Running head: Student Performance Data

Student Performance Data in Teacher Evaluation Practices: A Policy Analysis

Riley J Justis

Central Michigan University

Student Performance Data 2

Framing the Analysis

In the early part of 2009 the federal government, facing a national recession

and a new found focus on the impact of public education and on the future of the

nations ability to thrive, introduced the first foray into the measure of teacher

performance (IES, 204). This new focus was delivered through the development of

the Race to the Top (RTT) initiative introduced by President George W. Bush and his

administration. What the initial impact of this legislative shift brought to the

educational landscape was a further alignment of teacher and student performance

evaluations with the national RTT Priorities. Performance evaluations were an issue

that the original study of teacher evaluation policies and practice highlighted as

widely differing among states. IES (2014) reported that in the academic year of

2009-2010, only 25 states would conduct annual evaluations on the teaching staff in

the K-12 schools. The report further identified the majority of states as using

multiple measures to rate performance only one state considered the performance

on the evaluation in the decision making process for career and salary advancement

(IES, 2014). This transition in legislative and policy priority expanded the

evaluation process to include the performance of students in the outcomes of the

teacher’s overall effectiveness. This evolution would mark the foundation for the

development of the further generations of policy reform and a dramatic shift in the

teacher evaluation landscape in K-12 education.

For the first time students, the outcomes that they produced, and the changes

that they would identify became central to the overall effectiveness of the classroom

teacher. This shift laid the groundwork for the policy and legislative actions of the
Student Performance Data 3

decade to follow. Glass (1967) identifies the need for measuring student

performance as a reflection of the capabilities of the classroom teacher. The author

expanded this concept to include the use of the student performance as a direct

influence on the teacher performance. This influence, as seen in modern policy

movement, may be through pay, promotion or advancement with their professional

responsibilities. This form of thinking about the teacher as a reflection of the

students they impact has become the foundation for the changes experienced

through No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the current Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA). Doherty and Jacobs (2015) conducted an in-depth study of the changes in

policy that states would impart on their teacher evaluation practices. A major

finding identified through the analysis is that from 2009 to 2015 the number of

states requiring teacher evaluations would grow from 15 to 43, while the number of

states utilizing student performance in the evaluation process would only reach 17

and would actually see a regression from 20 in 2013 (Doherty and Jacobs, 2015).

Further, by 2015 there were just 5 states that had no policy related to student

performance as an objective measure in the teacher evaluation process. This shift, in

both policy and performance, highlights the focus on policy that not only are teacher

evaluations a critical aspect of the teaching profession, the use of student

performance measures are a key facet in the effective measure of teachers abilities

within the profession.

Finally, with the transition from NCLB to ESSA, while there was easing on the

hard and fast performance requirements, there was a renewed focus on the use of

locally designed goals, looking both short and long term. NEA (2017) released a
Student Performance Data 4

policy brief further expanding on the role of the teacher evaluation in the modern

legislative and policy environment. The brief focuses on both the need for effective

measure of student performance and teacher effectiveness while highlighting the

critical aspect of local control on the development of performance measures (NEA,

2017). Further, through ESSA the distinction of student performance indicators has

shifted and allowed for differences across learning environments, levels and

programs; a critical aspect in the development of future policy measures. As one

looks to the past for the foundations of the teacher evaluation practices across the

nation, you can clearly identify the policy shifts that have had major impacts on the

teacher evaluation processes used. Through RTT, teacher evaluation was

highlighted as a critical measure in the development of quality schools and through

NCLB and ESSA the inclusion of student performance as an aspect of those measures

becomes central.

Policy Problem

One of the most prevailing topics in the discussion of teacher evaluation and

the measure of teacher performance revolves around the concepts and practices of

the inclusion of student measures of performance and outcomes in the evaluation

process. Heritage and Yeagley (2005) identify this discussion, highlighting the use of

student performance data as both founded in the development of educational policy

and the implications in the classroom learning environment. Further, as the

literature has shown, the perception of student learning data is directly related to

the inclusion of this data in the teaching and learning process. Schmoker (2003)

identifies the overabundance of data in the K-12 learning environment. The author
Student Performance Data 5

then associates this overabundance and lack of direction with the data to the

negative views teachers and administrators hold with regards to data and the

implication on performance or process in learning (Schmoker, 2003). This

disconnect, between policy and action, has created a void in the effective use of data

in the learning and evaluation processes. As the legislative movement and state laws

highlight the need for effective use of data in the evaluative process, the implication

of measurement of student outcomes seems to have an opposite effect on the

teaching and classroom learning processes.

Problem Statement

Across the nation, ESSA regulations have opened up the teacher evaluation

process allowing for more control at the state and district level. This opening has

allowed policy makers to utilize student performance data in a variety of ways in the

evaluation process. As assessment and measures of student performance are

becoming more effective, this movement away from the mandated inclusion of

performance data is limiting the impact of the evaluation process on educational

reform efforts. The purpose of this policy analysis is to study the implication of

student performance data and its inclusion in the teacher evaluation process for the

K-12 classroom teacher. At this stage, student performance data will be defined as

all student related outcome information that is collected in the learning process,

either formally or informally. This analysis will not limit student performance data

to mandated statewide performance assessments or common growth measures.

Consideration and focus will be given to the inclusion of mandated

Student Performance Data 6

technology/applications in both the measurement of student performance and the

holistic evaluation of a teacher’s performance.

Defining the Policy Issue

Across the nation, teacher evaluation policies and legislative actions are

impacted by factors both within and external to the educational system itself. To

effectively define the policy issue relating to the inclusion of student performance in

the teacher evaluation process, one must look at the major shifts that have had a

greater effect on the educational marketplaces as a whole over the past decade.

From technological advancements to increasing calls for accountability, all have

played a contributing factor in how teacher evaluations are conducted across the

country.

Current Policy Context

Under the current legislative action, ESSA, the focus has shifted from national

reform efforts such as NCLB and Race to the Top that would prescribe the actions of

the individual states in the evaluation practice, to allow for local control. This local

control, although still requiring a state student assessment system to provide data

to the teacher evaluation, allows for much more flexibly in the evaluation process

and outcomes. Berg-Jacobson (2016), in a review of the current legislation under

ESSA, identifies the critical aspects of the wording of the legislation. Each of the

requirements, under the law, are written in the negative, such as ineffective and

inexperienced. This wording creates a legislative floor from which state policy can

be constructed in the positive.

Student Performance Data 7

Berg-Jacobson (2016) proposes, in a report prepared for the American

Institute for Research, three approaches for constructing evaluation policy at the

state and local level. The first approach, defining an ineffective teacher, allows the

states to continue on their current trajectory of evaluation practice. This

methodology includes the use of state student performance data as a quantified

measure of the overall effectiveness of the teacher. Though this option steps further

toward the inclusion of performance data it does not take into account the other

contributing factors within a state’s educational marketplace; a specific foundation

to the formation of the ESSA reforms. In the second approach, Berg-Jacobson (2016)

presents the inclusion of all educational stakeholders in the formation of the

effectiveness rating protocol. This methodology explicitly includes the use of

student learning objectives (SLO’s) as a critical aspect of the definition of

effectiveness. The inclusion of the SLOs over the state mandates assessment

protocol identifies an advancement beyond the legislative minimum and the

inclusion of more to the holistic view of the learner. The final path under the ESSA,

as proposed, looks to the state to define the highly qualified teacher (Berg-Jacobson,

2016). This methodology identifies in the positive the top of the teacher

effectiveness rating scale. This approach also further expands the use of the student

data as both a measure of over all effectiveness and a methodological measure of

teacher’s aptitude through the reflective nature of the instructional processes.

