Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Through Meaningful Evaluation: Can Reform Models Apply to General...

http://tes.sagepub.com/Exceptional Children

Education Division of the Council forEducation: The Journal of the Teacher

Teacher Education and Special

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/20/0888406413489839The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0888406413489839

published online 21 June 2013Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the

Ann Sledge and Barbara L. PazeyApply to General Education and Special Education Teachers?

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Through Meaningful Evaluation: Can Reform Models

- Jul 29, 2013version of this article was published on more recent A

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children

can be found at:Education Division of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the TeacherAdditional services and information for

http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jun 21, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

- Jul 29, 2013Version of Record

at University of Texas Libraries on August 9, 2013tes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://tes.sagepub.com/

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/20/0888406413489839

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/36/3/231

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/36/3/231.full.pdf

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/20/0888406413489839.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Teacher Education and Special EducationXX(X) 1 –16© 2013 Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional ChildrenReprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0888406413489839tese.sagepub.com

Article

Building on America’s history of economic and political dominance and as a response to public opinion, accountability systems have placed enormous pressure on school leaders and educators to meet rising expectations to prepare students who are well equipped to lead the nation in the years to come. Subse-quently, tangible outcomes for all students—including the differences among student populations—are closely analyzed and scruti-nized. Among those populations, students with disabilities and the challenges they face in achieving academic success are well docu-mented (Council for Exceptional Children

[CEC], 2012c; Holdheide, Browder, Warren, Buzick, & Jones, 2012; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009).

Considerable differences have been found between general education students and those students served through special education

489839 TESXXX10.1177/0888406413489839Teacher Education and Special EducationSledge and Pazeyresearch-article2013

1The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Corresponding Author:Barbara L. Pazey, Department of Special Education and Department of Educational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin, George I. Sanchez Building (SZB) 374D, 1912 Speedway Stop D5300, Austin, TX 78712-0374, USA. Email: [email protected]

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Through Meaningful Evaluation: Can Reform Models Apply to General Education and Special Education Teachers?

Ann Sledge1 and Barbara L. Pazey1

AbstractWhile teacher quality is recognized as a critical component in school reform and the pursuit of new teacher evaluation systems has gained national attention, the question of whether proposed teacher assessment models recognize and account for the unique roles and responsibilities of special education teachers has gone largely unnoticed. The purpose of this article is to (a) provide a review of current efforts to reform practices in teacher assessment, (b) describe recommendations for emerging teacher evaluation systems that accurately distinguish between effective and ineffective teachers, and (c) consider the difficulties of implementing these reform measures in the evaluation of teachers who serve students with disabilities. Important consideration is given to understanding the unique roles and responsibilities of the special educator, as well as the use of observation protocols to evaluate instructional practices in the general and special education setting. In addition, this article elucidates the difficulties of incorporating valid measures of student performance as a component of the teacher evaluation process for special education teachers. A summary of recommendations for policy makers serves as the conclusion.

Keywordsteacher evaluation, special education teacher, value-added, school reform, teacher effectiveness, student performance measures



2 Teacher Education and Special Education XX(X)

programs with regard to results on standard-ized test scores, graduation rates, enrollment in post high school studies, and employment rates (McLaughlin, Smith, & Wilkinson, 2012; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Garza, 2006). Despite the implementation of more inclusive practices and greater numbers of students with disabilities being provided access to curriculum that is aligned to grade level standards, the achievement gap contin-ues to persist. According to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the difference between the average reading scores of students in general education and those in special education was 35 points in fourth grade and 36 points in eighth grade. Differences in math scores were even more dramatic, with an achievement gap of 21 points in fourth grade, increasing to 58 points in eighth grade (NCES, 2009).

Central to any educational improvement effort is a focus on teacher quality. Darling-Hammond (2012) described the importance of teacher quality, saying,

Educators know—and research confirms that every aspect of school reform depends for its success on highly skilled teachers and principals, especially when the expectations of schools and the diversity of the student body increase. This may be the most important lesson learned in more than two decades of varied reforms to improve schools. Regardless of the efforts or initiative, teachers tip the scale toward success or failure. (p. 8)

Research does, in fact, confirm that an effective teacher makes a positive impact on student achievement gains, as demonstrated by a number of investigations using value-added models (Brownell, Billingsley, McLes-key, & Sindelar, 2012; Carey, 2004; Hanushek, Rivkin, & Kain, 2005; Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2008; Rivkin, 2007). In addition to positive student outcomes, an effective teacher influences the quality of the learning environment. In their analysis of value-added research and experimental studies that investi-gated the effect of teacher influences, Pianta and Hamre (2009) noted that “teachers play a

major role in determining the value of the classroom environment for student learning and development” (p. 110), further confirm-ing that a teacher’s skill and expertise directly affect the learning environment and student outcomes. Together, these research findings have illuminated the critical importance of constructing an accurate and comprehensive set of characteristics to define an effective teacher and to identify teacher qualities that are linked specifically to positive student out-comes.

This article gives careful consideration to current practice and future challenges relative to the teacher evaluation process. A descrip-tion of initiatives in teacher evaluation and reform efforts designed to effectively distin-guish between effective and ineffective teach-ers is provided. The challenges inherent in implementing a standardized teacher evalua-tion protocol to assess general education and special education teachers are also discussed in-depth. As educational leaders, the call to expand our thinking to develop a more accu-rate and equitable determination of teacher quality and effective instruction for all stu-dents, including those with disabilities, and recommendations for policy makers serves as the conclusion.

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness

Traditionally, differences in teacher quality have gone largely unnoticed. These differ-ences as well as our failure to recognize them, however, were described in great clarity in The Widget Effect (Weisberg, Sexton, Mul-hern, & Keeling, 2009). Based on their research, which included 15,000 teachers in 12 districts of various sizes, Weisberg et al.’s (2009) findings uncovered a telling educa-tional reality—namely that poor performers are ignored and effective teachers go unrecog-nized.

