:

Require annual evaluations of all teachers, regardless of their contract or tenure status or experience level

Proposed reforms now before the Minnesota legislature would require districts to implement an annual review process for all teachers, giving

19 Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling. (2009).

20 Minnesota Department of Educa-tion. (2011). Quality compensation for teachers (Q Comp). Retrieved from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Teacher_Support/QComp/index.html

21 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2009).

22 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2009).

23 The New Teacher Project. (2009).

3

11MINNCANBuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

teachers the regular feedback they need to improve professionally. It would also build the data that school and district leaders need to make responsible decisions about tenure, promotion, recognition, and dismissal.

Each evaluation should also provide an opportunity for teachers to receive feedback that leads to proactive growth and ongoing devel-opment. In any profession, an annual effectiveness assessment is not enough. Teachers deserve ongoing observations and conversations to discuss performance and student progress, with guidance and support to make improvements as needed.

It is tempting, particularly in lean budget times, to reduce costs by evaluating some teachers less often. But this reduction shortchanges experienced teachers of continuing opportunities to improve their craft, advance to new positions, and gain rewards and recognition. Making the assumption that professional growth happens only for novice teachers will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.24

Update our data systems to link student performance to individual teachers and enable tracking of student learning over time

Spurred in large part by the federal Race to the Top competition, many states recently updated their data systems, and 24 now have all 10 of the essential elements required to responsibly include evidence of student learning growth in educators’ evaluations.25 Minnesota has the ability to link student performance to individual teachers for high school students, but not elementary or middle school. As the Data Quality Campaign notes, without teacher identifiers that link to student records, policy-makers, educators, and the public cannot tell which teachers are quali-fied—or which are more likely to stay and teach effectively—and why.26 Minnesota must work immediately to expand its data systems to include reliable teacher-student links at all grade levels across the state.

Include multiple rating categories and clear objectives in new evaluation systems, with student results as the primary factor but also taking into account competencies and assessments of teaching practice

Minnesota should begin by creating a system of ratings at the state level that serve as the default option or “floor” for districts’ evaluation systems. Rather than using the common satisfactory/unsatisfactory ratings, Minnesota should set four or five ratings (for example, “exceeds objectives,” “fully meets objectives,” “partially meets objectives,” and

“unsatisfactory”). Each rating must be clearly defined, so that expec-tations are clear among supervisors, ratings are more consistent, and teachers understand what they mean.27

Evaluators then can apply those ratings to carefully weighted, clearly written objectives for each job. The evaluation should consider student performance first, using value-added models that link teachers with

24 The New Teacher Project. (2010).

25 Data Quality Campaign (2010).

26 Data Quality Campaign (2010).

27 Kowal, J., & Hassel, E. A. (2010). Measuring teacher and leader performance: Cross-sector lessons for excellent evaluations. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact. Retrieved from http://opportunityculture.org/images/stories/performance _measurement_2010.pdf

12MINNCANBuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

student scores on standardized tests, while controlling for such factors as a student’s academic history.28 The evaluation should also consid-er classroom observations, behavioral competencies such as problem solving and relationship building, and team contributions.29

Make evaluations count for rewards, recognition, and teachers’ opportunities

An evaluation system that provides administrators with the informa-tion they need to make these critical staffing decisions would fall in line with the recent federal push and national focus on educator evaluations. States that applied for funding in the Race to the Top competition re-ceived a significant portion of their score based on whether they used evaluation data for compensation, tenure, and dismissal decisions.

Minnesota’s system will be most powerful when it pairs the results of evaluations with rewards and recognition for great teaching, as well as development and consequences for those who are struggling. Rewards should provide financial recognition for excellent teaching, as well as new opportunities to grow professionally and have an impact on more students. For teachers who consistently receive unsatisfactory ratings, there must be assistance followed by consequences. Intensive develop-ment should be the first step, followed as needed by a return to proba-tionary status or dismissal. Results from all teacher evaluations should also be used to guide future recruitment and selection.

Commit to rigorous oversight and implementation

As the state guides districts and schools in their implementation of new evaluation systems, we must also develop the processes and oversight to avoid a return to the “widget effect.”30 Administrators who hold re-sponsibility for evaluating teachers must be fully trained in the evalu-ation system, and held accountable for the quality, rigor and accuracy of their ratings. At the same time, these evaluators will need ongoing support to make fair, consistent assessments according to established standards.

We must also commit to continuous improvement in our evalua-tions, constantly increasing the correlation between measures used and student learning results. While the data and technology needed to implement quality evaluations has increased dramatically over the past several years, educators and policymakers still do not have all the ex-perience and information needed to ensure a flawless system. By regu-larly assessing the effectiveness of our new systems, including how they are used and viewed by teachers and administrators, we can support continuous improvement and ensure that they remain relevant to teach-ers and students in the classroom. Fortunately, we can also learn from other states—such as Louisiana and Colorado—that will be building new systems around a similar framework in the coming months.31

28 The New Teacher Project. (2010).

29 Kowal & Hassel. (2010).

30 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010).

31 Colorado Senate Bill 10-191 (2010). Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl .nsf/fsbillcont3/EF2EBB67D47342CF872576A80027B078?open&file=191_enr.pdf ; Louisiana House Bill No. 1033 (2010). Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=689716

13MINNCANBuIldINg A BAroMeter of teACher effeCtIveNess IN MINNesotA

Avoid a return to the “widget effect” by requiring regular, public reports on teacher effectiveness data

These reports should show the percentage of teachers in each effec-tiveness category and the percentage of students served by teachers in each. Sharing data will inform crucial decisions at the school, district and state levels without revealing information on particular employees. State reports should display this information by school, district, and student and school subgroups, and be broadly distributed on an annual basis.

seeing this throughMinnesota has come a long way, and we should be proud of the data systems the state has created. Now we need to build on this and use that data to help end our state of emergency, providing our teachers with the information they need to give all students a great education. Linking stu-dents to teachers and making this data easily accessible will give teach-ers the information they need as professionals and help everyone else involved in education to understand where we excel and where we need to take action. Creating annual, detailed, fair and easily comprehensible educator evaluations that are followed by robust rewards and conse-quences will go far toward ensuring great schools for all of Minnesota’s students.

4

About MinnCANMinnesota’s achievement gap—the persistent and significant disparity between the academic achievement of low-income and minority children and their white, middle-class peers—is the most urgent social and eco-nomic problem facing our state. We have one of the country’s largest achievement gaps between rich and poor kids and African-American and white kids. Each and every one of us is paying the price for our failing public schools. But Minnesota, and the entire nation, was built on the promise of universal education for all. Public schools are the corner-stone of our democracy. Our future is inextricably linked to the educa-tion of our children—all of them. MinnCAN is building a new movement of concerned citizens advocating to fundamentally reform our public schools through smart public policies. We will not rest until every Min-nesota child, regardless of race, ethnicity, or class, has access to a great public school.

www.minncan.org