DOCSLIB.ORG

Read the PDF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read the PDF AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH The Common Core Standards and Teacher Quality Reforms Morgan Polikoff University of Southern California [email protected] Draft: Please do not cite without permission from the author. Prepared for the American Enterprise Institute Conference, “Common Core Meets the Reform Agenda” March 25, 2013 The collected papers for this conference can be found at http://www.aei.org/events/2013/03/25/common-core-meets-the-reform-agenda/. Draft: Please do not cite without permission from the author. The last half-decade has seen a monumental shift in teacher policies in U.S. K-12 schools. Perhaps most notably, at least in part spurred by the Obama administration's Race to the Top (RTTT) Program and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waivers, there is now unprecedented pressure to improve the quality and usefulness of teachers' evaluations. Major elements of the teacher evaluation reforms being implemented include a) the inclusion of student achievement data in evaluations, b) the use of research-based rubrics or observational protocols to rate pedagogical quality, c) the placing of teachers into three or more categories of effectiveness (i.e., rather than satisfactory vs. unsatisfactory), and d) the use of evaluations to inform teacher staffing decisions. High-profile backers, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Michelle Rhee's StudentsFirst, have supported these types of reforms. More than two-thirds of the states have now revamped their teacher evaluation policies, requiring schools and districts to adopt these more comprehensive systems.1 Teacher and teaching policies are changing in other important ways, as well. For instance, there have been widely-publicized battles between public sector teachers unions and Republican governors in several Midwestern states. There have been prominent pushes to change or end teacher tenure rights in other states, or to tie teachers' ongoing employment to performance as measured by the new evaluation systems. During the recent economic downturn, there has been a push to end so-called LIFO (last-in-first-out) policies that protect teachers with more seniority, regardless of quality, when layoffs are required. And finally, there has been a great deal of discussion and concern, perhaps spurred primarily by the forthcoming report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), about the quality of pre-service teacher education programs and their impact on teacher performance. 1 Draft: Please do not cite without permission from the author. At the same time as these important changes to teacher policies have taken place, there have been tremendous changes in the nature of standards and accountability policy in U.S. schools. Arguably the most prominent reform in this area is the development and adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in K-12 English language arts and mathematics. Originally a state-led effort, the Common Core was encouraged by the Obama administration's RTTT and ESEA waivers, and 45 states and the District of Columbia have now adopted the standards to replace their previous state standards in both subjects. The standards call for substantial modifications to the content and form of teachers' instruction,2 and numerous organizations are developing aligned curriculum materials and assessments to the Common Core. Together, these two sets of reforms (the Common Core and teacher policies) are perhaps the most influential policy reforms happening now in U.S. K-12 education. In this chapter, I highlight some of the ways that these two reforms are likely to intersect and influence one another. There are two main goals of this analysis – first, to present both opportunities and challenges for the intersection of the Common Core standards and the new teacher quality policies; and second, to make policy recommendations that should maximize opportunities and minimize challenges when it comes to their intersection. My central premise is that, for the Common Core and teacher policies to be mutually beneficial, classroom teachers must faithfully implement the standards. Given this premise, I reach several conclusions about the necessary elements for effective standards implementation that will complement teacher policy reforms: 1) The Common Core Standards are but one part of a larger standards-based policy system. Thus, policymakers must carefully align all components of these policy systems 2 Draft: Please do not cite without permission from the author. if we are to see the kinds of instructional effects we desire. This means getting serious about the alignment of assessments with standards in a way that we never have before. 2) All beginning teachers need to be effectively prepared to implement curricula aligned with the standards. Given the resistance in the teacher education community to preparing teachers to implement standards in the classroom, this will be a challenge that will require increasing attention and oversight. 