The widget effect derives its name from the authors’ conclusion that school administrators consistently rate teacher performance at the same level, thus judging teachers as equally effective in the classroom. Conceptually,



Sledge and Pazey 3

teachers serve as “widgets” and, as a result, they can be easily interchanged, similar to how one might adjust or improve the mechan-ical parts of a particular system. Despite specified goals to improve teacher practice and an espoused desire to maintain high expectations for teacher performance, com-pliance-driven requirements for teacher eval-uation have contributed to a process overseen by indifference. District and school leaders pay little attention to variations in teacher performance and fail to recognize and sup-port teachers’ individual differences. In effect, the majority of teachers receive posi-tive evaluations with little regard for their varying contributions to student success. In addition, within the context of their district or building-level teacher evaluation system, most administrators fail to provide frequent, specific and rigorous feedback. As a result, teachers are rarely provided the coaching and support needed for professional growth.

Weisberg et al. (2009) recommended the design and implementation of a comprehen-sive performance evaluation system that fairly, accurately, and credibly differentiates teachers based on their effectiveness in pro-moting student achievement. Accordingly, teachers should be evaluated based on their ability to fulfill their core responsibility as professionals—delivering instruction that results in students’ learning. Evaluation sys-tems must delineate clear performance stan-dards, use multiple rating options, adhere to regular monitoring of administrator judg-ments, and obligate appraisers to deliver fre-quent feedback to teachers. Furthermore, teacher evaluation systems must be aligned to performance standards that are linked to dif-ferentiated professional development oppor-tunities (Culbertson, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2012; Mead, Rotherham, & Brown, 2012; National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ], 2012; Weisberg et al., 2009).

Measures of Student Progress

Designing an evaluation system that meets these specifications represents no small task. Traditionally, evaluation measures have relied

almost exclusively on observation protocols and a handful of other measures, such as teacher portfolios, professional goals, and, at times, evaluations of teacher personality traits, professionalism, or contributions to the school (Holdheide, Goe, Croft, & Reschly, 2010; Mead et al., 2012). In the early 2000s, the existence of extensive statewide databases of standardized test results for thousands of students and the accompanying technology led to an increase in the use of value-added measures. These measures are calculated by using prior student performance to predict academic outcomes. A comparison of actual student outcomes to predicted student out-comes is used to determine the value-added score. Based on the belief that value-added measures can objectively differentiate among teachers’ impact on student outcomes, reform-ers began to explore the possibilities and implications of value-added measures of stu-dent growth (Carey, 2004; Glazerman et al., 2010; Mead et al., 2012; Rivkin, 2007). In turn, they suggested that there might be advantages to incorporating these measures into teacher evaluation systems.

The drive to incorporate value-added scores as a measure of teacher effectiveness accelerated greatly as a result of financial incentives provided through Race to the Top (RTT) initiatives and applications (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) which required states to “design and implement rig-orous, transparent, and fair evaluation sys-tems for teachers … that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories and that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor” (p. 34). Like-wise, A Blueprint for Reform (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, 2010) offered grant funds that incentivized states and school districts to implement reforms that would identify top performing teachers “based in significant part on student growth” (p. 1).

Based on a comprehensive review of states’ progress toward implementing new teacher evaluation systems (NCTQ, 2012), 30 states require documented evidence of student learn-ing as a component of teacher assessment. Of those 30 states, 20 require that student




achievement be a significant factor—or the most significant factor—in evaluating teacher performance. The NCTQ recommended that all states adopt teacher evaluation systems in which evidence of student gains is the most significant criterion in determining the teach-er’s performance rating and delineated the databases and systems needed to support the use of student performance measures.

Teacher Effectiveness Models

Teacher evaluation systems have moved into the forefront of educational reform with a lively discussion centered on the question of how to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sought to study this ques-tion by funding the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project, a comprehensive proposal to “establish which teaching prac-tices, skills, and knowledge positively impact student learning” (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010, p. 1). The intent of the project was to consider the full range of responsibilities and contexts in which teach-ers do their work by collecting information from more than 3,000 teachers over a 2-year period.

The research team reviewed multiple data sources on teacher performance: (a) video-based classroom observations, (b) evaluations of teachers’ content knowledge and their abil-ity to recognize student misunderstandings, (c) student achievement data, (d) student sur-vey data, and (e) the teachers’ own percep-tions of the school-based support they receive. They found that a relationship between effec-tive instructional practices and observation rubrics exists when the observation protocols are used with fidelity and are accompanied by careful training and norming procedures. In addition, a combination of measures can increase reliability in identifying effective teachers. For example, linking teacher obser-vation ratings obtained from a series of class-room visits to value-added scores and student perceptions resulted in a more reliable mea-sure of effectiveness than using a single mea-sure. Finally, the research team concluded that

an evaluation system does not reach its true potential unless it is used as a tool to support teachers in their professional growth and development (Bill & Melinda Gates Founda-tion, 2010).

Failure to Consider Special Education Teachers in Design of Teacher Effectiveness ModelsThe Widget Effect (Weisberg et al., 2009) and the MET Project (Bill & Melinda Gates Foun-dation, 2010) have provided insight into the inadequacies of present teacher evaluation systems, as well as the possibilities of imple-menting more comprehensive and meaningful processes to assess teacher quality. Yet, refer-ence to the words special education is glar-ingly absent from their reports. Applications for RTT funds make no distinction between regular and special education teachers. The MET Project’s comprehensive review, which aimed to “provide a new knowledge base for practitioners and policymakers” (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010, p. 4), made no mention whatsoever of teachers who serve students with disabilities. Likewise, the NCTQ (2011) published a detailed report on the progress states are making toward the implementation of performance-based teacher evaluation systems, but made only a brief mention of the challenges related to designing measures of student growth for special educa-tion teachers and others for whom standard-ized achievement data are not available.

Prevailing leadership practice also reflects ambivalence toward the distinctions between the professional roles of general and special education teachers. In 2010, the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality partnered with the CEC to survey state and district-level special education directors with a threefold purpose: (a) to ascertain practices used to evaluate teachers of at-risk student populations, (b) to identify difficulties associ-ated with developing accurate measures of student outcomes for these student groups, and (c) to provide examples of promising practices. Based on the findings of 1,100 com-pleted surveys, the majority of respondents



Sledge and Pazey 5

(71.9%) indicated that their states or districts did not allow the use of a different or modified evaluation system tailored specifically for special education teachers. Yet, half (49.9%) of the survey respondents stated that they did not believe that special education teachers and general education teachers should be evalu-ated with the same system (Holdheide et al., 2010).

