Data From the Changing Evaluation Systems

Interesting reads in the educator evaluation sphere included two that came out today.

In Do Evaluations Penalize Teachers of Needy Students?,  Stephen Sawchuk at EdWeek pulls together data analysis from DC and Pittsburgh and concludes:

                

                There are a few takeaways from all of this: 

• Critics have lambasted "value added" systems based on test scores as favoring teachers of better-performing students. But alternative measures, like observations and surveys, appear to be just as susceptible.
• It's hard to know based on currently available data whether these patterns reflect flawed systems or a maldistribution of talent; in fact, it could be a combination of both—but as Di Carlo writes about D.C., "none of the possible explanations are particularly comforting."
• Could the likelihood of lower scores discourage teachers from wanting to work in schools with more minority students or disadvantaged students? 

At a time when states are to be developing new Title II equity plans (due to USED in April 2015), these takeaways are especially troubling. 

And Bellwether Education Partners released today Teacher Evaluations in an Era of Rapid Change: From "Unsatisfactory" to "Needs Improvement." Of their 5 conclusions, one of concern is the variation among districts within the same state. Here's one example - their graphic for some Florida counties: 

Hillsborough or Manatee are looking like better places to work than Pasco, right? I wonder whether graphs like these will become recruitmet tools.