3) Teachers must be supported once they are in the classroom to teach aligned curricula. They will need well-designed and effectively delivered professional development and high-quality, aligned curriculum materials. While the Common Core creates tremendous economies of scale, there is little trustworthy information to help judge the quality of both professional development and curriculum materials. Thus, states and districts will need a reliable way to vet instructional materials and ensure that they are aligned to the standards. If each of these items is addressed, there will be an unprecedented opportunity to learn about effective instructional practices for teaching the content in the Common Core. While the Common Core movement may have a net positive influence on the effectiveness of teacher quality reforms, this positive impact may well be diluted or even reversed if policymakers do not carefully attend to the nuances of implementation. The most difficult period for these two policy reforms will be in the next two to three years, when implementation challenges with the Common Core will clash with the rapid intensification of teacher evaluation policies. Because these changes are happening simultaneously, both reforms might be more faithfully applied if there were a moratorium on making high stakes decisions about teachers (e.g., hiring, firing, tenure) until after the Common 3 Draft: Please do not cite without permission from the author. Core and its assessments are fully implemented. (This would also have the beneficial side effect of allowing us to learn more about these policies before using them to make important decisions about individual teachers.) Unfortunately, while both sets of reforms hold some promise for improving the quality of U.S. schools, political challenges arising from poor implementation may derail both policies in the long run. Trends in Teacher Quality Reform Teacher Evaluation Policy Teacher evaluation has long been a pro forma exercise; generally percent or less of teachers have been rated unsatisfactory under traditional teacher evaluation systems.3 Thus, poor performance has gone unaddressed, and strong performance has gone unrewarded. The lack of meaningful evaluation has also meant that teachers have historically received little quality information about their effectiveness as educators, thus inhibiting their ability to improve their instruction. Recognizing these problems, policymakers have turned to teacher evaluation reform. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of states legislating that student performance must be an important criterion in teacher evaluations rose from 4 to 22; the number of states in which annual evaluations were required for all teachers rose from 15 to 24; and the number of states where evidence of teacher effectiveness was the preponderant criterion in teacher tenure decisions rose from 0 to 9.4 These trends will continue as the 34 states approved for ESEA waivers implement their reforms. A central condition for receiving flexibility from No Child Left Behind’s accountability mandates was that states create and adopt teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that take into account student achievement as a measure of teacher performance. States 4 Draft: Please do not cite without permission from the author. responded to the waiver requirements by proposing dozens of new teacher evaluation policies. For instance, states are implementing systems that rate teachers on four point scales (often ineffective to highly effective), require multiple classroom observations each year, and use student achievement as a substantial portion of a teacher’s overall evaluation. While preliminary evidence suggests that inflated ratings continue to be a problem in new systems, there is hope that evaluation will become more meaningful and useful over time.5 Teacher Tenure A second prominent teacher policy reform is the recent push to revamp tenure rules and curtail collective bargaining powers. These reforms are inextricably tied to evaluation reforms; with higher-quality evaluations, it is only logical that we would begin to ask "What should be done with unsatisfactory teachers?" Across a wide array of states, legislatures and governors have changed laws to make it increasingly challenging for teachers to obtain and keep tenure. A total of 34 states have made changes to tenure laws since 2008 (18 in 2011 alone).6 While some states went so far as to end tenure, most states simply made tenure more difficult to obtain by strengthening requirements
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EDUC 1225 Pursuing Teacher Quality; How Policy Shapes Teaching Spring 2020