In 2009 and again in 2011, the CEC (2012c) met to focus on the issue of teacher evaluation to make recommendations for systems that would evaluate special education teachers. Their report described the nations’ current policy and practice metaphorically, as “a patchwork of approaches” in which “all states and local districts are grappling with how to measure student growth, especially for stu-dents with disabilities” (CEC, 2012c, p. 2). Emerging teacher evaluation methods are marked by a common expectation that teacher effectiveness should be linked with measures of student progress, yet the CEC expressed deep concern regarding the absence of proven methods for using student progress measures to evaluate teachers of students with disabili-ties. In addition, they acknowledged that there is little agreement or research to suggest how to best evaluate these teachers and noted that this issue has gone largely unnoticed by most states and districts involved in developing new assessment systems.

Until now, insufficient attention has been devoted to teacher evaluation systems and the challenge of linking teacher behaviors to aca-demic gains for students with disabilities. In terms of special education and teacher quality, most research has focused on preservice prep-aration, certification, and content knowledge (Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007; Brownell et al., 2009; Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005; Sindelar, Daunic, & Rennells, 2004). To provide an adequate and equitable evaluation system that documents and accounts for the various duties, responsibilities, and functions that special education teachers perform throughout the year, we ask policy makers and state and district-level decision makers to consider the following: (a) How well do cur-rent reform models for measuring teacher

effectiveness account for the responsibilities and challenges faced by special educators? (b) To what extent should new systems for teacher evaluation address the differences between general education teachers and special educa-tion teachers?

The purpose of this article is to consider the challenges related to the design and imple-mentation of teacher evaluation systems for special education teachers. More specifically, to meet the promise of identifying highly effective teachers as well as supporting special education teachers in their effort to improve instructional practice and increase student achievement, we contend that the call for new and innovative teacher evaluation must account for the variation that exists between and among general and special education pro-fessionals. We compare and contrast the roles and responsibilities of special education teach-ers to those of the general education teachers; articulate the advantages and challenges of various approaches used to measure teacher effectiveness, including observation protocols and measures of student progress; and attend to the difficulties of implementing these mea-sures of effectiveness in evaluating special education teachers. Recommendations for teacher evaluation systems for special educa-tion teachers that adhere to the same high stan-dards being proposed for evaluating general education teachers are provided, followed by suggestions for policy makers to consider regarding teacher evaluations.

Applying Measures of Teacher Effectiveness to Regular and Special Education

Teacher roles and responsibilities. The metrics used to develop fair and reliable systems to evaluate teacher effectiveness must be grounded in a clear understanding of the pro-fessional roles and responsibilities teachers are expected to perform within their desig-nated position. How, then, do the roles and responsibilities of the regular education and special education teacher compare? To what extent are these differences reflected in the




teacher evaluation system? To what extent should they be reflected? Responsibilities that special education teachers are typically asked to assume may be similar, yet, at the same time, they are distinctly different from those of general education teachers. For instance, special education teachers must (a) collaborate between general education teach-ers and other special education service pro-viders; (b) engage in regular and ongoing communication with parents, beyond what is expected of general education teachers; (c) develop and oversee the implementation of a student’s individualized education program (IEP); (d) demonstrate knowledge of special education laws and policies; and (e) guide and supervise paraprofessionals.

Another important difference between special education teachers and regular educa-tion teachers is in the variation that exists among teacher preparation programs and the demonstrated knowledge, skills, and disposi-tions that are “necessary to demonstrate posi-tive impact on all P-12 students’ learning” (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2013, p. 5), including the education of students with disabilities (National Academy of Sciences, 2010). Gen-erally, every preservice teacher is expected to graduate with a “deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their disci-pline” (CAEP, 2013, p. 5), with the ability to “use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward the attainment of college and career-readiness standards” (p. 5). Nevertheless, special edu-cation teachers are expected to possess exper-tise in the distinct characteristics of various disability categories as well as the ways in which a particular student’s disability may manifest in different situations. Additional expectations for special education teachers include the acquisition of knowledge and skills relevant to the following: (a) provide individualized instruction for students with disabilities, (b) teach appropriate social skills, (c) manage difficult behaviors, (d) provide personal care, and (e) demonstrate sensitivity to the challenges that students with disabili-ties may face (CEC, 2012a, 2012b).

Despite similarities that may exist in regard to instructional practices of general education and special education teachers, there are times when a differentiated instructional delivery model must be provided to meet the individ-ual needs of students with disabilities. Accord-ing to the CEC (2012c), the degree to which the actual instructional practices differ for special education teachers has received some attention; nevertheless, the widely varying needs of students with disabilities has made it difficult to make generalizations about the specific instructional practices best suited to meet their needs.

In addition to the distinct responsibilities and expertise required of special educators, many take on a variety of roles at the school campus. For example, some teachers work with small groups, others serve as case man-agers, and numerous teachers provide instruc-tion in the general classroom, using a coteach model. In other contexts, they are assigned as content mastery teachers, resource teachers, or self-contained teachers. Many special edu-cation teachers perform more than one role in the same day and the expectation for collabo-ration among regular education and special education teachers continues to increase. Moreover, the implementation of response to intervention models has increased the fre-quency and complexity of the combined efforts of regular and special education teach-ers to meet students’ needs (Simonsen et al., 2010). Implementing an evaluation system that accounts for the vast array of expanding responsibilities and adequately reflects the importance of the various roles and functions special education teachers perform can be especially difficult. This task is further com-plicated by the fact that special education teachers often share responsibilities in provid-ing instruction and coordinating support ser-vices for students with disabilities (Burdette, 2011a, 2011b; Holdheide et al., 2010; Quigney, 2010). With this specific challenge in mind, Blanton, Sindelar, and Correa (2006) summarized these complexities by saying, “[T]he relationship between special education teacher quality and student outcomes is unclear and potentially tenuous” (p. 117).



