Sample Teacher Evaluation Plan Example of distribution of measurements for summative

teacher evaluations under the proposed recommendations.

50-67%: Teacher

Evaluation Rubric

Subjective and

observational measures.

Based on 3 domains:

1. purposeful planning

2. effective instruction

3. teacher leadership

33-50%: Objective Measures

IGM: Individual Growth Model* (ISTEP) (must

weigh more than any other objective measure)

SWL: School-wide Learning* (at least 5%)

SLO: Student Learning Objectives

TLO: Targeted Learning Objectives

Student Portfolio Assessments

End-of-Course Exams (local- or teacher-created)

* required by rule

SAMPLES:

School A:

65% TER

20% IGM

10% SLO

5% SWL

School B:

50% TER

30% IGM

15% SLO

5% SWL

Teacher Evaluation

Indiana law requires teacher evaluation plans to include

multiple measures to assess teacher performance.

Corporations locally determine which multiple measures are

included AND at what percentage of inclusion. At a minimum,

evaluation plans must include at least 50% of the total evaluation

for multiple observations of teacher practice (determined by the

Teacher Evaluation Rubrics or TER) and “objective measures of

student performance.” Additionally, grade levels and content areas

with individual growth model data (IGM) must include IGM as one objective measure.

Some recent reports have incorrectly stated that TNTP’s recommendations would require 33%-50% of

evaluations to be comprised solely of ISTEP+ results. Corporations may locally determine the exact weight of

ISTEP+ scores as an “objective measure” of the overall summative teacher evaluation.

What is “Significantly Inform?” Indiana law requires objective measures of student performance to “significantly

inform” a teacher’s evaluation rating, but there is no definition of “significantly inform.” TNTP recommends defining

“significantly inform” to include specific ranges, not specific numbers. These ranges would increase the consistency

and comparability of evaluation plans across the state while ensuring corporations retain local control in determin-

ing the exact percentage that objective measures would “significantly inform” their local teacher evaluations.

The 33-50% recommendation for “objective measures” is simply a set of guardrails for local decision makers.

- According to the DOE, the majority of Indiana schools already use 33-50% of objective measures for summative

teacher evaluations. The impact on school corporations would be minimal. For many school corporations,

adopting this definition of “significantly inform” would not affect their current practices and policies.

- Each school corporation would have the flexibility to determine the specific percentage within these ranges

that is best for its schools, educators and students. Because objective measures are to be based on more than

just high stakes testing assessments (e.g. ISTEP+), school corporations will also have the flexibility to determine

what additional metrics and assessments should be used to make up the objective measures portion of the local

evaluation rating.

The IDOE claims there is no correlation between the weight of objective measures, ISTEP+ results and teacher

performance. How does this support or refute TNTP’s recommendations?

- The IDOE’s analysis answers the wrong question and lacks the necessary data to test the MET study’s

conclusions. The IDOE’s analysis suggests that the weight of objective measures have an impact on student

learning – NOT an impact on the accuracy of a teacher’s evaluation, which is what the MET study concluded.

Even if the IDOE’s analysis were adjusted to look at accuracy, the data set provided with the SBOE meeting

materials lacks a valid student growth variable, which would be needed to test the MET study’s conclusions.

What is the MET Study? The MET study demonstrates that when objective measures are weighted

appropriately (33-50%) in a teacher’s evaluation, teacher evaluations with this measure can more

accurately predict (not cause) an individual teacher’s impact on student gains in the future. Ultimately,

this weighting of objective measures would result in closer alignment between student growth and

individual teacher performance – or more accurate teacher evaluation ratings.

Additional Questions? Check out the TNTP memo found at ww.in.gov/sboe/2607.htm and reference

page 14, which outlines the recommended ranges for “significantly inform” and the variety of objective

measures that weigh into that range.

DID YOU KNOW