    EDUC 1225 Pursuing Teacher Quality; How Policy Shapes Teaching Spring 2020 Day and time: Monday and Wednesday, 8:30-9:50 am Location: Salomon Center 203 Instructor: Emily Kalejs Qazilbash Professor of the Practice of Education 164 Angell Street, 2nd floor, Room 236 [email protected] 401-863-6910 Office hours: Monday, 11:00-3:00 Course Description and Objectives Syllabus is subject to change over the course of the semester Course description: Teachers are critical for transforming schools and changing trajectories of students’ lives; our experiences as students and research underscores their importance in changing students’ academic trajectories. We tend to think of teachers as doing their work alone, but they are part of a greater education ecosystem. In this course, we will examine the constraints - those imposed by principals, district policy, and state and federal law - under which teachers work. What can policy makers consider as they work to improve the experience students have in the classroom, especially as we ensure that our most vulnerable students have the most effective teachers? Class activities include discussions, policy analyses, lectures and simulations. Students will complete two memos and one final paper. This class has no prerequisites and no enrollment cap. Course objectives: Students will broaden their understanding of what it means to teach and will deepen their commitment to what it is that they value related to the act of teaching. Specifically, the course has the following goals: 1. Course content goals: a. Students will gain a deep understanding of the role of a teacher and who is currently teaching in K-12 schools in the US with a focus on an analysis of the diversity of the workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher Quality 2.0
    Teacher Quality 2.0 A MERICAN E NTERPRISE I NSTITUTE Special Report 2 The Hangover Thinking about the Unintended Consequences of the Nation’s Teacher Evaluation Binge Sara Mead, Andrew Rotherham, Rachael Brown | September 2012 Special Report 2 Teacher Quality 2.0 Foreword There is incredible interest and energy today in addressing issues of human capital in K–12 education, especially in the way we prepare, evaluate, pay, and manage teachers. States have been developing and implementing systems intended to improve these practices, with a considerable push from foundations and the federal government. As we start to rethink outdated tenure, evaluation, and pay systems, we must take care to respect how uncertain our efforts are and avoid tying our hands in ways that we will regret in the decade ahead. Well-intentioned legislators too readily replace old credential- and paper-based micromanagement with mandates that rely heavily on still-nascent observational evaluations and student outcome measurements that pose as many questions as answers. The flood of new legislative activity is in many respects wel- come, but it does pose a risk that premature solutions and imperfect metrics are being cemented into difficult-to-change statutes. AEI’s Teacher Quality 2.0 series seeks to reinvigorate our now-familiar conversations about teacher quality by looking at today’s reform efforts as constituting initial steps on a long path forward. As we conceptualize it, “Teacher Quality 2.0” starts from the premise that while we’ve made great improve- ments in the past ten years in creating systems and tools that allow us to evaluate, compensate, and deploy educators in smarter ways, we must not let today’s “reform” conventions about hiring, evalua- tion, or pay limit school and system leaders’ ability to adapt more promising staffing and school models.
    [Show full text]
  • Unintended Consequences
    The Case for UNINTENDED Reforming the Staffing Rules in CONSEQUENCES Urban Teachers Union Contracts By Jessica Levin, Jennifer Mulhern, and Joan Schunck © 2005 The New Teacher Project This research was funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. We thank Casey for its support but acknowledge that the findings and conclusions presented in this report are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Foundation. The authors would like to thank The New Teacher Project’s Board of Directors for their invaluable advice on this project. We would also like to thank the following staff from The New Teacher Project for their help with all aspects of this report: Emma Cartwright, Tysza Gandha, Megan Garber, Kaya Henderson, Jasmine Jose, David Keeling, Metta Morton, Laura Nick, Michelle Rhee, Ariela Rozman, Doug Scott, David Sigler, Andrew Sokatch, and Victoria Van Cleef. Finally, we would like to recognize the leadership, central office staff, principals, and teachers of the five studied districts for the time they gave us. TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Foreword 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 CHAPTER ONE: Teacher Transfer and Excess Rules in Urban Contracts: How They Work 12 CHAPTER TWO: The Impact on Urban Schools 31 CHAPTER THREE: Recommendations for Change 40 CONCLUSION 41 APPENDIX A: How the Five Studied Districts Place Voluntary Transfers and Excessed Teachers 42 APPENDIX B: What Happens in Your District: A Primer 45 APPENDIX C: Methodology FOREWORD In our 2003 report Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Classrooms, The New Teacher Project documented how delayed hiring in urban school districts resulted in the loss of significant numbers of new teacher applicants, particu- larly the most qualified, to other districts that hired earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • Venture Philanthropy and Teacher Education Policy in the US: the Role of the New Schools Venture Fund
