This is a great question and gets to the heart of the challenges that we, as teachers, face today. In my district in central Texas, we currently use a system called AIMS web, which is based on the Dieblels program that has been available and widely used for some time. We conduct an initial assessment at the beginning of the year, again in the middle of the year and then a final at the end. For those students who are determined to be in need of specific remediation, we increase the monitoring on a weekly basis. In addition, our district has us conduct periodic benchmarks throughout the year to determine progress and we have a state-wide test at the end of the year called the TAKS test, which is currently in revision and will be called the STARS test. Of course these are in addition to what each individual content teacher, special teacher, dyslexia teacher, speed pathologist and others may provide.

Wow, on the surface it would appear that we provide multiple assessments that should be effective in determining how our students are doing. However, one major problem is that, regardless of the deficiencies identified, the pressure to keep on track with the curriculum and cover all the elements of the curriculum is so strong that many teachers are reluctant to deviate from the district plan for fear of falling behind with the scope and sequence and not giving the students enough content to be successful with the end of the year TAKS test. Even though we see many of our students who simply do not have the prerequisite skills necessary to move on, the pressure to "cover the material" is so strong that well meaning teachers move on in the lesson plan and fail to stop and remediate as necessary. The end of the year test is THE determination of how each teacher has done during the year. We have great data, but we don't use it in a meaningful way. It's just there. And you can guess how many of those students do at the end of the year when they are forced to take a test that they clearly are not ready to take. If we had a system that "graded" the teacher on how much progress the student made from the beginning of the year to the end, based on the students level of functioning, then this could be a more accurate method of evaluation.

An additional concern on evaluations based on student progress is the concern for the "Whole Child". As most of you realize, there are so many variables that directly impact on how individual students progress in school that we, as teachers have little to no control over. If we had the opportunity to help create systems that support all those other parts of a child's life, then our participation in that effort might be a reasonable piece to evaluate.. I understand  there is a program in Harlem called the Harlem Children's Zone (www.hcz.org) that has had major success with a "wrap-around" system that looks at all aspects of a child's life. Take a look at this as it seems like a program that could help the rest of the country if it can be brought to scale.

Any policy that impacts on the evaluation of teachers must include the many variables that effect the outcomes for children. Any reasonable educator would agree that we should be evaluated on the progress of our children. The issue is how to capture the many pieces of the pie so an accurate and fair assessment is obtained that shows how the child has done and provides a roadmap for educators to improve their skills. In addition, this must be done with significant input and support from the teachers. We know what needs to be done---the "system" needs to talk "with us" not "at us".

I would speak to the issue of salary and evaluations but I will save that for another post as that is a dissertation in itself.

I would love to hear how others handle student assessment and the impact on teacher evaluations. Are you similar to Texas or very different? My guess is we are all fairly close on the big issues, just differences in the details. Let me know!

Doug

Hi- Wow!!!  You all bring up such excellent points!  Isn't critical thinking and problem solving where we are supposed to be supporting our students...and aren't we supposed to be teaching to the students and differentiating accordingly?!?  And yet... Curriculum Cops are becoming standard practice...and we are not addressing student learning needs in the process!  I understand the need for accountability and making sure that standards are being covered...but in the methods class I am teaching we just had to add a column to the standard lesson plan they are using and discuss "accommodations and modifications" for students who do not show mastery of the objective...OR those with mastery before the lesson begins.  Differentiating based on formative assessment pre or during a lesson was a foreign concept to these pre-service teachers.  They are being taught to fill their white boards with performance objectives and teach "I do, we do, you do"... and learning at a conceptual level and looking at students three dimensionally is being lost in the process (not to mention all that precious white board space where children used to share their strategies and thinking)! 

I am frustrated when we go so far in protocol and speaking to student achievement that we rob the students of achievement in the process.  I think it is important to get more teacher perspective in the national conversation...it is a complicated issue and experience with teaching and learning is an important piece of this.  Measuring student learning is complicated and sticky, but we do it every day and use that information to inform instruction.  So...I guess I'm curious how we take this practice and add these multiple measures into the process instead of defaulting to using strictly standardized testing because that data is easier to calculate.  In thinking about Catherine's earlier question about how we measure student learning within our classrooms...it sounds like the teachers in this discussion would not use strictly their state standardized test to gauge student learning and inform their planning and instruction.  Hmmmm....