Sledge and Pazey 7

The Use of Observation Protocols in Teacher Evaluation

Standard observation protocols. In general, observation protocols are the most common approach to teacher evaluations. In a survey of state and local special education directors, Holdheide et al. (2010) found that 94% of local districts included teacher observations as part of the evaluation process. They also noted, however, that observation protocols are often unreliable predictors of teacher quality, as there is variability in how each appraiser interprets the instrument, the instrument may not be aligned to best practices, and the evalu-ator may not implement the evaluation pro-cess and instrument with fidelity. While 85% of the respondents indicated that they used the same observation protocol for all teachers, more than half (56%) reported that they modi-fied the observation protocol to reflect the unique role and specialized skill of the special educator. Only 12% of the respondents had access to a different observation protocol for special education teachers and in most cases, these protocols were applied only to teachers of students with low incidence disabilities. These results suggest that many appraisers believe the standard observation protocols being used to evaluate special education teachers do not provide a true representation of the diverse roles and functions these teach-ers perform. The protocols are not tailored to the instructional setting or learning environ-ment and culture that special education teach-ers help to create; thus, they are not suited to capture the nuances of instructing students with disabilities. When the evaluators modify the protocols, however, the standards from which the evaluation protocols are derived may be applied in an unsystematic and subjec-tive manner—thus, negatively affecting the accuracy of teacher evaluations.

Evaluator knowledge of special education. The accuracy of teacher evaluations depends greatly on the evaluators’ instructional exper-tise, which may vary widely with regard to special education. Regardless of whether the observation protocol provides metrics that are

tailored to represent the specific knowledge and skills of special education teachers, some evaluators lack a knowledge base regarding special education practices and may not pos-sess the instructional expertise needed to accu-rately assess the special education teacher’s performance. It is not unusual for the special education teacher to have greater knowledge than the school administrator about learner characteristics that may be linked to a particu-lar disability as well as evidence-based prac-tices that are recommended for specific students who are receiving services. Such a lack of knowledge may lessen the teacher’s perception of credibility related to the princi-pals’ ability to provide a comprehensive and accurate evaluation of teacher performance. Survey results of state and local special educa-tion directors revealed that only 12% of respondents had received training on how to implement the evaluation system when assess-ing special education teachers. Most (77%) believed that assessors should have training specific to evaluating special education teach-ers; yet, in reality, practices seldom reflect this expectation (Holdheide et al., 2010). Sadly enough, similar concerns have been raised for more than 30 years, including those related to the frequency of principal observations and the absence of meaningful feedback, as well as the principal’s lack of knowledge regarding special education programs and unique student needs (Frudden & Manatt, 1986; Katims & Henderson, 1990; Moya & Gay, 1982; Sweeney & Twedt, 1993).

Importance of classroom observations. Never-theless, classroom observations provide rich detail and description of the teaching process that is inherently interactive and complex. As an evaluation method, the use of classroom observations makes it possible to capture the essence of classroom learning experiences and to provide insight into the nuances of the exchanges between teachers and their stu-dents. The large- and small-scale research projects have concluded that it is possible for classroom observation data to be linked to stu-dent outcomes, when given appropriate con-ditions (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,




2010; Jacob & Lefgren, 2008; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Sindelar, Espin, Smith, & Har-riman, 1990).

After analyzing the results of standard observations carried out in approximately 2,500 classrooms and reviewing related litera-ture, Pianta and Hamre (2009) determined that teaching behaviors can be accurately assessed and analyzed to identify sources of error, can be valid predictors of positive stu-dent outcomes, and can be improved when teachers are provided support and exposure to best practices. These results held consistent across investigators, teachers, and student samples, which varied by grade, socioeco-nomic status, and geographic location. Fur-thermore, Jacob and Lefgren (2008) found convincing evidence that principals were able to recognize good teaching through classroom observation and were able to accurately iden-tify teachers whose students demonstrated the largest and smallest achievement gains. Even though results indicated that principals were less accurate in making distinctions between teachers whose student gains were in the mid-dle of the distribution, the findings were com-pelling enough to recommend that policy makers include principal observations in per-sonnel decisions.

Educators, too, agree on the benefits of using a well-crafted observation protocol. Teachers and administrators reported they were able to develop a common language and shared understanding of effective teaching when quality protocols were used to capture essential teaching behaviors during a series of classroom observations, followed by in-depth teacher conferences. Moreover, they were able to calibrate their expectations to improve practice (Culbertson, 2012; Darling-Ham-mond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Roth-stein, 2012). In summary, research has provided evidence that protocols can be used successfully to identify effective teaching practices, can be linked to student achieve-ment, and can be used to support meaningful dialogue between administrators and teachers. The next section examines the challenges of incorporating measures of student progress in the teacher assessment process.

The Use of Student Performance Measures in Teacher Evaluation

Reform efforts aimed at developing more effective teacher evaluation systems have undergone a shift in perspective, wherein an effective teacher is evaluated not only on inputs (i.e., certification, degrees, and instruc-tional practice) but also upon student outputs (i.e., achievement measures). The most com-mon method recommended for emerging teacher evaluation systems is the value-added model. The proponents of value-added mod-els appreciate the advantage of quantifying student growth rather than student achieve-ment, a distinction that allows for equitable comparisons to be made among teachers regardless of the student populations they serve. In theory, therefore, value-added mod-els serve as an advantage to teachers of at-risk populations as they provide additional data that would be difficult to obtain when relying only on achievement data (Ahearn, 2009; Buzick & Laitusis, 2010).

Criticisms of Value-Added

Despite their purported advantages, value-added measures are not without their critics. Growth models have been slow to gain cred-ibility among practitioners for a number of reasons, including (a) their reliance on stan-dardized test scores, (b) the variability in teacher scores from year to year, (c) the dif-ficulty in understanding the mathematical model, (d) the challenges of applying large-scale measurement to individual teachers and students, and (e) the use of value-added measures for high-stakes decisions (Buzick & Laitusis, 2010; Corcoran, 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; Mead et al., 2012; Quigney, 2010).