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282742816 Venture Philanthropy and Teacher Education Policy in the US: The Role of the New Schools Venture Fund Article in Teachers College Record · May 2015 CITATIONS READS 49 1,288 2 authors: Kenneth M. Zeichner César Peña-Sandoval University of Washington Seattle Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso 228 PUBLICATIONS 13,513 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 58 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: SCOPE Case Studies, Stanford University View project Development of socio-cultural competence in preservice secondary teachers: situated learning for a culturally relevant pedagogy. View project All content following this page was uploaded by César Peña-Sandoval on 12 January 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Venture Philanthropy and Teacher Education Policy in the U.S.: The Role of the New Schools Venture Fund KENNETH ZEICHNER University of Washington CÉSAR PEÑA-SANDOVAL University of Washington Background & Purpose: This article focuses on the growing role of venture philanthropy in shaping policy and practice in teacher education in the United States. Our goal is to bring a greater level of transparency to private influences on public policy and to promote greater discussion and debate in the public arena about alternative solutions to current problems. In this article, we focus on the role of one of the most influential private groups in the United States that invests in education, the New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF), in promoting deregu- lation and market-based policies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Smarter Teacher Layoff System
    A SMARTER TEACHER How Quality-Based Layoffs Can Help Schools Keep LAYOFF SYSTEM Great Teachers in Tough March 2010 Economic Times. POLICY BRIEF | March 2010 A Smarter Teacher Layoff System How Quality-Based Layoffs Can Help Schools Keep Great Teachers in Tough Economic Times The current economic downturn has forced school districts across the country to deal with massive budget cuts over the past two years. In some cases, these cuts led districts to make the wrenching decision to lay off teachers. Many other districts averted teacher layoffs only by spending temporary federal stimulus money or by sharply reducing central programs and school support services like food and transportation. If these districts face another round of budget reductions, they will have no choice but to find savings in their personnel costs. Unfortunately, with state government revenues languishing at their lowest levels since the Great Depression, further budget cuts are inevitable for most districts— making teacher layoffs inevitable, too.1 Everyone knows teacher layoffs are harmful to schools and students. But when school districts dust off the decades-old rules that govern the layoff process, they will find that the situation is even worse than they feared. That’s because most collective bargaining agreements and many state laws prevent school districts from considering the quality or effectiveness of each teacher when deciding whom to lay off. Instead, districts have no choice but to implement “quality-blind” layoffs based exclusively on seniority.2 The basic principle is “last hired, first fired;” newer teachers are laid off before more veteran teachers, regardless of how well they do their jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • Gradingthegraders
    GRADINGTHEGRADERS A REPORT ON TEACHER EVALUATION REFORM IN PUBLIC EDUCATION BY THOMAS TOCH MAY 2016 About the Author About FutureEd Thomas Toch is the director of FutureEd is an independent, solution- FutureEd, an independent think tank oriented think tank at Georgetown at Georgetown University’s McCourt University’s McCourt School of School of Public Policy. He can be Public Policy. We are committed to reached at [email protected] and is bringing fresh energy to the causes of on Twitter at @Thomas_toch. excellence, equity, and efficiency in K-12 and higher education on behalf of the nation’s disadvantaged students. You can learn more about our work at www.future-ed.org. GRADING THE GRADERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Grading the Graders 3 The New Evaluation Landscape 7 Impact 11 Challenges 20 Duncan’s Gambit 26 Recommendations 30 Endnotes 35 Bibliography 39 Acknowledgments 3 FutureEd Grading the Graders GRADING THE GRADERS Type “teacher evaluation” into the search engine of the District of Columbia school system’s website and pages of information cascade down the screen: the District’s rating standards, performance categories, technical reports on the role of student test scores in grading teachers, and much more. The same is true of the Tennessee State Department of Education’s site, where the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model— known as TEAM and used to rate the majority of teachers in Tennessee’s public schools—is parsed in great detail. The comprehensiveness of the information hardly Beginning in 2009, policymakers’ stance toward seems surprising, given the centrality of teachers to teacher performance changed dramatically.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Country Background Report
