As all principals know, beginning July 1, teacher evaluation changes significantly. The revised evaluation model includes seven performance standards: professional knowledge; instructional planning; instructional delivery; assessment of and for student learning; learning environment; professionalism, and student academic progress. It is standard 7, student academic progress, which could change the evaluation process most dramatically.
Working with other states, Virginia has developed a method for calculating student growth percentiles. This method measures one year of growth for students in grades 4 – 8 in math and reading around SOL scores from the previous year compared to current year. Student growth percentiles will be available for about 30% of teachers. For about 70 percent of teachers, other measures of academic progress will need to be identified.
The work of the teacher should result in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress. Multiple data sources are required as part of this process. The Virginia Department of Education (DOE) recommends a variety of data sources including student surveys, portfolios/document logs, and self-evaluation. In addition, the DOE has provided some training in establishing SMART goals, an acronym for:
•Specific – The goal is focused such as by content area and by students’ needs
•Measurable – An appropriate instrument/measure is selected to assess the goal
•Appropriate – The goal is clearly related to the role and responsibilities of the teacher
•Realistic – The goal is attainable by the teacher
•Time-bound – The goal is contained to a single school year
In PowerPoint slides on the DOE website, it is noted that one approach to linking student achievement to teacher performance involves building the capacity for teachers and their supervisors to interpret and use student achievement data to set target goals for student improvement.
These goals must focus “squarely on student performance” and must be “designed to improve student learning.” Documents go on to emphasize that student achievement goal setting involves a multi-step process. Baseline performance is established by reviewing and analyzing data. Baseline data can be reviewed individually, or in a collaborative manner with other teachers. Based on the data, the teacher decides to focus attention on student improvement.
The teacher sets an attainable goal and develops strategies that would support goal attainment. Strategies are critical to the goal setting process as they provide the means to the end, which is increased student achievement. Strategies are then implemented and student progress is monitored. At the end of the year, data is analyzed to determine whether the goal was attained.
Many school divisions are basing their evaluation of standard 7 around SMART goals. This appears to be the easiest way to address this standard. However, for school divisions taking this approach, there are some issues that need to be addressed. Developing SMART goals requires good baseline data. School divisions need to provide direction for teachers in what is appropriate to use as baseline data. Examples need to be developed to provide guidance. A process needs to be in place throughout the year that requires teachers and supervisors to check and monitor progress toward meeting the goals. Teachers and supervisors have to be very intentional about this process; otherwise, it loses its power.
One potential problem that must be addressed is how one year of growth is defined around each specific SMART goal that is created? You cannot wait until the end of the year to define one year of growth. That conversation should occur early in the goal setting process. Otherwise, you make life easier at the beginning but much more difficult at the end.
It is also important, particularly for administrators in the same building, to be consistent in helping teachers develop SMART goals as well as helping them determine appropriate data to be used in establishing the baselines. If the baseline data is weak, it will make evaluation much more difficult. There has to be validity and reliability in the process. Inconsistency in implementing standard 7 creates potential legal challenges.
