September 2010 Issue
August 22, 2010

Multiple measures key to fair evaluations

Author: Sylvia Saunders
Source: NYSUT United
Caption: Innovation Fund participants listen to Laura Goe, center, a national expert on teacher evaluation and a research scientist at Educational Testing Service. Photo by Betsy Sandberg.

Just as a student's true achievement should not be measured by a single test score, neither should a teacher's.

That's why "multiple measures" must be a vital part of the new statewide teacher/principal evaluation system that will be phased in during the 2011-12 school year.

In the coming year, a state advisory committee will study the issue, and school districts and union leaders may begin negotiating system details.

At the same time, school district labor-management teams from Albany, Hempstead, Marlborough, North Syracuse and Plattsburgh will be discussing and piloting multiple measures that can be used under a model teacher evaluation and peer support system being developed as part of NYSUT's Innovation Fund project.

Under the new law, 60 percent of teacher evaluation will be based on locally developed measures negotiated by local labor-management teams, including classroom observations and peer review.

NYSUT pushed hard to make sure "multiple measures" remain a key to the evolving new system, subject to collective bargaining to reject local needs.

"We envision a range of multiple measures will be explored, since different measures are needed to capture different aspects of the profession," said NYSUT Vice President Maria Neira.

"There is far too much focus right now on standardized tests.

To find a better path, teachers must be involved in defining the standards of excellence, both for students and for their own profession."

The ultimate goal of teacher evaluation "should be to improve teaching and learning," said Laura Goe, a national expert working with the Innovation Fund teams.

Multiple measures, Goe noted, provide more information about student learning so teachers can improve instruction and demonstrate how they contribute to student learning growth.

"This is about growth, not 'gotcha,'" said Bernie Cleland, another national expert working with NYSUT's Innovation Fund project.

"This is about building a fair system from the bottom up."

Innovation Fund participants brainstormed numerous multiple measures, including portfolio or evidence binders for teachers, lesson planning and rejective self-analyses similar to those prepared by candidates for National Board Certification. Goe urged participants to think about ways evaluations could recognize teachers for collaborating and sharing responsibility for student learning. For example, teachers could collect evidence to show their participation in school reform efforts, parent conferences, school events, lesson study or other professional learning community activities.

She suggested professional responsibility could be measured for individual teachers and for teams of teachers. "It can be helpful to think in terms of caseload, not individual students," Goe said, especially for special area teachers or counselors.

Another idea would be to conduct parent and student surveys, Goe said. Teachers could analyze the results, reject on what surprised them and use the information to inform and improve their practice. There is no cookie-cutter approach, Goe said. "Every school has its own DNA … and so should its evaluation system."