    U.S. Country Background Report Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) Initial Teacher Preparation Study APRIL 2017 Jenny DeMonte American Institutes for Research This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, as an input to the TALIS Initial Teacher Preparation Study. The document was prepared in response to guidelines that the OECD provided to all countries. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Education, the OECD, or its member countries. Further information about the OECD review is available at www.oecd.org/edu/school/talis-initial-teacher-preparation-study.htm. CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 1: CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................3 1.1 Trends and policies that have shaped the U.S. education system, including teacher preparation .........3 1.2 Current context of initial teacher preparation in the United States ....................................................6 1.3 National policies and developments ....................................................................................................8 1.4 State-level
    [Show full text]
  • Exponential Growth, Unexpected Challenges How Teach for America Grew in Scale and Impact
    FEBRUARY 2015 Exponential Growth, Unexpected Challenges How Teach For America Grew in Scale and Impact Sara Mead, Carolyn Chuong, and Caroline Goodson IDEAS | PEOPLE | RESULTS Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 From the “Dark Years” to a Strong Organization: 1990–2000 14 Starting to Grow: 2000–2005 18 Growing Rapidly: 2005–2008 34 Growing Education Reform Movement Creates New Opportunities and Challenges: 2008–2011 55 Adapting to a New Landscape: 2011–Present 62 What Others Can Learn from Teach For America’s Experience 77 Conclusion 92 Endnotes 94 Acknowledgments 95 Executive Summary ver the past 15 years, Teach For America has grown nearly tenfold, from 1,260 corps members and 3,500 alumni in 2000 to 10,500 corps members and 37,000 Oalumni today. This type of growth is incredibly rare in education and in the nonprofit sector more broadly. As more proven “social entrepreneurial” organizations seek to grow to scale, they will face decisions similar to those that Teach For America has faced. Any organization’s growth strategy must reflect the nature of its work, the pool of talent it has access to, and the external political and community context in which it operates, so the choices that Teach For America has made may not be right for other organizations. And Teach For America has made mistakes. But in the process it has learned many lessons that can benefit other scaling organizations. Teach For America’s growth since 2000 has occurred in roughly four phases: • From 2000 to 2005, as Teach For America began to grow, it developed an approach that integrated growth strategy, programming, and development, and was rooted in its Theory of Change.
    [Show full text]
  • Practices from the Portfolio, Volume 1
    PRACTICES FROM THE PORTFOLIO, VOLUME 1 By FSG Social Impact Advisors & NewSchools Venture Fund MARCH 2008 INTRODUCTION NewSchools Venture Fund is pleased to share this first installment in our new Practices from the Portfolio series of publications. As a venture philanthropy firm that invests in education entrepreneurs and supports them as they grow to scale with quality, one of NewSchools’ greatest assets is its ability to connect education entrepreneurs with each other and with other leaders, and to enable them to share ideas and knowledge in order to accelerate the pace of systems change for underserved students in public schools. In our engagements with the entrepreneurial education organizations we support, we have found that these entrepreneurs have much to share with—and much to learn from—one another. For this volume of Practices from the Portfolio, we asked FSG Social Impact Advisors to help us capture, synthesize and share this powerful knowledge residing within the NewSchools portfolio. We identified some of the most effective practices in use by the organizations in our portfolio, many of whom are working to create new systems of public charter schools. With FSG’s help, we documented the details of how these practices were developed and implemented, and collected tools and templates used by these organizations along the way. The result is a set of case studies that we believe will inform practitioners who are looking to improve practice within their own organizations across three areas: human capital, organizational growth, and educational curriculum and quality. Entrepreneurial education organizations consistently find that one of their biggest challenges is to recruit, train, and support the teachers and leaders they need to achieve at high levels.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Teacher Project Project Narrative
