Education officials in Tennessee are taking flak from teachers and unions for rushing the implementation of a new teacher-evaluation system that will eventually undergird tenure decisions鈥攁 move, some worry, that could undermine redesigns of evaluation in other states.
Tennessee was one of two states that won the first round of the federal Race to the Top competition in March 2010. It was awarded $500 million鈥攊n no small part because the state had passed legislation two months earlier requiring that student-achievement data be linked to teacher evaluations by the 2011-12 school year.
Confined by that accelerated time schedule, the state education department did three months of field-testing with observation measures designed by the , or TAP, an initiative run by the Santa Monica, Calif.-based National Institute for Excellence in Teaching that employs extensive teacher evaluation. The state school board approved the measures, and the system was put in place two months ago鈥攐n time.
The new system, as defined in the law, bases 50 percent of a teacher鈥檚 evaluation on observation ratings, 35 percent on student-growth measures, including value-added data, and 15 percent on other measures of student achievement.
For teachers whose subjects and grade levels are not tested, the state can approve alternative student-growth measures. Because of the quick turnaround this year, however, those measures haven鈥檛 been developed. For now, teachers in nontested subjects will receive value-added scores based not on their students鈥� performance, but on schoolwide math and reading data.
The evaluation system is also tied to a new teacher-tenure process, under which teachers must teach for five years and receive high evaluation ratings in the final two years of teaching before being eligible for tenure.
But many teachers are already frustrated, primarily with the extensive lesson planning needed to score well on the observational measure.
鈥淲hat I鈥檓 hearing is that the amount of prep and work involved is just unreasonable,鈥� said Gera Summerford, the president of the Tennessee Education Association. Some teachers are spending between four and 12 hours preparing detailed lesson plans that are 鈥渁lmost a script鈥� to fulfill the guidelines, she said.
Teachers are 鈥渞eally working so hard to meet these unrealistic goals,鈥� Ms. Summerford said. 鈥淚 hear people say things like, 鈥業 love teaching, but I鈥檓 starting to hate my job.鈥� 鈥�
Grover J. 鈥淩uss鈥� Whitehurst, the director of the Brookings Institution鈥檚 Brown Center on American Education and a former director of the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education under President George W. Bush, said the measure is 鈥渆xtraordinarily complex.鈥�
鈥淚 look at lots of these [rubric elements] and cannot honestly understand what they mean or how I as a teacher would be expected to perform them,鈥� he said.
Tennessee Commissioner of Education Kevin Huffman defended the measure, which has been used at TAP schools in Tennessee and around the country.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 see how you could look at the TAP rubric and not come away with the impression that this is reflective of effective instruction,鈥� Mr. Huffman said. Extensive lesson plans, he explained, are required only for the first observation cycle, which does a 鈥渄eep dive鈥� into planning. The other observations 鈥渄on鈥檛 require any paperwork from teachers.鈥�
Beth Brown, a 10-year veteran teacher at Grundy County High School in the 2,200-student Grundy County district, said the logistical details have not trickled down well to teachers. After spending eight hours on her first lesson plan, she said, she was told she鈥檇 need to submit another plan for her second observation.
Principals鈥� Class Time
Principals also are finding the system cumbersome. Under previous state law, tenured teachers were observed every five years. Now, they are observed four times a year, and those on probationary status are observed six times. Assistant principals and anyone else trained in the evaluation system can conduct observations, but principals, in many cases, are taking the brunt of the increased load.
According to Ms. Summerford, some principals say they feel like they鈥檙e neglecting other responsibilities because their days are consumed by classroom visits.
But Mr. Huffman called the idea that principals are spending too much time in classrooms 鈥渞idiculous.鈥�
鈥淲e want our principals in classrooms,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey need to be instructional leaders.鈥�
Timothy Setterlund, the principal of Collierville High School in the 48,000-student Shelby County district, said he and his staff will conduct 472 observations this year, each with a pre- and post-conference.
鈥淲e鈥檙e working harder than we鈥檝e ever worked,鈥� he said. 鈥淧art of that is the newness of the evaluation rubric, getting comfortable with it, and the rest is sheer volume. It鈥檚 a little overwhelming.鈥� He does three to four hours of additional paperwork each night, he added.
Yet overall, Mr. Setterlund, Tennessee鈥檚 principal of the year for 2010-11, said getting into classrooms more has been a positive change.
