Balanced Teacher Evaluation Models

Teacher accountability is often a major factor in educational reform efforts, aiming to enhance student achievement by holding educators responsible for their student's academic progress. It typically involves using student performance data, such as standardized test scores, to evaluate teacher effectiveness. However, there are limitations in using student achievement as the sole measure of teacher accountability. Such systems can lead to unintended consequences, such as teachers focusing on students who are on the verge of meeting benchmarks while neglecting others who may be far ahead or behind. To mitigate such challenges, experts advocate for a balanced approach that includes multiple indicators of teacher effectiveness.

High-stakes accountability systems can put a lot of stress on teachers, making them feel anxious and overwhelmed. Teachers carry the burden of student success by themselves, and as a result, they often feel like isolated actors in a game where everyone should be playing on the same team. Most accountability systems rely heavily on student standardized test performance. Schools may feel pressure to "teach the test" and limit the curriculum to only cover what will be tested. The result robs students of a larger educational experience, stifling avenues for creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Studies have found that high-stakes accountability pressures can cause teachers to focus on the middle cut of students, those close just below or likely above state benchmarks, and ignore both high-altitude and low-attainers (Reback, 2008).

The pressures of holding teachers accountable make it even more likely for student evaluations to be colored by bias. This may include teachers subconsciously favoring students from particular backgrounds or paying more attention to the success of some because it impacts how they or their school are graded for accountability measures. In schools that struggle academically, accountability pressures can increase teacher turnover as educators may leave to avoid the pressure. This is particularly evident in schools with low accountability grades, which tend to lose high-quality teachers more frequently than higher-performing schools. High teacher turnover destabilizes the learning environment and slows student progress (Clotfelter et al., 2004).

Balanced evaluation models seek to address these challenges and limitations of such accountability systems by incorporating multiple indicators of teacher effectiveness, rather than relying solely on student test scores. These comprehensive evaluation systems aim to provide a more accurate and holistic understanding of teacher performance, promoting both accountability and professional growth.

The Danielson Framework for Teaching

One of the most widely adopted balanced evaluation models is the Danielson Framework for Teaching, which emphasizes professional practice alongside student performance. Developed by Charlotte Danielson, this model includes four key domains:

• Planning and Preparation
• Classroom Environment
• Instruction
• Professional Responsibilities

In this framework, teachers are evaluated through classroom observations, self-assessments, and peer reviews, alongside measures of student achievement. Metrics for the Danielson Framework are typically recorded through structured classroom observation rubrics. These rubrics are designed to evaluate teacher performance across various domains, such as instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement.

For example:

• After an observation, the evaluator completes a detailed rubric, rating the teacher on a scale (e.g., 1-4) for each domain (e.g., planning and preparation, classroom environment). Written feedback is provided for each rating, with specific examples noted, such as how the teacher managed student behavior or differentiated instruction.
• These records are stored in a teacher evaluation system and reviewed during follow-up meetings with the teacher to set professional development goals.

The inclusion of peer reviews allows teachers to gain valuable feedback from colleagues, promoting a culture of collaboration and ongoing professional development. Observations are also structured to focus on both instructional practices and the broader classroom environment, ensuring that evaluations capture the complexity of teaching. This model provides a rounded view of teacher effectiveness, encouraging reflective practice while maintaining accountability.

Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Programs

Another example of a balanced evaluation model is the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program, which combines evaluations from both peers and administrators. This model used in several countries and school districts, is designed to help both new and struggling teachers improve their performance through structured support and evaluation. The PAR program includes the following components:

• Mentorship for New and Struggling Teachers: Experienced teachers, known as consulting teachers, mentor their peers and provide regular feedback based on classroom observations.
• Peer and Administrator Reviews: Consulting teachers and school administrators work together to evaluate the teachers through classroom visits and assessments of student progress.
• Ongoing Support: Teachers who are underperforming receive continuous coaching, with their performance evaluated regularly to track improvement.

The system is particularly effective in supporting teachers who may be struggling, as it emphasizes professional development rather than punitive measures. The focus on mentoring and peer collaboration not only improves instructional practices but also builds a supportive professional community that enhances overall teaching quality (Ballard & Bates, 2008).

Value-Added Models (VAM) with Multiple Data Sources

While Value-Added Models (VAM) are often criticized when used in isolation, they can be highly effective when incorporated into a balanced evaluation framework. In a well-rounded system, VAM is combined with other metrics such as classroom observations, student surveys, and teacher self-evaluations to form a more comprehensive picture of teacher effectiveness. VAM measures the impact of teachers on student growth over time, but balanced models ensure this data is supplemented with qualitative assessments.

For instance, in some districts, student performance data from VAM is used alongside feedback from student surveys, which offer insights into how students perceive their learning environment and teacher support. Regular self-assessments and professional development goals allow teachers to reflect on their practices and growth over time. This reduces the overreliance on test scores and allows teachers to improve through reflection and targeted support. In this model, VAM serves as just one part of a broader evaluation system, ensuring that test scores are not the sole determinant of a teacher’s effectiveness. (Rubin et al., 2022).

References

• Ballard, K., & Bates, A. B. (2008). Making a connection between student achievement, teacher accountability, and quality classroom instruction. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 560-580
• Dizon-Ross, R. (2018). How does school accountability affect teachers? The Journal of Human Resources, 55(1), 118-176.
• Hofman, R., Dijkstra, N. J., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2009). School self-evaluation and student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 47-68.
• Krolak-Schwerdt, S., Böhmer, M., & Gräsel, C. (2013). The impact of accountability on teachers’ assessments of student performance: A social cognitive analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 16(2), 215-239.
• Al-Abri, A. S. A., Mohamed Adnan, M. A., Jamil, A. I., Awae, F., & Abuhassna, H. (2023). Relationship between accountability and teachers' performance: A systematic review of literature. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(10).
• Rubin, E. V., Roch, C. H., & Roch, S. G. (2022). Grading teacher performance appraisal systems: Understanding the implications of student test scores and performance information use. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(2), 257-284.
• Reback, R. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1394-1415.