    A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design (up to 20 points). (1) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach (i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularly for high-need students, and is a practice, strategy, or program that has not already been widely adopted). Need for the Project: A persistent gap in academic achievement separates poor and minority students from White students. By the end of high school, African American and Hispanic students read and do math at virtually the same level as White eighth graders (Haycock, 2001). This gap betrays the promise of a quality education for all. The obstacles that high-need students face are many, but they are not decisive. Put simply, teachers matter enormously. Several studies have shown that the effectiveness of the teacher – not class size, not curriculum, not facilities – is the single most important school-based factor influencing student achievement (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1996; Sanders & Horn, 2004; Wright, Horn & Sanders, 1997; Gordon, Kane & Staiger, 2006). Within three years, a student who is lucky enough to have three effective teachers consecutively can score as many as 50 percentile points higher than a comparable peer with three ineffective teachers (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Those 50 points can be a life-altering change. Yet research has also shown that schools serving poor and minority students, which struggle with low student achievement and high dropout rates, are far less likely to be staffed with effective teachers. In Tennessee, for example, African American students are nearly twice as likely as White students to be assigned the least effective teachers, and considerably less likely than White students to be assigned the most effective teachers (Sanders & Rivers, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Igniting the Learning Engine
    April 2017 Igniting the Learning Engine How school systems accelerate teacher effectiveness and student growth through Connected Professional Learning Karen Hawley Miles, David Rosenberg, and Genevieve Quist Green Duval County Public Schools | DC Public Schools | Sanger Unified School District | Achievement First 1 Acknowledgements This paper is built on the work of dozens of people, within and outside Education Resource Strategies (ERS). First, we are so grateful to our partners at the school systems we studied for sharing their stories with us and then providing countless hours of feedback on drafts. These include Scott Thompson, Adela Jones, Katie Capella, Paige MacLean, Dacia Toll, Elizabeth Cutrona, Beth Gonzalez, and Rebecca Kockler. Second, we would like to thank the researchers and leaders from peer education reform organizations who read the paper and provided insightful feedback: Judy Wurtzel, Cheryl Borden, Dan Weisberg, Elizabeth Smyth, Edlyn Chellappa-Smith, Barbara Beske, Amy Briggs, Sandra Alberti, Rachel Curtis, and Ben Jensen. The Aspen Institute and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation created venues for engaging with these and other peers, and we are particularly grateful to Ross Wiener and Julie Mikuta, respectively, for their leadership. Moreover, we gratefully acknowledge the many ERS team members who contributed research, editing, and design support: Courtney Hitchcock, Sarah Seyler, Betty Chang, Tara Anderson, Sara Nelson, Taran Raghuram, Melissa Galvez, Allison Daskal Hausman, and Alyssa Fry. Graphic design is by Pat Nieshoff of Nieshoff Design and Annemieke Beemster Leverenz. Finally, this work was only made possible with the support of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, including generous guidance and feedback from Henry Hipps, Felicia Smith, Vivian Mihalakis, Sara Allan, Amy Slamp, Susan Headdon, Olita Terry, Yeri Yun, and above all, Noah Wepman.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Teacher Evaluation Reform
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Consortium for Policy Research in Education CPRE Research Reports (CPRE) 11-2012 The State of Teacher Evaluation Reform Patrick McGuinn Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons Recommended Citation McGuinn, Patrick. (2012). The State of Teacher Evaluation Reform. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/70 This report was published by the Center for American Progress and first appeared on their website at americanprogress.org. View on the CPRE website. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/70 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The State of Teacher Evaluation Reform Abstract As highlighted in recent news reports, many states are struggling to implement their new teacher- evaluation systems and most of the Race to the Top winners have asked to extend their timetables for completing this work. This paper, written by CPRE’s Patrick McGuinn for the Center for American Progress, offers an assessment of how early adopter states’ departments of education have understaken the preparation and implementation of new evaluation systems. It also identifies challenges and lessons that can be used to guide future reform efforts in this area. Disciplines Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Policy
    [Show full text]