鈥淲e鈥檙e talking more about instruction than we ever have. 鈥� The bottom line is it鈥檚 a tremendous amount of work, a huge burden for administrators,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut we鈥檝e got to be willing to step up if we鈥檙e serious about raising the standards of achievement for children.鈥�
鈥楾ricky鈥� Measurement
The other part of the evaluation that has come under fire is the inclusion of value-added scores. Tennessee is 鈥渟truggling more or less unsuccessfully with the same issue that every state and district struggles with as they leap into meaningful teacher evaluation,鈥� said Mr. Whitehurst. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 have [student] assessments for the majority of the staff.鈥�
Using schoolwide math and reading scores for teachers of nontested subjects 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 pass the common-sense test for being a measure of what it鈥檚 intended to measure,鈥� said Whitehurst.
Grundy High鈥檚 Ms. Brown agrees. It鈥檚 unfair for teachers to be 鈥渆valuated on the merit of someone else鈥檚 work,鈥� she said.
Ross Wiener, the executive director of the Aspen Institute Education and Society Program, based in Washington, said he is concerned that using schoolwide scores for 35 percent of an evaluation 鈥渨ill be a disincentive for high-performing teachers, who have options, to teach in low-performing schools.鈥�
Commissioner Huffman conceded that the value-added piece is 鈥済enuinely tricky鈥� and something the state is working to change. 鈥淲e can and will make more assessments available starting next year for untested subjects and grade levels.鈥� Ultimately, he said, he hopes to let localities make their own decisions about how to measure student growth in nontested subjects.
Fear of Change?
But the implementation of the evaluation system as an apparent work in progress鈥攁nd without a full year of piloting鈥攄oesn鈥檛 sit well with some people.
鈥淭hey did rush into it,鈥� said Mr. Whitehurst. 鈥淭his is complicated business, both politically and technically. To roll out a new evaluation system for everyone all at once that hasn鈥檛 really been tried is risky.鈥�
The state education department may be planning to make changes to the system, said Ms. Summerford of the Tennessee Education Association, 鈥渂ut we鈥檝e got 70,000 teachers and administrators dealing with it right now.鈥�
Since Tennessee is at the forefront of states instituting rigorous teacher evaluations aligned to student outcomes, Mr. Wiener said other states will be eyeing its progress, and 鈥渓essons鈥攇ood and bad鈥攁re likely to be drawn from experience there.鈥�
Mr. Whitehurst worries that complications in Tennessee could jeopardize efforts to overhaul evaluations in other states.
鈥淭he danger ... is that rushing into broad-scale implementation is likely to generate pushback,鈥� he said. 鈥淎nd it could have the result of undermining the whole movement.鈥�
But Dan Goldhaber, the director of the Center for Education Data and Research, based at the University of Washington Bothell, in Seattle, sees it differently. 鈥淚 think that the politics around changing teacher evaluations, no matter how you do it, are hard,鈥� he said. 鈥淧olicymakers ought be going in with their eyes open, but I don鈥檛 think that pushback in Tennessee will have a big impact elsewhere.鈥�
Mr. Huffman is adamant that the pushback is more about apprehension in the face of change than the evaluation system itself.
The system represents a 鈥渕ajor cultural shift鈥� in Tennessee, he said, and 鈥渁ny time you do something that鈥檚 new and different than what was done before, you鈥檙e going to face lots of questions and anxiety.鈥�
Some teachers, he said, liked having a system that rated them twice every 10 years. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not tenable to say there shouldn鈥檛 be evaluations, so what people do is attack the instrument,鈥� he said.
Mr. Whitehurst agrees that much of the opposition to 鈥渕eaningful鈥� teacher evaluations is 鈥渇irmly grounded in self-interest and maintenance of the status quo.鈥� For that very reason, though, he said, it鈥檚 important that 鈥渆arly examples of pioneers鈥� show 鈥減retty clear success.鈥�
Working Out the Kinks
Other states, such as Hawaii and Rhode Island, are taking longer to pilot their evaluation systems. Delaware, the other first-round Race to the Top winner, will tie test scores to teacher evaluations this year but will not impose negative consequences for low scores until it approves achievement measures for nontested areas.
But Mr. Huffman said he feels good about the level of field-testing and planning that went into Tennessee鈥檚 system. 鈥淭here is no perfect evaluation system in any field. 鈥� We鈥檙e going to systematically gather feedback and make tweaks based on what works,鈥� he said. 鈥淎t some point, you have to actually do it. You can鈥檛 plan forever.鈥�
The state needed a drastic change such as the new evaluation system, according to Mr. Setterlund, the Collierville principal.
鈥淚t was rushed, but it needed to be rushed,鈥� he said. 鈥淏y the end of the year, we鈥檒l look at how much further we are than if we鈥檇 waited and piloted and tried to work out all the kinks on a smaller scale. Sometimes, you just have to jump in and do it.鈥�
