Abstract
The soundness of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES) depends heavily on evaluators’ uniform interpretation of the qualitative Teacher Performance rubric. This study investigates the relationship between teachers’ district of employment, and the Teacher Performance ratings they receive under OTES. For Ohio districts that implemented OTES in 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, the proportion of various Teacher Performance ratings and Student Growth Measures ratings are examined and compared to statewide proportions, using descriptive data and a log-linear model. Findings speak to the importance of a continued or renewed emphasis on fostering uniform interpretation and implementation of teacher evaluation rubrics and systems.
Highlights
Various stakeholders debate the fundamental purpose of teacher evaluation in K-12 schools
What relationship exists among Teacher Performance Ratings, Student Growth Measures Ratings, and district conducting the evaluation under the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System?
5.1 What relationship exists among Teacher Performance Ratings, Student Growth Measures Ratings, and District Conducting the Evaluation Under the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System?
Summary
Various stakeholders debate the fundamental purpose of teacher evaluation in K-12 schools. States have changed their teacher evaluation systems in various ways in order to increase accountability for individual teachers and for schools, including by: incorporating student achievement data more prominently in the derivation of teacher evaluation ratings, shifting from raw achievement data toward value-added measures, increasing the number of possible ratings classifications, increasing the frequency of evaluations, and attaching more tangible positive and negative consequences to teacher evaluation ratings (Hull, 2013; Doherty & Jacobs, 2015). OTES derives teacher evaluation ratings 50% from qualitative feedback (Teacher Performance ratings, which include the following classifications: Accomplished, Skilled, Developing, Ineffective) and 50% from quantitative achievement data (Student Growth Measures, which originally included only three classifications, and include the following five classifications: Most Effective, Above Average, Average, Approaching Average, Least Effective).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