Pennington and Mead (2016) in their report For Good Measure? Teacher

Evaluation Policy in the ESSA Era, look specifically at the impacts that the ESSA

legislation has had and will have on the inclusion of the student achievement
Student Performance Data 8

measures in the teacher evaluation process. In the 2016 legislative session bills

were introduced to decrease the impact or eliminate the measure altogether from

the teacher evaluation process. The major concern the authors highlight in the

removal or reduction of this key factor is that states are replacing student

performance data, often filling the evaluation in with more observations. This

method though sound in theory, offers an easy cost savings opportunity if cuts are

needed; resulting in a reduction in spending on observations (Pennington and Mead,

2016). Simply put, this change opens the door for the reduction of the overall

effectiveness of any given evaluation process in times of greatest need.

Michigan’s Policy

As described above, Berg-Jacobson (2016) identifies three common

approaches to policy reform and the inclusion of student performance data in state

education policy. Michigan, as an example, has set their policy for teacher evaluation

in 2015 through Public Act 173. This act established both teacher qualifications and

teacher evaluation practices. While the act remains focused on the floor of the

evaluation process, identifying ineffective teachers, it is more advanced in the use

and application of student performance data. PA 173 (2015) notes that by the 2018-

2019 school year, the student growth measurement will make up 40% of the overall

teacher’s performance rating. While this law does not clearly limit the method to

measure the growth of a student, it defines that any measure that is used beyond the

state assessment must not only be rigorous but common across the school district,

ISD or PSA (PA 173). This language is placed in to create common measurements

across a single unit of schools and while creating commonality within the unit does
Student Performance Data 9

not limit the differences across or between the units on the method of

measurement.

As Michigan has afforded a high percentage of teacher evaluation to student

performance, they have also shown a focus on the inclusion of technology in the

assessment and evaluation processes. The state of Michigan has transitioned to an

adaptive statewide assessment platform. This methodology of assessment allows for

the more robust measure of student performance outcomes. By combining a more

effective measurement practice and an increased accountability to student

performance, Michigan has altered the process through which teacher evaluation is

conducted. Through PA 173, the districts are further changed with the inclusion of

data focused professional development. This provision establishes the value in the

data informed instructional process and program. Finally, Michigan has identified

through work with MCEE, five recommended teacher evaluation models to be used

in the K-12 learning environment. While limiting in scope, the legislative action of

identifying these options allowing for the focused training of schools across the state

and a decrease in cost and funding implications for districts to engage in effective

teacher evaluation practices.

North Carolina

In contrast to Michigan, North Carolina’s teacher evaluation law has been

focused on the definition of a highly effective teacher. The focus on the positive has

allowed the state to define the professional teaching standards as a reflection of the

highly qualified teacher. In the latest update to the evaluation policy in 2015, the

State removed the explicit inclusion of a measure of student performance in the

Student Performance Data 10

overall performance of the teacher (PA 115C). While this law will remain in effect

until June 30, 2018, it will be replaced with another iteration that follows much of

the same methodological approach. As of the update legislation, teachers will be

required to be evaluated only a single time per year. While the focus of the law is on

the observation of the teacher, little attention is placed on the inclusion of student

performance measures in the overall evaluation process. The Professional Teaching

Standards (2015) identify the need for the teacher to be able to analyze and

accommodate student need in the instructional process, yet the student

performance is not explicitly included in the evaluation process.

This shift in mindset from the direct inclusion of student data to a more

cursory inclusion through observation of application lends itself more to the second

methodological approach identified by Berg-Jacobson, focusing on the inclusion of

the community of stakeholder and observation of teaching and learning (Berg-

Jacobson, 2016). Through this approach and the development of the professional

teacher standards at the state level schools are focusing more explicitly on the

inclusion of the teacher in and throughout their evaluation process. North Carolina

has also introduced a common evaluation system that allows all school and district

leaders a common platform from which to conduct the required observations. This

systemization of the observation, development, and growth of the teacher within the

State’s policy shift focus away from the individual learner and toward the individual

teacher.
Student Performance Data 11

Texas

Texas Legislature established a methodological approach to teacher

evaluation closest to Berg-Jacobson’s third concept. This process looks to define the

highly qualified teacher, focusing on the status of the positive while including the

measure of student outcomes in an explicit way (Berg-Jacobson, 2016). In 2015, the

Texas Legislature passed teacher evaluation reform efforts that would both define

teacher effectiveness and prescribe a set percentage that student performance

would be included in the overall effectiveness rating scale. This sale would set

student performance at a standard 20% of the total score, leaving the other 80% to

observation and professional development. This measure would place a clear focus

on the inclusive nature of focusing on the unique needs of the individual educator

while also affording weight to the impact of student outcomes. Through the

development of the Teacher Evaluation and Support System, Texas was able to

effectively roll out a statewide teacher performance system. This would, as seen in

North Carolina, allow for the development of common teaching standards and

performance expectations.

Through the introduction of the teacher evaluation policies, Texas also made

an effort to allow for the flexibility needed in each of the performance areas. The

State Department of Education provided exhaustive resources and training

opportunities to districts in the formation and selection of their student

performance measures. The current debate, which the State has prescribed to the

localities, is the choice between Value Added Measures and Student Learning

Outcomes as the means through which student performance will be associated with
Student Performance Data 12

the evaluation process. This supported debate, once again, highlights the

importance of local control on the evaluation process and supporting role that the

State plays through this form of policy implementation.

Policy Report and Recommendation

Across the nation, ESSA regulations have opened up the teacher evaluation

process allowing for more control at the state and district level. This new found

flexibility has opened a debate, highlighting the critical and foundational questions

about what is the professional role and responsibility of the teacher in the growth

and development of their students. This opening has allowed policy makers to

utilize student performance data in a variety of ways in the evaluation process,

while also underscoring the wide range of methodological approaches to the

collection of the outcomes of learning in the classroom setting. As Heritage and

Yeagley (2005) identify there is a critical link between the effective use of student

performance data and the outcomes of the classroom-learning environment. This

need for the inclusion of student data in the measure of teaching and learning was

seen in the transition to 2015 through Race to the Top (RTT) and No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) reforms, leaving only five states without policy regarding the use of

student data in the teacher evaluation process (Doherty and Jacobs, 2015).

As a secondary aspect of the debate, assessment and measures of student

performance are becoming more effective. The current flexibility and movement

away from the mandated inclusion of performance data’s is limiting the impact of

the evaluation process on educational reform efforts. The purpose of this policy

analysis is to study the implications of student performance data and its inclusion in
Student Performance Data 13

the teacher evaluation process for the K-12 classroom teacher. The policy proposal

that is offered here focuses on the direct inclusion of mandated percentages for the

inclusion of student data while allowing and affording the local districts to define

those measure that will make up the common percentage that is mandated.

This recommendation, while answering the nature of policy question with

the mandated inclusion of student performance data, opens the field for the

continued debate of the effective measure of student performance itself. Schmoker

(2003) identifies the overabundance of data in the instructional process. This flood

of learning information, in effect, renders the utility of the performance data

obsolete. Simply stated, when given too much information (data included) the

teacher is more likely to exclude the information from the development of

instructional practices than to include it. This debate will be founded on the nature

of the competing theories of action, the Value Added Measure (VAM) and the

Student Learning Objective (SLO).

While districts and schools may utilize different approaches to the measure

of student performance, the policy recommendation presented here allows for this

debate to take place. As seen in the states that have chosen an alternative policy

measure, the utility of the performance measure of teachers often becomes

secondary to other considerations of professional and ethical responsibilities. As

identified in the comparison of the three states in this analysis, the other options

often result in the shift of thinking about student data, focusing on either the

unification or commodification of student assessment or focusing purely on the

professionalism of the teacher without consideration for the student learning

Student Performance Data 14

outcomes at all. Both of these options shift the focus of the instructional process

away from the teacher and student relationship and more on the individual or

technical approach to measurement.

Policy Recommendation

As identified by the Texas Teacher Agency, the T-TESS is the Teacher

Evaluation and Support System. It is designed to support teachers in professional

development and help them to grow and improve as educators (TTA, 2015). This

definition is the foundation for the policy recommendation set forth in this analysis,

that states and/or the national legislature must mandate a minimum level of

inclusion of student performance measures in the teacher evaluation process while

allowing for the flexibility of the measure to be locally controlled and reflective of

the learning community they serve. The idea that a state, through effective policy

reform, can develop a common platform from which all teachers can be effectively

measured, provided support and develop as professionals is foundational to the

nature of the educational reforms that all states should model. In review of TTA’s

methodological approach, not once was the syntax chosen to focus on the measure

of teachers through the use of words like observation or evaluation. This model

identifies the clear role of the teacher in their professional responsibilities and

breaks down the measure of a teachers evaluation into its mandated and developed

component parts; Planning, Instruction, Learning Environment, and Professional

Practice. The critical aspect of this form of evaluation policy is the inclusion of the

sub components of each of the areas evaluated.

Student Performance Data 15

The Instruction area of the evaluation process utilized in Texas mandates

that 20% of the total score in the evaluation shall be taken from student

performance measures (TTA, 2015). Berg-Jacobson (2016) identified this

methodological approach as the definition of a highly qualified teacher, focusing on

the positive and explicit inclusion of student performance data. What this allows the

districts or schools to then focus on is both the other aspects of professionalism as a

teacher and the nature and means of effectively measuring student performance.

This approach is both proactive and inclusive of the nature of the educational

profession. While the recommendation recognizes the need for student measures it

also allows for local control of those measures.

Pennington and Mead (2016) describe the transitions of teacher evaluation

processes under ESSA focuses on the need for both measures of student outcomes

and the identification of teachers as a profession that must be treated with the

professional responsibilities seen in other fields. This idea that the teacher must be

held accountable for their clients (students) and the success or failure to meet their

needs acts in a way to facilitate this professionalization of the field of teaching.

While holding teachers accountable only for their professional actions and

knowledge, such as seen in states like North Carolina, the authors argue that this

methodology does not go far enough to protect the nature of the business of

education, the growth and development of the students in the classroom

(Pennington and Mead, 2016). This policy recommendation, to both mandate the

inclusion of student performance data and the flexibility to define at the local level
Student Performance Data 16

the measures by which to determine outcomes allows for the most clear

combination of the thinking within the field of teacher evaluation.

Current Impact and Change

In a recent Edweek post, Loewus (2017) identifies the shift that is beginning

to happen across the nation in the teacher evaluation process under ESSA. The

author identifies six states, up one from the previous measure in 2015 that have no

inclusion of student performance in the teacher evaluation legislation. While the

author identifies the new trend under ESSA to lower the mandated percentage that

the student performance measures will play, at least in the short term, to retain the

use of student performance as a measure in the overall effectiveness of classroom

educators. Further, the author explains the 2009 TNPT report entitled “The Widget

Effect” that teacher evaluation has become more of reporting requirement rather

than an aspect of their professional growth. This report highlights that 99% of

teachers were being rated either effective or highly effective in their teaching

(TNPT, 2009). This is an important justification for the need of outside measures in

the evaluation process. If all evaluations were conducted through observation it

would be only natural to return to this widget state.

Policy Instruments

While the foundations for the policy reform efforts outlined in the analysis

are largely in place in many states, the use of mandates and system changes will

allow for the more effective integration of reform efforts at both the state and local

levels.
Student Performance Data 17

Mandates

As Fowler (2013) identifies the critical aspects of the mandate policy

instrument is made up of two components; (1) language that identifies the required

behavior, and (2) a penalty for those that fail to comply. The first aspect of this

instrument, the required behavior allows the state or national legislature to

establish a legislative minimum for the inclusion of student performance data. This

methodology removes debate from its inclusion and focuses on the local control of

the measure. This allows the states and local districts to ensure that the focus

remains on the determination of how to effectively measure student outcomes.

While the second aspect of the mandate created the uniformity required to allow for

the implementation of effective policy reform. Fowler (2013) further identifies that

the mandate allows for the “widespread, uniform behavior” further allowing for the

flexibility of the school and local policy makers in the development of effective

teacher evaluation practices (p.225).

System Change

While mandates will be required for uniform buy-in and effective policy

reform efforts, the use of system change instruments allow the authority to be

further shifted from the national or state legislature to the local policy makers

(Fowler, 2013). This is a critical aspect of this policy recommendation as the local

control and involvement are at the foundation of defining the measure of student

performance. As Fowler (2013) identifies, the system change instrument is most

effective when a new behavior is needed but the current end users are not willing or

not able to sustain the change. This concept, when used in combination with
Student Performance Data 18

mandates, allows the responsibility to be shifted to the local policy makers while

setting a policy minimum that must be adhered to. This allows for the assurance of

inclusion of student performance data while not limited and empowering the local

authorities in the design and implementation process. The concept of system change

allows for the authority to lie in the hands of the only individuals that truly

understand the educational culture and community of a district or a school program.

Lewin’s Change Theory

In an effort to facilitate both the change and the implementation process of

this policy recommendation one must look at this form of change through the both

the policy and cultural aspects of school reform. Kurt Lewin, a German philosopher,

in 1947 identified the three states that must be considered to make change effective.

This theory of change starts through consideration for the current system, the

change process itself and the ensuring that the change is accepted and lasting.

Unfreezing

Lewin (1947) identifies the first stage of his change theory as the

“unfreezing” process. This process addresses the need for the current system to be

disrupted as a means to allow the change to be fully implemented. This is a common

issue in change management in the educational landscape as reforms are often

introduced to the current culture and fail to take root. For this recommendation to

facilitate the unfreezing process, education of all stakeholders will be critical. This

educational process will inform all participants on the nature of the student

performance process and ensure that each are understanding of the value addition

that student performance measures can bring to the evaluation process. As a

Student Performance Data 19

secondary outcome of unfreezing the stakeholders will be begin the debate process

on the definition of effective measures of student growth, a critical aspect of the

reform recommendation.

Change

Through the education of stakeholder and unfreezing process the

groundwork will be established for the introduction of the Lewin’s second stage, the

process of change. This process leaves the stakeholders in the need of the changes

as the issue that have facilitated the unfreezing process have also acted to highlight

gaps and deficiencies in the educational program. As Lewin (1947) describes,

supports can be given in the form or further training, support and coaching as a

reflection of the goals of the change process. For this reform recommendation, the

change process will be facilitated at both the district and state level to discuss the

nature of student evaluation, the nature of teacher evaluation and what how to

define effective teaching and learn for the field of education. At the local level

teacher should be provided training on both the evaluation process and the effective

use of data to inform the instructional process. This dual prong approach to change

process/management allows the discussions to be supported and the knowledge of

the stakeholder groups to be increased throughout on critical aspect of the reform

measure.

Freeze

Finally, Lewin’s third stage of the change model the “freezing” process. Lewin

(1947) identifies this stage as the re-stabilization of the reform and the

establishment of the new norm in the learning environment. During this stage
Student Performance Data 20

stakeholders redefine their relationship with the new policy measure. It allows

them to operate in a inclusive environment in which they feel that their knowledge,

opinion and input was valued and accounted for. For this policy reform

recommendation, the critical aspect of the policy evaluation process will support

stakeholder’s inclusion in the reform process. Through measured outcomes the

policy can lead the discussion for further reform efforts in the area of teaching and

learning across the educational marketplace. This freezing process allows the

reform to become the new way of doing business in the evaluation of teacher

effectiveness and ensures that all stakeholder understand the common goal of the

policy from initial development through full implementation.

