Chapter 4: Teacher Evaluation—Performance Frameworks

In this chapter Charlotte Danielson provides a framework for districts in the development of evaluations that focus on teacher actions (or inputs). Danielson writes that a system focused on inputs has two purposes: (1) to ensure quality teachers and (2) create opportunities for professional learning. Danielson points out that some people might see these two purposes at odds, but she argues when a system is developed that includes self-assessment, reflection, and professional conversation both purposes can be achieved.

The first step in this process is to define “good teaching”. A definition must incorporate three components: (1) knowledge from research on best practices, (2) a professional view of teaching, and (3) clear performance standards. First, Danielson writes, “it must be possible to claim that the skills and educational practices embedded in the definition will, if followed, result in enhanced student learning (61).” The development of research-based definitions of “good teaching” (or leadership) can begin by referencing Hattie’s text Visible Learning, which is a meta-analysis of 800 educational research projects to identify those practices that have the greatest impact on student learning. Second, the definition should respect the complexity of teaching and classroom decision-making and allow teachers to demonstrate these skills during their evaluation. Third, any good definition will have a set of performance standards. The performance standards show where a teacher is expected to be and also create opportunities to describe for a teacher, in clear language, where their practice is now.

With a definition of “good teaching” and valid procedures and instruments (described in more detail in Danielson’s chapter) the evaluation system can serve the dual purpose of ensuring quality teachers and creating opportunities for professional learning. A system that is designed with a specific standard (“good teaching”) and clear performance standards is ideal for identifying gaps between where a teacher is currently and where the school expects that teacher to perform. What’s more, with professional supports the teacher has a clear understanding of what it is going to take (in terms of performance and professional development) to meet that standard.

Danielson writes that this approach to evaluating inputs can be combined with a system that uses value-added data to evaluate output.

Chapter 3: Choosing A Value-Added Model

Sanders and Rivers argue that value-added assessment emerges from the principle that each student, regardless of their current academic ability, should make at least a year’s growth in a year’s time. The authors note that value-added provides three benefits: (1) the data are useful for instructional and administrative decisions (such as where to assign students and teachers), (2) it is a fairer way to measure the performance of schools because it is about growth, not overall performance (which is closely linked to economic status of the students), and (3) value-added is the best measure to make the basis of an accountability system designed to reward highly effective administrators and teachers and remediate ineffective administrators and teachers.

Value-added is a measure of growth for a student that compares a student’s actual growth with their expected growth. Variance from expectation, positive or negative, is considered a measure of school or teacher impact. Past student scores are used to estimate future scores by mapping the student trajectory. The student’s projected score is based on their prior scores. The more prior data available, the more reliable the projected score will be. Value-added is not just the score a student receives on n assessment, but the difference between the score and the projected score.

Since all value-added models are not created equal, it is important to do a short review of the most common methods and their advantages and limitations.

Class average gain: Each students previous year score is subtracted from the current year assessment score. An average growth for the class is calculated and teachers are compared.

• Simple to calculate.


• Only students with current and previous year scores.


• Might be unstable.


• Tests must be on same scale.


• Requires random distribution of students.

ANCOVA, one previous score: A student’s score for the current year is predicted using the previous year’s score by regression.

• Simple model to fit.


• Tests do not have to be on the same scale. • Bias because only one year used to predict.


• Only students with previous year re included in the calculation.

ANCOVA, multiple scores: At least three previous scores are used to calculate the predicted score.

• Dampens error measurement.


• Can be easy model to fit if the software is available.


• Tests scores do not need to be on same scale.


• Many students will not have sufficient testing history to be included.

Univariate Response Model (URM): This model is similar to the previous model in that it uses multiple previous tests, but it is different in that the student need only have three prior scores and not scores from all previous test periods are not required.

• Test scores not required to be on the same scale.


• Minimizes concern about student selection bias because fewer students are excluded.


• Difficult to calculate using available software and computing power required is extensive.

Multivariate Response Model (MRM): Uses all student test scores from all grades and test periods available. These model tend to be conservative.

• All data from students are used regardless of how complete.


• Reduces measurement error.


• Student selection bias is reduced.


• Since the student score is linked to all past teachers there is opportunity to reduce potential interference.


• Software are not currently available to do these calculations.

This chapter ties in well with another new book out on value-added: “Value-Added Measures in Education: What Every Educator Needs to Know” (Douglas Harris 2011). Harris, a professor of education policy, has written a book specifically for educators explaining value-added measurement. Harris sets out to dispel eight common misconceptions about value-added:

1. We cannot evaluate educators based on value-added because student variability, because value-added model have flaws, because the assessments are inadequate, because teaching I complicated, and because the individual needs of student are too diverse.