Inadequate data collection and calcula-tions. The use of value-added measures has been hampered by the inadequacies of the data collection systems used for making cal-culations. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO, 2012) noted inconsisten-cies in the way that data are gathered, the



Sledge and Pazey 9

quality of the data, methods for analyzing data sets, and the absence of common data definitions and indicators. Rothstein (2010) concluded that value-added calculations fail to adequately distinguish between the short-term and long-term influences of a teacher. In addition, disparities were noted between various value-added models. As such, some value-added measures are calculated using a more robust history of student assessment data. These disparities can influence individ-ual teacher scores so that personnel decisions based on value-added scores may inadver-tently punish effective teachers or reward ineffective teachers. In effect, the use of value-added measures is still in its infancy and there are critical challenges in the imple-mentation of value-added models if they are to be used for teacher evaluation. These shortcomings are further exacerbated when attempts are made to measure the academic progress of students with disabilities using value-added models.

Incomplete data sets. Due to a lack of consis-tent and complete data sets, the ability to cal-culate value-added measures for students with disabilities has been difficult (Ahearn, 2009; Brownell et al., 2012; Buzick & Laitusis, 2010; CEC, 2012c; Corcoran, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2010; Holdheide et al., 2010; Quigney, 2010). Value-added scores are derived by matching standardized scores with student performance from one year to the next. According to district and state special educa-tion directors, only 41% of students identified for special education services participated in standardized testing (Holdheide et al., 2010). Given that students with disabilities may take a different version of the test from year to year or may be exempted from testing during a given year, their test data is often incomplete. Thus, making such a linkage presents a diffi-cult challenge for educators. Value-added sys-tems depend on complete and consistent data. Not all systems account for the inconsisten-cies in the same way, which may affect the accuracy of the value-added score or may pre-clude the possibility of calculating a value-added score for some teachers.

Small sample sizes. Another challenge is related to the sample size needed to create reliable value-added models. In many situations, the total number of students with disabilities does not yield a large enough sample to provide the same kinds of statistical predictions that are made for students without disabilities. The rel-atively small number of students with disabili-ties, especially those with low incidence disabilities, makes the analysis more difficult and less trustworthy. The low number of stu-dent test scores in the database is further decreased as student results are disaggregated by grade level and type of assessment. The unique student assessment systems of each individual state preclude the possibility that states might combine data sets across multiple states. In addition, statisticians have noted that student descriptors often change over time (i.e., disability classifications sometimes change, as does the student’s determination as being eli-gible for special education services and/or placement in general or special education classes). Furthermore, statewide databases do not always clearly identify teachers as special education or general education teachers (Buz-ick & Laitusis, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2010; Hold-heide et al., 2010).

Inaccurate calculations of value-added scores. Value-added scores are based on a projected growth model of student achievement. The mathematical formulas that form the basis for value-added projections, or predicted growth scores, rely on careful analysis of student pop-ulation trends. Students with disabilities typi-cally score lower than the general population of students on standardized assessments. Stat-isticians warn that the value-added scores are more difficult to predict for students who score very high or very low on the distribution of results, leaving unanswered questions about the validity of comparing value-added scores from various points in their distribu-tion. Some researchers have raised the ques-tion of whether a 10-point gain near the middle of the distribution is equal to a 10-point gain at the higher or lower end of the bell curve (Buzick & Laitusis, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2010; Holdheide et al., 2010).




Variations in testing conditions. Another factor to consider is the testing conditions for stu-dents with disabilities. At times, conditions vary depending on the accommodations that each student is allowed. Accommodations vary by student, subject, type, and number, and can vary from year to year. Variations occur because of changes in the students’ IEPs, changes in state policy, limits on avail-able resources, inconsistency in the imple-mentation of accommodations, and changes in the teachers’ ability to select and implement appropriate accommodations (Ahearn, 2009; Buzick & Laitusis, 2010; Holdheide et al., 2010). It is unclear how the changes in accom-modations from year to year may affect stu-dent results and value-added scores.

Alternative assessments for students with severe disabilities. Students who exhibit severe cog-nitive disabilities are usually administered an alternative assessment that is highly individu-alized. Results derived from students who are evaluated using an alternative assessment are not currently included in value-added models. At present, value-added systems do not have the capability to combine scores from various types of test to measure student growth (Ahearn, 2009; Buzick & Laitusis, 2010; Holdheide et al., 2010; Quigney, 2010). With this in mind, Ahearn (2009) explicitly stated the following:

The psychometric barriers to adding students who take an alternative achievement standards assessment to calculations that are designed for large group assessment results are significant and attempts to make them fit into the schema now available under growth models hold little promise for yielding meaningful information about the academic development of these students. (p. 10)

Thus, alternative assessment results are not compatible with value-added models or other measures typically used to assess student progress on a large scale.

Difficulty assigning teachers to student scores. Many students with disabilities receive instruction in the same subject from more than

one teacher. In some cases, this takes place in the same classroom through a coteach model and at other times, a student receives instruc-tion in the same subject from two different teachers during two different class periods, with one teacher being a general education teacher and the other being a special educa-tion teacher. Measuring each teacher’s contri-bution to the student’s academic growth has proven to be a difficult dilemma (Blanton et al., 2006; Brownell et al., 2012; Burdette, 2011a, 2011b; CEC, 2012c; Feng & Sass, 2010; Holdheide et al., 2010; Mead et al., 2012; Quigney, 2010).

Battelle for Kids, a national not-for-profit organization that provides value-added mea-sures for local and state agencies, utilizes a system that links individual teachers with stu-dents by asking teachers who share responsi-bilities for the same student to collaboratively determine a percentage that represents each teacher’s contribution to the student’s learn-ing. The system encourages teachers to esti-mate the percent of time they each spent with the student. They stress that teacher dialogue is fundamental to making the determination and fosters a deeper understanding of their shared responsibilities (Holdheide et al., 2010). Nevertheless, inherent difficulties remain when making these judgments and linking teachers with students. The amount of time each educator spends with a student may be quantified, but measuring the quality indi-cators can be difficult. For example, does the model assume that both educators are contrib-uting the same level of instruction? What fac-tors outside the teacher’s control might affect student learning? These concerns have led some leaders within the field of special educa-tion to conclude that the ability to determine contributions made by individual teachers may be “nearly impossible” (Brownell et al., 2012, p. 274). Others, however, are continu-ing to search for solutions. The CCSSO (2012) recommended that statewide databases develop systems to create unique educator identifiers that link teachers to their students, and include systems for identifying the impact of a teaching team.



