teacher tracking


The above graphic is taken from the 9.10.15 Federal Register.  It is entitled Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Evaluation of Data Driven Instruction Professional Development for Teachers

Note these sentences: We plan to collect student records and teacher-assignment data from participating districts and schools…the evaluation’s main objectives are to understand how DDI (data driven instruction) is implemented and to rigorously estimate the impact of a comprehensive DDI program on student achievement and teacher and principal practices.

Could student achievement and teacher and principal practices include the student data used in teacher evaluations?  Below is a webcast from a Missouri school administrator telling teachers how their evaluations will be tied to student test scores beginning in 2016-17 and data is currently being gathered on students.  According to this presentation, the reason given for teacher evaluation changes in this district is because of state and federal mandates.


Francis Howell School District (MO) released a video on May 15, 2015 about the changes teacher evaluations being instituted in the district:





Hello my name is Dr. Steve Griggs and I’m the Chief Human Resources Officer here at Francis Howell.  The purpose of the presentation is to familiarize you with some changes that will be made with the teacher evaluations as was mentioned in a Hot Wire item that was published in April.

Teachers may recall that one of the seven principles of an effective evaluation required as a result of DESE’s No Child Left Behind waiver and discussed with teachers when our new NCE evaluation would be launched is (quote) include measures of growth in student learning as a significant part as the evaluation of professional practice (end quote).

There is no requirement to have measures of growth in student learning as a part of teacher evaluations for 2014-15, but Francis Howell did ask teachers on the summative cycle this year to submit a student data monitoring form so we could practice what the “student data to be monitored” form might look like.

We plan to use what has been learned in 2014-15 to make some changes in 2015-16.  The requirement, by DESE, for 2015-16, is that measures of growth of student learning data must be collected but will not be used as part of a teacher’s summative evaluation.

We have made some modifications in the “student data to be monitored form” and will again use that form next year.  However, every teacher will need to complete this form, not just teachers on the summative cycle.  We are working on a way to make an electronic version of this form in order to (uh) be able to help minimize paper work.

Another requirement for DESE for next year is that state testing data be collected for teachers who teach in tested areas.  There is a section on the “student data to be tested monitored” form where building grade level state testing data will be listed.

In 2016-17 measures of growth in student learning are required to be a part of the summative evaluation.  Administration and FHFA will discuss the changes for 2016-17 that will be needed in order to meet state and federal guidelines.  A group consisting of FHFA leadership, teachers and building administrators, and district administrators will start meeting in the Fall to determine what changes need to be made for 16-17.

As state earlier, the purpose of this presentation has been to familiarize you with some changes that will be in teacher evaluations as was mentioned in a Hot Wire item that was published back in April.  More details and examples will be provided in a short training session that your administrator will present to you at the start of next school year.

One final note before we end this presentation.  You will be receiving an email with a short survey regarding our teacher evaluation process for the 2014-15 school year.  The survey is very brief and will only take a couple of minutes to complete.  We would appreciate your input.  Have a great remainder of the school year and a wonderful summer.



Screenshots from presentation:








Collecting student data to determine teacher effectiveness via teaching to assessments  not created in the disricts is one way the Federal Government tracks not only students, but teachers.  The Federal definition of the term of helping schools to set up structures and processes that enable teacher and other school staff to efficiently carry out data-driven instruction needs to be debated at the legislative level.  According to this Francis Howell administrator, the reason for the teacher evaluation change results from DESE’s mandates which are as a result from signing on to the NCLB waiver ‘granted’ by the USDOEd.

What ‘choice’ do school districts have and who/what do you think are setting up the structures and processes that enable teacher and other school staff to efficiently carry out data-driven instruction?  Would that be the USDOEd?  Are any state legislators concerned about this Federal takeover of teacher evaluation mandates that should be decided by the state and local districts?  Regardless of the help the Federal Government is offering to schools, legislators need to understand that this is not help, it’s mandated data gathering and tracking which is accessed by the USDOEd for USDOEd approved teacher evaluation methods.





Gretchen Logue

Share and Enjoy !

0 0