2. Value-added is fair for teachers, but not for students.


3. Value-added are not useful because they are summative, not formative.


4. Because value-added involves comparing teachers to one another, and there are no absolute value-added standards value-added measures are not useful for accountability.


5. Because we know o little about the effects of value-added, we cannot risk our kids’ futures by experimenting with it.


6. Value-added is too complicated for educators to enderstand.


7. Value-added imply represents another step in the process of industrializing education, making it more traditional and less progressive.


8. Value-added is a magic bullet that by itself will transform education.

Harris explores each of these misconceptions and concludes that value-added can be used and that policy makers must consider a series of tradeoffs when implementing the use of value-added. Harris’s book is a useful compliment to OPE for the study and implementation phase of any effort to use value-added for evaluation and compensation.

Chapter 2: Professional Unionism

This chapter, written by Brad Jupp and Julia E. Koppich, begins with important words:
"The challenge of educating all students to unprecedented high levels of achievement means changing the work or teaching and changing the school as a workplace. It also means changing the way unions represent teachers, and the way teachers unions and school districts conduct their business. Above all else, reform requires teachers and administrators to work as partners." (p.29)

For the OPE framework to be successful and for districts to advance student learning and teacher practice, Koppich and Jupp argue that unions must professionalize. In a professional model, the work to redefine teaching, create performance standards and ensuring excellence requires a collaborative effort of unions and district administration.

Traditionally, unions have focused on protecting the interests of individual teachers, and historically their work has been anchored in improving the monetary benefits and workplace conditions for teachers. Additionally, unions have rigid contracts that are negotiated periodically with few changes over time. Jupp and Koppich argue that this practice of annually adding to or subtracting from an existing contract leads to inflexibility and institutional inertia.

The mandate in the new era of standards and accountability is for districts and unions to work collectively for the good of students, staff and communities. The key principles of professional unionism are as follows:

1. Both sides must accept the inevitability of change, recognizing that the status quo is not an option.
2. There must be a tolerance of risk and innovation by both sides; however, it is critical that districts provide teachers with some flexibility to experiment in the interest of improving results in their classrooms.
3. Union and administration must engage collaboratively to seek common ground.
4. Both groups must advocate and believe in an expanded role for teachers. Teachers must have the opportunity to take on leadership roles (peer evaluation, school-based staff developers, demonstration classrooms, etc.).

While the authors acknowledge that few districts and unions have fully professionalized, examples of unions that have made great strides are provided. One such example that is often cited in educational research is the Toledo Federation of Teachers, an organization that pioneered the peer evaluation and review model. Other unions, such as the Montgomery County Education Association, have been instrumental in developing teacher-directed professional development programs, which have been shown to lead to increases in teacher quality and student learning. Additionally, the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, with Brad Jupp as president, successfully ratified a contract that included differentiated pay and rewards for Denver Public Schools teachers. The system, known as ProComp, has been studied throughout the nation as a new compensation model.

The challenges of moving from a traditional to professional union are many. Change is difficult, but the authors argue that change is mandatory for unions to adapt to the evolving expectations and diversity of their members. Based on success of progressive unions thus far, several recommendations for professionalizing unions emerge.

First, the professional union must be grounded in a belief in effective teaching. "New practice must begin with the expectation that the impact of teaching on student learning is measurable and that we can use judgments about teacher performance to inform decisions about levels of teacher pay and employment." (p.37) District leaders and teachers must engage in practical discussions of measuring student learning.

Building on the belief in effective teaching, professional unions must embrace the policy premises of the standards and accountability movement. Two simple premises have risen to the top of education policy over the last twenty years:

1. The public has a reasonable expectation that schools should work toward accelerating student learning toward meeting a high standard.
2. Incentives, both positive and negative, should be part of supporting educators in their efforts to meet the public's expectations.

Therefore, one measure of progress for unions would be in their ability to acknowledge the importance of high expectations for students that are aligned to reasonable incentives.

Third, professional unions will work to serve the diverse needs of their membership. Rather than sticking with an approach of solidarity and one-size-fits-all systems of rewards, unions must "begin a practice that addresses the variety of jobs and the diverging views and aspirations of their members." (p.38) Differentiated pay and responsibilities are ways of easing into this mode of operation.

Finally, to advance the role and stature of the teaching profession, unions must remain steadfastly committed to the research-based conclusion that it is effective teaching, not silver bullet programs, that leads to student growth. With that belief at the forefront, the union and the school district will have a thriving, results-oriented relationship.