Sledge and Pazey 11

Challenges in differentiating teacher impact from campus impact. Separating the effects of school-based decisions, policies, and culture from the individual contribution of the teacher is a troubling aspect of the value-added model (Corcoran, 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; Feng & Sass, 2010; Holdheide et al., 2010; Mathis, 2012). Feng and Sass (2010) drew attention to the impact of nondisabled peers on the academic gains of students with disabilities with this possible scenario: At School A, students with disabilities are rou-tinely assigned to general education classes and receive instruction in a coteach model. At School B, the majority of students with dis-abilities spend a large portion of their day in self-contained classes with few opportunities to learn with their nondisabled peers. Educa-tional research would predict that students who spend more time in inclusive classes will typically outperform their peers who are assigned to self-contained classrooms, and hypothesize that students at School A will be more likely to demonstrate greater student achievement than those at School B. There-fore, through the utilization of a value-added model, the teachers at the two schools would be held to the same measure of accountability when, in fact, they were affected by a decision-making process outside their control. Darling-Hammond et al. (2012) noted similar concerns with regard to factors that influence student achievement that are outside the teacher’s con-trol such as (a) class size, (b) curriculum, (c) student attendance, (d) peer influences, (e) previous teachers, and (f) the type of student assessments used to obtain the scores.

Certification and Teacher Preparation

Recently, policy makers have begun to ques-tion the long-held belief that traditional prepa-ration programs and professional teaching credentials, such as teacher certification and degrees in the field of education are valid markers of teacher quality. After reviewing the student outcomes for more than 10,000 teachers hired in the New York City Depart-ment of Education, Kane and Rockoff (2007)

found no difference in math achievement among students who were assigned to teach-ers that were traditionally certified, those who were certified through an alternative program, and those who were not certified.

On the other hand, current research in the field of special education appears to indicate that traditional teacher preparation, including certification, is linked to teacher effective-ness. In a recent investigation to measure the relationship between teacher preparation and academic gains, Feng and Sass (2010) made use of value-added models to study student achievement data over a 5-year period. Their findings revealed that teachers who completed postbaccalaureate studies were more effective in increasing math achievement for students with disabilities. In addition, they reported that student achievement gains were posi-tively related to the following teacher experi-ences: (a) preservice training, (b) special education course hours, (c) a degree in special education, or (d) certification in special edu-cation. At a time when general education pro-grams are questioning the value of traditional markers of teacher qualifications such as cer-tification and degrees earned, these indicators for special educators may be worthy of con-sideration in the teacher evaluation process.

Expanding Our Thinking

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities is critically important. Ensuring that teachers who serve students with disabili-ties are highly effective serves as a key com-ponent of reform and innovation with the intent to improve academic outcomes for these at-risk students. The unique responsi-bilities and challenges of special education teachers call for a careful review of the prac-tices regarding teacher evaluation. Like poli-cies for general education teachers, evaluations for special education teachers must incorpo-rate multiple measures of teacher effective-ness (Blanton et al., 2006; Brownell et al., 2012; CEC, 2012c; Holdheide et al., 2010). Standards must be valid measures of teacher effectiveness that differentiate teachers’ roles and responsibilities, provide teachers with




meaningful feedback, support teachers in con-tinued professional growth, and balance the need for rigor and practicality. In addition, they must be capable of identifying teachers whose students demonstrate academic gains and do so in a way that is fair and credible.

Several research teams have approached the question of how to best evaluate special educators. Blanton et al. (2006) assessed var-ious methods for evaluating beginning spe-cial education teachers, taking into account three measures of effectiveness: (a) class-room observation protocols; (b) evaluations of teacher competencies, knowledge, and skills; and (c) teachers’ self-reports of their background and experiences (i.e., certifica-tion, years in teaching, etc.). Each of these measures was analyzed in terms of its utility, credibility, comprehensiveness, generality, soundness, and practicality. These research-ers recommended that teacher evaluation sys-tems make use of multiple measures of effectiveness, acknowledging that the useful-ness of a particular model depends on the specific purpose and context in which it is implemented. They also communicated the need to link measures of student progress to teacher quality and to educate policy makers with regard to the complexities of the special education context. Finally, they warned against the temptation to impose standard solutions on distinct problems.

After analyzing extensive survey results from practitioners across the country, Hold-heide et al. (2010) described examples of promising practices and offered a number of suggestions for designing an effective teacher evaluation system for special education teach-ers: (a) begin with a common framework that defines effective teaching and includes differ-entiated criteria, where appropriate, for spe-cial education teachers; (b) include evidence-based practices; (c) make use of standardized assessment data and other evi-dence of student outcomes; and (d) align the evaluation framework to professional devel-opment opportunities that are likely to result in improved practice.

To be meaningful and effective, these broad-based recommendations must be applied to the

task of implementing effective teacher evalua-tion systems for special education teachers. In addition, they must address the need to tailor or modify evaluation protocols—including class-room observation criteria and the method to observe and provide feedback to teachers—and identify how to implement measures of student progress.

Improving Observation Protocols

Several recommendations have been pro-posed for improving the quality and consis-tency of observation protocols for evaluating special education teachers. One recommenda-tion is to replace or modify the observation protocol with a rubric that is explicitly designed with clear expectations and perfor-mance criteria for special education teachers (Holdheide et al., 2010). Another recommen-dation is to provide training for assessors to guide school leaders in developing the exper-tise they need to accurately assess teacher effectiveness and provide meaningful feed-back to teachers of students with disabilities (CEC, 2012c; Holdheide et al., 2010). A third recommendation is that teacher-to-teacher observations be incorporated into the evalua-tion process. For example, some districts are experimenting with models that incorporate peer evaluations whereby master teachers serve as a second appraiser. They observe the teacher and, afterward, collaborate with the school leader to develop the summative eval-uation and design relevant professional devel-opment (Culbertson, 2012; Holdheide et al., 2010; SRI International, 2011). Similarly, a special education administrator might partner with the principal in completing teacher eval-uations (Frudden & Manatt, 1986).

