A growing research base suggests that attendance, motivation and other non-cognitive factors are stronger predictors of future success than test scores. One recent study of North Carolina 9th graders showed that some English and Algebra teachers who made only modest contributions to learning gains were still having a positive impact on non-cognitive indicators, such as attendance and suspension rates. If non-cognitive factors are as important as cognitive ones, shouldn't they factor into teacher evaluation and compensation systems?

Baltimore City Public Schools recently waded into the pool of non-cognitive effectiveness by offering cash bonuses to teachers and administrators in schools which decrease their suspension rates-- as long as teachers themselves maintain satisfactory evaluation and attendance ratings.

Beginning to include non-cognitive factors in evaluation and compensation systems is certainly a venture fraught with challenges. Just as first iterations of evaluation systems including test scores led to both individual and systemic instances of gaming, alongside the inherent concerns about fairness, factoring data such as attendance or suspension rates will demand similar attention to design and implementation.

A big question is what measures should be used to assess educators' impact on non-cognitive areas?  And then, how do we measure that impact fairly?

What would you have a district consider if they start grappling with non-cognitive effectiveness? We're all ears.