STATE OF EDUCATION IN TENNESSEE: 2012-2013 – Section I: Year in Review
STATE OF EDUCATION IN TENNESSEE: 2012-2013 – Section I: Year in Review
Changes to Tennessee’s Educator Evaluation System
Old Educator Evaluation System
New Educator Evaluation System
Evaluation was based on classroom observations,
teacher self-reflection, and a review of teachers’ professional growth
Evaluation is based on multiple measures, including
classroom observations, student achievement data,
and student growth data
Teachers with less than three years of experience
were formally evaluated once a year. Teachers who
had taught for more than three years were formally
evaluated twice over a 10-year period
All teachers receive a formal annual evaluation
Four ratings:
Five ratings:
Unsatisfactory
1 – Significantly below expectations
Level A – Developing
2 – Below expectations
Level B – Proficient
3 – Meets expectations
Level C – Advanced
4 – Above expectations
5 – Significantly above expectations
Evaluators were required to provide teachers feedback after each observation cycle, which ranged from
three times a year to four times in a decade
All teachers receive timely feedback from observations throughout the year
Evaluations were not required to be used to inform
personnel decisions
Evaluations are used to inform human capital decisions, including professional development, assignment, promotion, tenure, and compensation
To aid in the implementation of the
new evaluation system, Governor
Bill Haslam asked SCORE to conduct
an independent process to gather
feedback on the evaluation from
educators and community members
to inform potential improvements.
In June 2012, SCORE released
Supporting Effective Teaching in
Tennessee, which catalogues the
feedback of more than 27,000 inputs
and provides recommendations to
improve the system.
SCORE’s recommendations included
ensuring that current and prospective teachers and leaders receive
sufficient training in the evaluation system, linking feedback that
teachers receive with high-quality,
23
collaborative, and individualized
professional learning opportunities,
addressing challenges with current
quantitative and qualitative measures of teacher effectiveness, and
supporting school and district lead-
ers in becoming strong instructional
leaders capable of assessing and
developing effective teaching.
The Tennessee Department of Education also conducted an internal
review of the evaluation system to
look at the system’s contribution
to improving student achievement
and identify barriers that might be
inhibiting growth. The Department’s
findings suggest that there are
inconsistencies across a number of
areas. For instance, although most
schools and districts made significant academic progress in 2011-12,
performance among districts varied
greatly. In addition, the majority of
teachers exceeded expectations in
advancing student achievement,
while one in six fell significantly
short of these expectations. Finally,
despite significant time devoted to
evaluation training, administrators
systematically failed to identify the
lowest performing teachers.
school-wide growth scores based on
subsets of student data are available.
To support all districts in providing
teachers with effective professional
learning opportunities aligned wi