Criticisms

Local Control

As with any mandate from the state or national legislature, there will always

be a criticism of lack of local control, that these policy makers do not understand the

needs or nature of the local community. This idea that the local authorities must

maintain full control of the educational learning environment has seen an ebb and

flow of the last generation of national policy efforts. From the suggestion of RTT

reforms to the heavy hand of NCLB reforms, education has seen a shift away from

local authority to the national policy makers. With the release of ESSA, the policy

making authority and control would return to the states. This trend, of local control

will be a constant simply due to the diversity and community nature of the

educational process in this country. While this policy reform suggests mandates of

minimums, it clearly affords the local policy makers the final say in the use and
Student Performance Data 21

utility of the teacher evaluation process. Teaching is a local business and as such

policy, while maintaining standards for the common good, must also account for

local control and influence throughout the process.

Measurement concerns

As seen in the Texas example highlighted in this analysis, the concern of

measurement becomes the focus of local policy makers. Whether it is debate on

VAM vs. SLO or the more modern debate about the inclusion of technology in the

measurement of student learning, this debate will continue to bring about criticism.

A central aspect of this criticism has been and will continue to be the access and

skills that the teacher has in relation to the understanding and application of

student performance measures. While Schmoker (2003) identifies the volume of

data that is thrown at teachers, the author also identifies the neutralizing effect of

this amount of student data on its use or utility in the classroom teaching and

learning process. This consideration, while critical to the very nature of the policy

reform must take into account the means by which educators are measuring their

student’s outcomes. If the measure is not valid or reliable that not only has nothing

been done to measure the students learning but nothing has been done in the

measurement of teacher effectiveness.

Professionalism

Consideration must be given for professionalism in this methodology of

policy reform. As Berg-Jacobson (2016) identifies, the placement of the professional

and the use of language is critical in these types of reform efforts. The criticism

related to professionalism comes from the placement of the individual in a critical

Student Performance Data 22

role of self-determination through the evaluation process. As seen in North Carolina,

the professional teacher is expected to take it upon himself or herself to learn how

to effectively process data and apply it to the instructional process in the classroom.

This approach leaves the use of data implicit to the evaluation process rather than

an explicit mandate with firm percentages. This approach could be construed as

limiting or not taking the professional responsibility of instruction as the center of

what it is to be an educator. While this is a central facet of the teaching profession,

the ability to consume and use student data, the reality of the educational landscape

is that teachers are underprepared to do so effectively. This reality leaves the

mandate a critical aspect of the fidelity of reform efforts in teacher evaluation.

Implementation

As Fowler (2013) identifies, many policies are either never effectively

implemented or are implemented incorrectly or incompletely. Because of this, the

implementation process becomes the foundation of any policy to take hold and

impact the educational sector in a positive way. With the critical nature of

implementation, systematic planning and preparation must be considered in the

initial phases of policy development. Through Fowler’s (2013) generations of policy

implementation research, one is able to clearly identify the impact and influence

each stage has had on the ability of a policy to take hold. For this policy

recommendation, the focus will remain on Fowler’s third generation of

implementation research, implementing complex policies. This generation of

literature supports the complexity of this policy in the formation of a uniform

mandate and the use of local control in reaching the desired outcomes.
Student Performance Data 23

Mobilization

For the successful implementation of the recommended policy reform, the

leaders must be able to clearly identify their motives for adoption. Fowler (2013)

identifies that a policy must support at least two good reasons for its existence to

justify its adoption. For the recommended policy herein, the first and most critical

reason for the policy is that the student/learner is the end product of the

educational process. If the end product is not being measured for quality, change or

impact how can a school system have any assurances that they are following the

best path of instruction? This continues to the second question that supports the

need for local control. Though the policy sets a minimum standard for use of student

data, it also allows the local policy makers to control and mediate the need within

the local learning community. This dual prong approach allows for the justification

of need and the flexibility of implementation to be supported in the recommended

policy.

