District of Columbia school officials plan to give significant pay bonuses to hundreds of teachers鈥攁nd to dismiss more than 200 others鈥攂ased on their performance as measured by the city鈥檚 teacher-evaluation system, officials announced Friday.
In all, 663 teachers will qualify for bonuses or raises based on high performance in the second year of the IMPACT teacher-evaluation system, while 206 teachers, or 5 percent of the district鈥檚 teaching force, will be dismissed.
The spread of scores is similar to last year鈥檚, with the same percentage of teachers鈥�16 percent鈥攅arning the top rating of 鈥渉ighly effective鈥� and eligible to receive performance bonuses of up to $25,000. ( September 10, 2010.) A subset of those teachers will also qualify for large base-pay raises.
At the same time, there was a slight decline in those receiving one of the lowest two ratings, 鈥渋neffective鈥� and 鈥渕inimally effective.鈥�
In all, the results suggest the district鈥檚 leadership remains committed to the controversial system, despite turnover in key positions.
Many observers had questioned whether IMPACT, largely viewed as a model by education groups pushing for stronger teacher evaluations, would survive the recent change in the District of Columbia鈥檚 leadership. Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, who oversaw the development of the system, left shortly after Vincent Gray won the mayoral election last fall.
Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson, who was a deputy chancellor under Ms. Rhee, has preserved most of the system, while streamlining certain features and allowing for principals to retain a limited number of teachers who fall below the required performance level.
In an interview Friday, Ms. Henderson said that the data show the system has been implemented 鈥渆venly and objectively鈥� in its second year.
鈥淚 think we all hope that at some point we鈥檒l see the 鈥榟ighly effective鈥� number start to move up, but big swings would indicate potentially other problems,鈥� she said.
Second Year Results
IMPACT debuted in the 2009-10 school year. It is one of the first operational teacher-evaluation systems in the nation to grade teachers using a combination of classroom observations and a measure of growth in students鈥� test scores. The system has been a bellwether of sorts as states and districts around the nation scramble to overhaul their own teacher-appraisal mechanisms.
It also has been subject to intense scrutiny by educators, and has drawn criticism from the Washington Teachers鈥� Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers.
In IMPACT鈥檚 second year, far more of the district鈥檚 4,100 teachers scored well than poorly. A majority, 69 percent, scored at the two highest levels in the system.
The fact that the percentage of top-performing teachers is identical to the number who scored at that level last year shows some consistency, observers noted.
鈥淚t suggests the district has set the rubric where it wants it,鈥� said Susan Headden, a senior writer and editor at the Washington-based think tank Education Sector, which released an of IMPACT in late June.
The district will move to dismiss 65 teachers who received 鈥渋neffective鈥� ratings, along with 141 鈥渕inimally effective鈥� teachers whose performance didn鈥檛 improve enough over last year. It is the second year running in which the school district has dismissed teachers for performance reasons; such dismissals remain rare in the United States. (鈥淣ew D.C. Evaluation Process Targets Hundreds for Firing,鈥� August 11, 2010.)
A handful of teachers who lost their positions due to budget or enrollment declines, and could not find principals willing to hire them, will also be let go.
Other teachers鈥� performance improved enough to avoid being terminated. Of the 566 teachers who last year received the rating of 鈥渕inimally effective,鈥� the second-lowest under the system, 58 percent earned an 鈥渆ffective鈥� or 鈥渉ighly effective鈥� rating this year and will keep their jobs.
Union Reaction
Nearly every aspect of the IMPACT system has been the subject of debate among the teaching force, ranging from the detail of the skills framework on which teachers are graded, to its inclusion of a 鈥渧alue-added鈥� measure of student academic growth.
In general, the WTU has argued that the system is too punitive and not focused enough on improving teacher skills. It has sued the district, so far unsuccessfully, to allow teachers to contest their ratings.
WTU President Nathan Saunders also contends that the system unfairly penalizes teachers who work in the city鈥檚 most disadvantaged schools. Although a full-scale analysis wasn鈥檛 available at press time, Mr. Saunders said that teachers in the city鈥檚 poorest wards were least likely to qualify for bonuses and more likely to receive low ratings.
鈥淚 think it proves we鈥檝e got a long way to go,鈥� Mr. Saunders said. 鈥淚t still remains an imperfect system, and it鈥檚 only going to be improved as a result of some friction that we鈥檙e obviously going to have to exert.鈥�
But Ms. Henderson pointed to the data showing teacher improvement as evidence that the system gives better feedback to teachers.
鈥淭o all of the people who said the point of IMPACT was only to fire teachers and weed teachers out, this data goes to show it is a developmental tool,鈥� she said. 鈥淕iving teachers feedback five times a year allows multiple opportunities to improve.鈥�
Not all teachers share her interpretation.
Elizabeth Collins, a teacher at Calvin Coolidge High School, said she feels that the system is more rigorous than its predecessor, has a clear mission statement, and has valid categories of performance. But many teachers remain confused about what specifically IMPACT reviewers are looking for, she said.
鈥淭he scores have gotten better, but does that mean the teachers have gotten better? I don鈥檛 know,鈥� said Ms. Collins, who said she received an 鈥渆ffective鈥� rating. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 feel like I鈥檓 improving at all, and that鈥檚 upsetting to me.鈥�
