TENNESSEE CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH January 11, 2010
PolicyBrief No. 10-01
Evaluating Education Reforms for the Extraordinary Session
Lawmakers address teacher performance evaluations and higher education funding
by Justin Owen, Director of Policy & General Counsel
Governor Phil Bredesen recently Two of the main changes sought by
announced that he will call an Bredesen during the special session relate
extraordinary session of the Tennessee to performance evaluations for K-12
General Assembly pursuant to Article III, teachers and tying higher education
Section 9 of the state Constitution.1 The funding to graduation rates. Because the
special session will run simultaneously debate will likely emphasize these issues,
with the opening of the regular session the following is an analysis thereof.
beginning January 12, and will focus
primarily on making certain reforms to
Tennessee’s education system. The move Teacher Performance Evaluations
is designed to open the state up to
millions of dollars in competitive grants The first major change proposed for the
from the U.S. Department of Education’s special session focuses on the method for
“Race to the Top” program. evaluating the performance of K-12
teachers. Under the plan, student
The governor has requested a special achievement test data would begin to
session because the Department of make up a significant portion of teacher
Education has imposed a January 19 evaluations. As much as fifty percent of a
deadline for the grant application.2 To teacher’s evaluation would be derived
increase the state’s likelihood of receiving from student test scores.3 Additionally,
the funding, the state would need to make both teachers and principals would
certain changes to its education laws. undergo annual evaluations, regardless of
tenure.4
State leaders should not await the
enticement of federal funds before Tennessee is approximately 10 years
reforming Tennessee’s education system. ahead of other states when it comes to the
Unfortunately, the governor has already quality of the data it uses to measure
made the decision to rest key reform school and teacher performance. Enacted
efforts on the “Race to the Top” deadline. in 1992, the Tennessee Value-Added
Nonetheless, since the proposals will be Assessment System (TVAAS) assesses
hurried through the legislature, it is teachers’ effectiveness based on how
important that lawmakers address them much they lift the test scores of students
adequately. Otherwise, rushed changes from year to year, and it does so in a way
could have dismal long-term that takes into account the various
consequences for thousands of children. preexisting differences among students,
P.O. Box 198646 Nashville, Tennessee 37219
p: (615) 383-6431 f: (615) 383-6432 info@tennesseepolicy.org www.tennesseepolicy.org
classrooms, and schools that would the primacy of student achievement gain
otherwise make such comparisons unfair. is to use a variant of a rating methodology
TVAAS is recommended by the U.S. developed by the nonprofit Education
Department of Education and is in use by Consumers Foundation (www.education-
a number of other states including Ohio, consumers.org). It assigns teachers a
Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. letter grade (A-F) that represents their
TVAAS “teacher-effect” average or other
A problem measure of learning gain. Letter grades
denoting their performance on additional
While the governor indicated that he indicators, such as principal or peer
wants TVAAS scores to weigh heavily in ratings, are simply recorded to the right
teacher performance evaluations, the of the “teacher-effect” grade and treated
Tennessee Education Association (TEA) as secondary, tertiary, or lower order
strongly urges that evaluations be based indicators of quality.
on a variety of measures, including
subjective peer and supervisory ratings.5 Teacher ratings might range from a
The effect of their recommendation highest possible score of AAA (“a triple A
would be to dilute the importance of teacher”) to a low rating of FFF. This
student achievement gain in teachers’ method provides for as many indicators
overall evaluations. and letters as desired, but those to the left
are always of a higher priority than those
Contrary to the TEA position, any to the right. For example, if TVAAS,
evaluation system approved by the principal evaluation, and peer review
General Assembly should treat TVAAS were the three successive indicators, a
“teacher-effect” scores as an unrivaled teacher with a C rating in TVAAS, an A
primary indicator of teacher rating from the principal, and a B rating
performance. These scores are objective, from other teachers would have an
unbiased, and best represent the primary overall rating of CAB.
educational aims of parents and
taxpayers. While other qualities and Secondary Indicator
accomplishments may be important,
teachers who fail to lift the achievement
of their students cannot be considered
effective. Other indicators have a rightful C A B
place in teacher assessments, but they
must be treated as secondary to student
achievement gain. Teaching that fails to Primary Indictor Tertiary Indictor
produce learning results is not effective
teaching. This teacher’s rating would be higher
than that of another who had a principal
A solution rating of B or lower and, of course, higher
than all teachers with TVAAS ratings of D
One way to include a variety of or F. It would be lower than that of a
performance indicators while respecting fellow teacher who also earned a C on
2 Evaluating Education Reforms for the Extraordinary Session
Lawmakers address teacher performance evaluations and higher education funding
TVAAS, an A from the principal, and an A the most important of the four indicators.
from peers. Of course, the CAB and CAA This method ensures that the overall
teachers would both rank lower than all ratings of products and services primarily
teachers who earned a B or A in student reflect the indicators that have the
achievement gain even if those teachers greatest bearing on quality.
were rated poorly by their principal and
peers. A comparable rating methodology for
teachers would preserve both the
information about the quality of a
Upper End of Performance Scale teacher’s performance and the priority of
AAA – AFF the various indicators that are included in
BAA – BFF the overall summary. Parents,
CAA – CFF policymakers, and taxpayers are most
DAA – DFF concerned about a teacher’s ability to
FAA – FFF bring about learning, so that component
is recorded to the left and ones of lesser
Lower End of Performance Scale
importance are shown on the right.
This model would bear similarity to that Teacher quality would benefit from the
used by Consumer Reports, a nonprofit use of this method because it
testing magazine, for its various ratings.6 incorporates multiple factors without
Below is a snapshot of ratings of obscuring the critical information about
brokerage firms released by the magazine the teacher’s ability to grow student
in its May 2009 issue.7 achievement. Users could quickly identify
not only a teacher’s overall rating, but
Consumer Reports Brokerage Firm Rankings also the individual components that make
up that rating. Thus, this method would
more accurately and completely delineate
a teacher’s performance level without the
distortions created when the subjective
and incidental are blended with the
objective and essential.
A unique advantage of the recommended
approach is that it would conform to the
U.S. Department of Education’s “Race to
the Top” funding guidelines without
Source: Consumer Reports, May 2009 compromising the central emphasis on
improved student achievement growth
Each brokerage firm was given an overall sought by Tennessee’s policymakers,
score as well as a score for each of four parents, and taxpayers.
indicators: account service, website,
phone service, and personal service. The Emphasizing teacher accountability for
indicators were prioritized from left to growing student achievement is critical to
right, with account service representing improving the state’s educational
3
outcomes. According to the data available Absent independent accountability for
from Tennessee’s teacher preparation student learning outcomes, this funding
report card, the state has over 12,000 mechanism could exacerbate Tennessee’s
teachers who are producing significantly longstanding trend toward inflated
less than one year of achievement growth grades and unmarketable degrees. New
per school year.8 A teacher assessment and less academically challenging courses
methodology based on the above and majors would be encouraged and
recommendations would immediately discriminating grades would become
address this problem by identifying those virtually extinct. As increasing numbers of
teachers whose practices should be students are awarded meaningless
imitated and those who need help. diplomas, the credentials held by every
graduate of a Tennessee public higher
education institution would be devalued.
Higher Education Funding
Budgetary and administrative incentives
Though it is not necessary to address it have encouraged higher education
during the special session, another institutions to dilute learning outcomes
significant change that will arise is the for several decades. Despite the declining
funding mechanism for higher education. preparedness of entering students and
Currently, post-secondary institutions subpar skills of many graduates, the grade
receive most of their funding based on point averages of college graduates have
enrollment rates. Concerned that schools risen steadily since the mid-1960s. Tying
are more focused on enrolling students funding to graduation rates would likely
than graduating them, Bredesen would be a significant step toward a world in
like to reform the funding process, which bachelor’s degrees are worth no
recently asserting that “we’ve got too more than today’s high school diplomas.
many kids who come in and start college In any case, policy changes must be
and don’t finish.”9 Under his proposal, accompanied by stringent standards,
colleges and universities would instead budgetary consequences, and
obtain funding based on their six-year disinterested assessments of institutional
graduation rates. The more students a performance.
school graduated, the more funding they
would receive. Ultimately, because this issue does not
relate to the “Race for the Top” funding
While it seemingly makes sense to tie sought by Governor Bredesen, the
funding to graduation instead of General Assembly should not address
enrollment, such a measure is pregnant higher education funding during the
with the possibility of unintended but special session. The impact that any
adverse consequences. As institutions changes could have on the state’s post-
seek to obtain more funding, they would secondary institutions requires more
be inclined to raise their graduation rates extensive consideration. The best
at all costs. The incentive would be on approach would be to delay the
quantity rather than quality of graduating discussion of higher education reforms
students. until the regular legislative session.
4 Evaluating Education Reforms for the Extraordinary Session
Lawmakers address teacher performance evaluations and higher education funding
Conclusion producing a bill on that issue as well.
Solving the issue with diligence would
As lawmakers grapple with reforming benefit the state much more than a
teacher performance evaluations and temporary fix designed to receive one-
tenure, as well as restructuring the higher time federal money.
education funding mechanism, they
should strongly consider the long-range
impact that their decisions will have on
the entire education system.
Since the governor has decided to pursue
such substantial reform measures in a
very short period of time, the General
Assembly must approach these situations
with due diligence and caution. Centering
teacher evaluations on student
performance data and providing checks
against the dilution of college degrees
that could result from tying higher
education funding to graduation rates are
1 “Bredesen Announces Plan for Special Session on
both critical decisions.
Education,” TN.gov Newsroom, Dec. 15, 2009,
The General Assembly should also take (accessed Dec. 17, 2009).
into account the fact that the “Race to the 2 Ibid.
Top” money, if received at all, will be 3 Kelli Gauthier and Andy Sher, “Bredesen’s
nonrecurring. Lawmakers should special-session timetable prompts lawmaker
absolutely avoid incurring a future concern,” Chattanooga Times-Free Press, Dec. 17,
2009.
funding liability once that money 4 Ibid.
disappears. Thus, both prudence and 5 Ibid.
fiscal responsibility are paramount in 6 “Our Mission.” Consumers Union.
considering whether to pursue the “Race (accessed Jan. 4,
2010).
Department of Education. 7 “Brokerage service Ratings.” Consumer Reports
Magazine. May 2009.
Finally, the General Assembly should 8 “Report Card on TN Schools,” Tennessee
postpone any discussions of higher Department of Education, (accessed Jan.
7, 2009).
session. Likewise, if they are unable to 9 Richard Locker, “Bredesen’s education plan to
reach a solid, well-structured solution to focus on college graduation rates,” The
teacher performance reform, lawmakers Commercial Appeal, Nov. 16, 2009.
should end the special session without
5
About the Author
Justin Owen is the Director of Policy & General Counsel at the Tennessee Center for Policy
Research. He can be reached at justin@tennesseepolicy.org.
About the Tennessee Center for Policy Research
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan
research organization dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public
leaders with expert empirical research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy
issues in Tennessee.
The Center generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the innovation of
private enterprises, the ingenuity of individuals and the abilities of active communities to
achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.
Guarantee of Quality Scholarship
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is committed to delivering the highest quality and
most reliable research on Tennessee policy issues. The Center guarantees that all original
factual data are true and correct and that information attributed to other sources is
accurately represented. The Center encourages rigorous critique of its research. If an error
ever exists in the accuracy of any material fact or reference to an independent source, please
bring the mistake to the Center’s attention with supporting evidence. The Center will respond
in writing and correct the mistake in an errata sheet accompanying all subsequent
distribution of the publication, which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this
guarantee.
Copyright © 2010 by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Nashville, Tennessee
P.O. Box 198646 · Nashville, Tennessee 37219 · (615) 383-6431 · Fax: (615) 383-6432
info@tennesseepolicy.org · www.tennesseepolicy.org
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is properly cited.
6 Evaluating Education Reforms for the Extraordinary Session
Lawmakers address teacher performance evaluations and higher education funding