Appropriateness

For the same reasons as described for local control, the appropriateness of

the policy can be determined at the local level. This locally controlled

implementation protocol allows for the policy, through implementation and

practice, to be a direct reflection of the abilities and resources of the local state,

district or school. In the case of a national mandate, states or local authorities often

lack the required skills or resources to effectively implement such a sweeping

reform. In the case of a local district, the ability to access professional development

of the teacher to access the information that student performance data provides
Student Performance Data 24

may be a critical barrier to the successful implementation of reform efforts. Through

the flexibility of this reform recommendation, the local authorities can modify the

policy actions to meet the need and abilities of the local school communities.

Adequate Support

As with any policy reform effort support of both the policy makers and those

impacted by the policies are critical to the success. Fowler (2013) notes that the

policy must have the support of a sufficient number of stakeholders in any given

community. Through the recommended policy reform: the student, teachers, school

leaders, policy makers, and community all share an equal stake in the reform and its

success to support effective educational practices. Because of this, a key aspect of

the policy implementation process must be the engagement of each community.

This engagement must be inclusive and allow for the voices on each side of the

teacher evaluation issue to be heard. For this process, the identification of both the

stakeholder groups and the key persons within the groups will be a critical aspect of

robust and effective discussions.

Evaluation

As with any policy, evaluation of the policy is a crucial step in the policy

development, planning and implementation process. As Fowler (2013) identifies, if

an evaluation is not thought through before the policy is implemented it may be too

late. For this reason, the evaluation and metrics that will be used to evaluate the

effectiveness of this policy will be developed prior to any shifts in the teacher

evaluation process. This systematic method of policy evaluation ensures not only
Student Performance Data 25

the desired outcomes are being realized, but that the burden of the policy is also

being fairly distributed among the key stakeholder groups.

Conclusion

Teacher evaluation is not a simple task; student performance measure is not

a simple task yet both are crucial to the overall performance of any educational

program. Through this recommended policy reform, placing a mandated minimum

on the inclusion of student performance data while allowing for local control of the

measure, they can both be realized. The first stages of this change are just now being

realized on the national level with the passage of ESSA. This change and flexibility

have facilitated not only the need but also the opportunity for the next phase of

teacher evaluation policy reform. Students deserve the best learning environment

possible and teachers deserve to be treated as professionals in the field of

education. Through this policy reform effort, both are possible.

Student Performance Data 26

References

Appraisals and Incentives, Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.351 (2017).

Berg-Jacobson, A. (2016, November). Teacher effectiveness in the Every Student

Succeeds Act. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Evaluation of teachers., N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115-C.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-

2016).

Doherty, K. M., & Jacobs, S. (2015, November). State of the States; educating, teaching,

leading, and learning. National Council on Teacher Quality.

Glass, G.V. (1967), Factors in teachers’ perceptions of students. Journal of Educational

Measurement, 4(2), 87-93.

Heritage, M., & Yeagley, R. (2005). Data use and school improvement: Challenges and

prospects. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104(2),

320-339.

Lewin K (1947) Group decision and social change. In: Newcomb TM and Hartley EL

(eds) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt, 330–344

Loewus, L. (2017, November 14). Are state changing course on teacher evaluation?

Edweek.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

Pennington, K., & Mead, S. (2016, December). For good measure? Teacher evaluation

policy in the ESSA era. Bellwether Education Partners.

Public act 173 of 2015, Mich. Comp. Laws § 1249 (2015).

Schmoker, M. (2003). First things first; Demystifying data analysis. Educational

Student Performance Data 27

Leadership, 60(5), 22-24.

Opportunity + action = greater public schools of every student; ESSA teacher

evaluations (Issue Brief No. 2). (2015). NEA.