These suggestions have the potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of teacher evaluations, provided that evaluators are given appropriate training and support in using observation protocols. Implementing these recommendations would not be exces-sively complicated and would most likely be perceived by teachers as credible. Moreover, these approaches could strengthen the evalua-tors’ understanding of evidence-based practices



Sledge and Pazey 13

related to special education and lead to mean-ingful professional collaboration.

Incorporating Measures of Student Progress

How can measures of student progress be incor-porated effectively into systems for evaluating special educators? Clearly, student outcomes matter, yet the feasibility of applying the value-added model universally to measure academic gains for students with disabilities remains uncertain, at best. Systems based on growth data rather than achievement data are essential, but they must take into account the unique and individualized nature of the teaching and learn-ing needs of students with disabilities. The value-added model does not appear to be well suited for this purpose and it seems unlikely that a single data source could effectively measure student progress, especially when one considers the wide range of performance levels among students with disabilities.

Several other types of data sets have been offered as possible solutions to the special education data dilemma. Holdheide et al. (2010) highlighted several school districts that use student-learning objectives as a basis for measuring student growth through the use of a criterion-referenced assessment or a cur-riculum-based evaluation. Support for this approach was noted by the survey respon-dents: Sixty percent agreed that achievement gains would be an acceptable component of teacher evaluation. A number of educators (73%) reported that they would support using data related to a student’s progress toward IEP goals as a measure of student outcomes. Another approach to measuring teacher effec-tiveness makes use of professional develop-ment goals, an alternative already being incorporated into many state (56%) and dis-trict (62%) evaluation systems.

These recommendations account for the exceptional context of special education and could be implemented with relative ease. However, they also present several difficul-ties. For example, teachers’ skill in writing and implementing effective IEPs varies greatly and the use of this measure as a means

to evaluate teachers could be subjective and lack sufficient rigor. Likewise, evaluations based on professional goals will be ineffective unless they, too, are sufficiently challenging and are linked to substantial student outcomes.

These shortcomings point to the fact that data used to determine teacher effectiveness must be credible to teachers and hold up to public scrutiny. It is not clear that student IEPs and teacher performance goals would meet the public’s expectation of rigor. Moreover, at present, there is no research base to verify that the successful completion of these perfor-mance goals is linked to significant gains in student achievement.

Policy Recommendations

How, then, do we develop and implement sys-tems that support and identify special educa-tion teachers who are highly effective? How can we be assured that the systems we create are accurate and equitable? The drive to implement more effective processes for dif-ferentiating teacher quality will be incomplete without careful considerations for special education teachers and the students they serve. We suggest that policy makers be guided by these considerations:

1. Continue to pursue the development of observational protocols that are designed or modified to include clear expectations and performance criteria aligned to the delivery of instruction for students with disabilities.

2. Consider innovative ways to include peers and other trained personnel in collaborating with building adminis-trators to coach and evaluate teachers.

3. Engage in dialogue with practitioners to identify data sets that provide evi-dence of academic gains for students with disabilities, studying the ways in which local and state education agen-cies are demonstrating their ability to close the achievement gap for students with disabilities. How is data inform-ing their practice and what can we learn from them?




4. Continue to consider teacher certifica-tion, teacher preparation, and advanced degrees in the area of special education as important components for identify-ing highly qualified educators and sup-port programs that facilitate access to these credentials.

5. Insist that teachers and school-based administrators are involved in the development of teacher evaluation sys-tems for special education teachers so that the complexities of their responsi-bilities are reflected in all components of the teacher evaluation.

6. Recognize that teacher evaluation sys-tems require a considerable invest-ment of resources, not only to develop the assessment instrument and proto-cols but also to train and support eval-uators in their use. Ongoing professional development must be provided to ensure consistency in the application of evaluation criteria and the delivery of effective feedback.

Professional learning opportunities must be relevant, accessible, and aligned to teacher competencies. Policy makers must work with urgency yet recognize that capacity building takes an investment of time and commitment.

We cannot afford to wait. Our students need excellent teachers. The design and implementation of teacher evaluation systems to identify excellent teachers is well under-way. Unless we act now, however, we run the risk that others will design systems that are ill suited to adequately address the unique roles and responsibilities assigned to special educa-tion teachers and, subsequently, overlook the importance of addressing the distinct needs of the students they serve. We must move quickly toward the forefront to advance our concerns and provide a means to create a teacher evalu-ation process that leads toward the meaning-ful and accurate assessment of all teachers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahearn, E. (2009). Growth models and students with disabilities: Report of state interviews. Retrieved from http://www.projectforum.org/docs/GrowthModelsandStudentswithDisabilities-ReportofStateInterviews.pdf

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). MET Project: Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/downloads/met-framing-paper.pdf

Blanton, L. P., Sindelar, P. T., & Correa, V. I. (2006). Models and measures of beginning teacher quality. Journal of Special Education, 40, 115-127.

Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? Journal of Special Education, 41, 158-170.

Brownell, M. T., Billingsley, B. S., McLeskey, J., & Sindelar, P. T. (2012). Teacher quality and effectiveness in an era of accountability: Challenges and solutions in special education? In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (pp. 260-280). New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klinger, J. K., Penfield, R. D., Dimino, J., & Sindelar, P. T. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75, 391-411.

Burdette, P. (2011a, April). Performance-based compensation: Focus on special education teachers. Retrieved from http://projectforum.org/docs/Performance-basedCompensation-FocusOnSpecialEducationTeachers-final.pdf

Burdette, P. (2011b, November). Special education value-added performance evaluation systems: A state-level focus. Retrieved from http://pro-jectforum.org/docs/StateEducatorValue-AddedPerformanceEvaluationSystems-AState-levelFocus.pdf

Buzick, H. M., & Laitusis, C. (2010). Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommen-dations for research. Educational Researcher, 39, 537-544.