Professionalizing the relationship between unions and administrators will result in a more collaborative approach toward the greater good for all students. Peer review, teacher leadership, teacher voice in decision making, and major contributions to curriculum and staff development are all ways that teachers should be involved in the reform efforts of districts. "The moment belongs to the professional unions that are ready to change labor-management relations and redefine the quality of work for their members." (p.40)

Chapter 1: Overview of the OPE Framework

There is an abundance of evidence that the peformance of our nation's public schools has leveled, and recent attention has focused the American public on the systemic inertia that hinders public school improvement. The central argument of A Grand Bargain is that we must change the system in which educators work to attract, hire and retain top talent for the teaching profession.
The strategies proposed under Operation Public Education (OPE) are familiar in all school districts: to evaluate, compensate, remediate and provide professional development for teachers and administrators. In the new era of standards and accountability for educators, it's about improving the system whereby "appropriate responsibility is paired with necessary support." (p.4)
Editors Theodore Hershberg and Claire Robertson-Kraft make clear that they are not proposing the OPE framework as an all-or-nothing approach. Instead, since each component is based on the best practices and body of research available in education, results can be gained for improving any part of the human capital system.
Much like the provisions of SB 10-191 in Colorado, the authors suggest that the time is right to use student growth measures (the result of effective teaching) to identify the most effective teachers, pay them higher salaries and advance them professionally. Conversely, we can now identify the least effective teachers, provide them with the opportunity to improve with adequate support, and then dismiss those who fail to improve.
Looking at multiple studies, the editors contend that socioeconomic factors are the best indicator of achievement level of students; however, students who enter a grade level with low achievement can make tremendous gains over the year when highly effective teachers are staffed in their classrooms.
With the knowledge that effective teaching is the number one effect size on student learning gains, it becomes imperative to cast talented actors in the education system. Not only must recruitment of talent be emphasized, but growing, supporting and appropriately compensating such talent is critical to retaining the best and brightest in the teaching profession.
The OPE framework incorporates the following components:

• Value-added assessment as the empirical component in teacher and administrator evaluation. Aggregating student scores in classrooms and schools allows for ratings of ineffective, effective and highly effective.
• Sophisticated frameworks are added to evaluate teacher actions. Teacher observations use subjective protocols with explicit rubrics to rate performance as unsatisfactory, basic, proficient or distinguished.
• Administrators are evaluated through a comprehensive portfolio process.

Based on appropriate evaluation, compensation must be added to the picture:

• Teacher and administrator compensation rewards improvement and reflects performance. Teachers and administrators compete only with themselves in advancing up a career leader that is tied to results in advancing student growth.
• All educators are included in the system, regardless of subject or specialization. Appropriate safeguards are instilled in the system to calculate performance of all educators.
• The new career ladder of education (illustrated on p.16) will balance base pay with variable pay to allow for monetary and professional advancement up the ladder. By combining results in Inputs (observations/performance rubrics) with Outputs (student assessment gains), educators are placed on one of the following hierarchical levels: apprentice, career, advanced, distinguished.

The editors spend the remainder of this introductory chapter illuminating the beliefs, knowledge and skills necessary for schools and districts to improve academic performance in the 21st Century:

• Students are not born smart; instead, they are made smart through high quality instruction.
• Standards should be considered the base level for student performance. All students must be expected to exceed the standard. Recognize that this will take more time and resources for some students.
• Students must learn to apply their knowledge in the classroom. It's not enough to memorize and recite information. Thought must advance in rigor through Bloom's Taxonomy to reach the critical thinking level.
• Differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all learners, whether in content, process or end product.
• Make decisions based on available data. Educators must learn how to interpret data to create appropriate interventions for each student. Know where each student is, how to measure progress, and set a clear path for each student's success.
• Students should own their academic goals and strive to reach them in a learning centered classroom.

While the entire OPE framework had not been implemented at the publication of this book, various parts of the framework had. However, the cumulative effect of implementing the framework should produce positive results in student learning. The end game of the OPE framework is "realigning the system so that the goal - increased student achievement - is tied to the interests of teachers and administrators, aided by a new system of supports." (p.26)

A Timely Book Review

Operation Public Education (OPE) is a "comprehensive approach that focuses on what we all know is key - the development of highly effective, not simply highly qualified, teachers."
We review the book A Grand Bargain for Education Reform: New Rewards and Supports for New Accountability, published by Harvard University Press, at a time when Colorado - and consequently, Adams 14 - are embarking on a journey to implement Senate Bill 10-191. The implications of this bill are that every school district in Colorado will soon be required to evaluate teachers and principals according to criteria established by the state's teacher effectiveness council. Half of this evaluation will be based on value-added assessment data.
The premise of A Grand Bargain is that value-added assessment data is an accurate and reliable method of evaluating teachers based on student learning growth over time; however, the authors also propose that simply holding teachers accountable for growth in the standards and accountability era isn't enough. Growing effective teachers is a much more elaborate process. As we review this book, we will pose reflection questions for Colorado and for Adams 14 to understand the practical application of the OPE model.