IU report analyzes new Ind. teacher evaluation policy

IU’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy raised concerns about Indiana’s new teacher evaluation policy in its report released last week.

The brief, “Revamping the Teacher Evaluation Process,” examines the implications of Senate Enrolled Act 001, or SEA 1, legislation passed by the Indiana General Assembly that requires school corporations to establish a teacher performance evaluation model or adopt one recommended by the state.

“What this law hopes to do is make teacher evaluation more rigorous and make it apply to all teachers,” said Rodney Whiteman, a graduate research assistant at CEEP and a Ph.D. student in education policy studies at the IU School of Education. “If it’s implemented as intended, it would be what we call a system-changing policy instrument.”

What is SEA 1?
The SEA 1 was signed into law April 30 and took effect July 1. It was conceived during the 2011 legislative session as part of a public education overhaul in Indiana.

All school corporations, charter schools, schools governed by multiple localities under interlocal agreement, special education cooperatives and joint career and technical education programs are required to establish a more stringent teacher evaluation process beginning with the 2012-13 academic year.

They have several choices for adopting an evaluation process. Schools can implement one of several models prescribed by the state or contract with outside vendors or create their own model that meets the law’s following requirements: annual (or more frequent) evaluation for all certificated employees, objective measures of student achievement and growth, rigorous measures of effectiveness, annual designation of each certificated employee in four rating categories (highly effective, effective, improvement necessary and ineffective), explanation of the evaluator’s recommendation for improvement and the time in which improvement is expected or a provision that a teacher who negatively affects student achievement and growth cannot receive a rating of “effective” or “highly effective.”

By Jan. 31, 2012, the Indiana State Board of Education must establish: criteria defining each of the teacher ratings (highly effective,
effective, improvement needed, ineffective), measures used to determine academic growth, standards defining a teacher’s negative impact on student achievement and a training program for evaluators.

What does the report recommend?    
In the report, Whiteman and his co-authors Dingjing Shi, graduate assistant at CEEP, and Jonathan Plucker, CEEP director, outline a list of concerns they have with the broad and unintended implications of the teacher evaluation policy.

“Rethinking teacher evaluations is necessary,” Whiteman said. “The question is how and in what time frame.”

Whiteman said he is worried that the stringent requirements and short time frame force teachers and administrators to put together an insufficient plan and sacrifice instruction time in the process.

“This represents a checklist of requirements that require teachers to teach specifically to standards, which will change the teaching dynamic, and I think that is problematic,” Whiteman said. “But we do need to figure out ways to revise the system. This law gets that conversation started, but it does so in a very quick and prescriptive way.”

As a former teacher, Whiteman said one of his main concerns is that the burden to implement these new policies will fall upon administrators and teachers who already have a full docket.

Although schools do have the option of hiring outside help, Whiteman said many don’t have the extra money to do so, and if they decide that is their best option, they will then have to deal with deciding what to cut from their existing budget.

“Something will have to give,” he said. “Schools will have to be forced to choose how they allocate their time, and some of it will inevitably be directed away from student instruction and classroom time. I just don’t think personally that schools are going to have enough time to implement this correctly.”

CEEP continues to be a source for policy makers and educators across the state, CEEP Associate Director for Education Policy Terry Spradlin said. 

“We are just one source, but I believe we are an influential voice in public education policy in Indiana,” he said.

School of Education Dean Gerardo Gonzalez said there are short-term and long-term consequences for the students pursuing an education degree, as well.

During the implementation process, schools have been reluctant to take student teachers while they figure out the implications of the new evaluation process. However, in the long-term, schools have a strong interest in the development of future educators.
But he is concerned that an inconsistency in statewide evaluation processes will pose multiple issues.

“A policy that mandates implementation of untested evaluation systems for high-stake decisions about teachers and schools can have very serious, unintended consequences,” Gonzalez said. “I would recommend that the policy be amended to provide for an evaluation of the evaluation systems mandated. Teacher performance evaluation is a complex matter and should not be done in the absence of solid research.”