Sledge and Pazey 15

Carey, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: Using new information about teacher effectiveness to close the achievement gap. Thinking K-16, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Spring04_0.pdf

Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? Should they be? The use of value-added measures of teacher effec-tiveness in policy and practice (Education Policy for Action Series). New York, NY: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2012a). CEC initial level special educator preparation standards. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/sitecore/shell/Controls/Rich%20Text%20Editor//~/media/Files/Standards/Professional%20Preparation%20Standards/Initial%20Preparation%20Standards%20with%20Elaborations.pdf

Council for Exceptional Children. (2012b). CEC special education specialist advanced prep-aration standards. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Files/Standards/Professional%20Preparation%20Standards/Advanced%20Preparation%20Standards%20with%20Elaborations.pdf

Council for Exceptional Children. (2012c). The coun-cil on exceptional children’s position on special education teacher evaluation. Retrieved from http://sped.org/~/media/Files/Policy/CEC% 20Professional%20Policies%20and%20Positions/Position_on_Special_Education_Teacher_Evaluation_Background.pdf

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP commission on standards and performance reporting: Draft recommendations for the CAEP board. Retrieved from http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/draft_standards3.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming educator preparation and entry into the pro-fession. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/Our%20Responsibility%20Our%20Promise_2012.pdf

Culbertson, J. (2012). Putting the value in teacher evaluation. Kappan, 94(3), 14-18.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. Kappan, 94(3), 8-13.

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.

Feng, L., & Sass, T. R. (2010). What makes special education teachers special? Teacher training

and achievement of students with disabili-ties (Working Paper No. 49). Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/publications.cfm

Frudden, S. J., & Manatt, R. P. (1986). Performance evaluation of special education teachers: Is it different? Planning and Changing, 17, 216-223.

Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/11/17-evaluating-teachers

Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458.

Holdheide, L., Browder, D., Warren, S., Buzick, H., & Jones, N. (2012, January). Summary of using student growth to evaluate educators of students with disabilities: Issues, challenges, and next steps. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://isbe.net/peac/pdf/using_student_growth_summary0112.pdf

Holdheide, L., Goe, L., Croft, A., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Challenges in evaluating special education teachers and English language learner specialists. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on sub-jective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101-136. doi:10.1086/522974

Kane, T., & Rockoff, J. (2007). Photo finish: Certification doesn’t guarantee a winner. Education Next, 7, 60-67.

Kane, T., Rockoff, J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27, 615-631.

Katims, D. S., & Henderson, R. L. (1990). Teacher evaluation in special education. NASSP Bulletin, 74(527), 47-52.

Mathis, W. (2012). Research-based options for education policymaking. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options

McLaughlin, M. J., Smith, A. F., & Wilkinson, T. G. (2012). Challenges for leaders in the not-so-new era of standards. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (pp. 361-376). New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Mead, S., Rotherham, A., & Brown, R. (2012). The hangover: Thinking about the unintended con-sequences of the nation’s teacher evaluation




binge (Special Report 2, Teacher Quality 2.0). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Moya, S. A., & Gay, G. (1982). Evaluation of spe-cial education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5(1), 37-41.

National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882

National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES). (2009). NAEP-2009 reading: Grade 4 national results. Retrieved from http://nationsreport-card.gov/reading_2009/nat_g4.asp?subtab_id=Tab_6&;tab_id=tab1#tabsContainer

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). State of the states: Trends and early lessons on teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/p/publi-cations/docs/nctq_stateOfTheStates.pdf

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2012). What teacher preparation programs teach about K-12 assessment: A review of coursework on K-12 assessment from a sample of teacher preparation programs. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/edschoolreports/assessment/report.jsp

Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71(3), 217-229.

Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improve-ment of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109-119.

Quigney, T. A. (2010). ESEA’s proposed pay-for-performance option: Potential issues regarding the evaluation of special educators. Academic Leadership, 8(4), 1-8. Retrieved from http://contentcat.fhsu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/col-lection/p15732coll4/id/537

Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Value-added analysis and education policy (Brief No. 1). Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/411577.html

Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 175-214.

Simonsen, B., Shaw, S. F., Fagella-Luby, M., Sugai, G., Coyne, M. D., Rhein, B., & Alfano, M. (2010). A school-wide model for service deliv-ery: Redefining special educators as interven-tionists. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 17-23.

Sindelar, P. T., Daunic, A., & Rennells, M. S. (2004). Comparisons of traditionally and alternatively trained teachers. Exceptionality, 12, 209-223.

Sindelar, P. T., Espin, C. A., Smith, M. A., & Harriman, N. E. (1990). A comparison of more and less effective special education teach-ers in elementary-level programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 9-16.

SRI International (2011). The search for teacher effectiveness: A study of exemplary peer review programs. Retrieved from http://poli-cyweb.sri.com/cep/projects/displayProject.jsp?Nick=PARPeer

Sweeney, J., & Twedt, B. (1993). A comparison of regular and special education teachers’ percep-tions of the teacher evaluation process. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7, 43-53.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top application for initial funding. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/application.doc

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elemen-tary and secondary education act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Garza, N. (2006). An overview of find-ings from wave 2 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NCSER 2006-3004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://policyweb.sri.com/cehs/publica-tions/nlts2_report_2006_08.pdf

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national fail-ure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New York, NY: The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://wid-geteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf

Author Biographies

Ann Sledge is the Head of Schools for Student Aca-demic Services in KIPP Houston Public Schools. She previously served as a teacher, principal, school improvement officer, and assistant superintendent in the Houston Independent School District. She is also a doctoral student in the Cooperative Superinten-dency Program at The University of Texas at Austin.

Barbara L. Pazey is an Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at Austin in the Departments of Special Education and Educational Administra-tion. Her research focuses on the training and development of socially just administrators and teachers in general and special education, urban education, the impact of turnaround schools on diverse student populations, 21st century skills, and the empowerment of student voice.



Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Through Meaningful Evaluation: Can Reform Models Apply to General...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Through Meaningful Evaluation: Can Reform Models Apply to General...