Data Systems Needed for Evaluation: Maryland
Teacher and Principal Evaluation Policy
Analysis of Maryland's policies
Teacher of Record: Maryland defines teacher of record as "the teacher(s) most directly responsible for the instruction of the student." According to the state's evaluation guidebook: "Maryland does not have a definition of this designation within statute or regulation.
The [district] must bring judgment to this determination. The Teacher of Record must provide direct instruction to the student for the preponderance of the academic period of interest."
Teacher Roster Verification:Maryland does not have a process in place for teacher roster verification.
Linking Student-Level Data and Teacher Performance:Maryland's Longitudinal Data System must "facilitate and enable the linkage of student data and workforce data." However, it does not appear that the system has the capacity to link student-level data and teacher performance.
Teacher Mobility Data: Maryland does not track teacher mobility data and make it publicly available.
Recommendations for Maryland
Institute a process for teacher roster verification.
Maryland should clearly articulate a process for teacher roster verification. This is of particular importance for using the data system to provide evidence of teacher effectiveness.
Link student-level data to teacher effectiveness.
Maryland should ensure that it has a longitudinal student data system with the capacity to link student-level data to teacher performance, consistent with applicable privacy constraints. This will allow the state to identify whether certain groups of students are being systemically underserved by ineffective teachers.
Track teacher mobility data and make it publicly available.
Maryland should not only track teacher mobility data at both the state and district levels, but it should also make these data publicly available, consistent with applicable privacy constraints. Providing detailed analyses of teacher mobility and attrition will help provide a clearer picture of Maryland's teaching force.
State response to our analysis
Maryland was helpful in providing NCTQ with the facts necessary for this analysis. The state added that the teacher roster verification process is usually tied to teacher/principal evaluations, and Maryland does not calculate at the state level.
Maryland added that while it does not have a definition for "teacher of record," Annotated Code of Maryland 638-7-119 does state that "classroom teacher" means a teacher who is primarily responsible and accountable for the students in that class. The state further noted that it does not have a state process in place for teacher roster verification because the local education agencies calculate teacher effectiveness. The Annotated Code of Maryland 638-7-119 requires the state to have a process in place to facilitate and enable the linkage of student data and teacher data. Starting with the school year 2011-2012, Maryland has collected and reported on class size information by elementary, middle, and high schools.
Updated: December 2017
-
Maryland
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
- Teaching Methods
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Deficiencies
- Adolescent Literacy
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Deficiencies
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
- Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Provisional and Emergency Licensure
- Licensure for Substitute Teachers
- Supporting New Teachers
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded
7E: Data Systems Needed for Evaluation
- Teacher of Record: The state should provide an adequate definition for "teacher of record."
- Teacher Roster Verification: The state should have a process in place for teacher roster verification.
- Linking Student and Teacher Data: The state should link student-level data to teacher performance data, consistent with applicable privacy constraints.
- Tracking Teacher Mobility: The state should track teacher mobility data and ensure that it is publicly available, consistent with applicable privacy constraints.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point for providing an adequate definition for "teacher of record."
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if it has a process in place for teacher roster verification.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if student-level data are linked to teacher performance data, consistent with applicable privacy constraints.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if teacher mobility data are tracked and made publicly available, consistent with applicable privacy constraints.
Research rationale
It is an inefficient use of resources for individual districts to build their own data systems for value-added analyses. States need to take the lead and provide districts with state-level data that can be used not only for the purpose of measuring teacher effectiveness, but also to track teacher mobility across the state.[1] As such, multiple years of data are necessary to enable meaningful determinations of teacher effectiveness and to identify staffing trends.[2]
Teacher effectiveness analysis, including teachers' value-added measures, requires both student and teacher identifiers and the ability to match test records over time.[3] Such data are useful not just for teacher evaluation, but also to measure overall school performance and the performance of teacher preparation programs.[4]
States need to have some advanced elements in place in order to apply data from the state data system fairly and accurately to teacher evaluations[5]. Each state must have a clear definition of "teacher of record" that connects teachers to the students they actually instruct and not just students who may be in a teacher's homeroom or for whom the teacher performs administrative but not instructional duties. There should also be in place a process for roster verification, ideally occurring multiple times a year, to ensure that students and teachers are accurately matched. Systems should also have the ability to connect multiple educators to a single student. While states may establish different business rules for such situations, what is important is that the mechanism exists, in recognition of the many possible permutations of student and teacher assignments.
Additional elements are needed to use data to assess teacher supply and demand. For example, states should include in their data systems means of tracking when teachers leave schools or districts, as well as when they re-enter new ones, and should make these data publicly available. These data can support the state's effort to build a cohesive picture of the state's teacher labor market and workforce needs.
[1] Cowan, J., Goldhaber, D., Hayes, K., & Theobald, R. (2016). Missing elements in the discussion of teacher shortages. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/missing-elements-discussion-teacher-shortages
[2] The Data Quality Campaign tracks the development of states' longitudinal data systems by reporting annually on states' inclusion of 10 elements in their data systems. Among these 10 elements are the three key elements (Elements 1, 3 and 5) that NCTQ has identified as being fundamental to the development of value-added assessment. For more information, see: Data Quality Campaign. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org
[3] There is no shortage of studies using value-added methodologies by researchers including: Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (No. w14607). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14607.pdf?new_window=1; Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-271.; Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175-214.; Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. Retrieved from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Rivkin%2BHanushek%2BKain%202005%20Ecta%2073(2).pdf; Hanushek, E. A. (2010). The difference is great teachers. In K. Weber (Ed.), Waiting for Superman (pp. 81-100). New York, NY: PublicAffairs. Retrieved from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%202010%20Superman.pdf; For information about the differences between accountability models, including the differences between growth models and value-added growth models, see: Goldschmidt, P., Roschewski, P., Choi, K., Auty, W., Hebbler, S., Blank, R., & Williams, A. (2005). Policymakers' guide to growth models for school accountability: How do accountability models differ? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2005/Policymakers_Guide_To_Growth_2005.pdf; For information regarding the methodologies and utility of value-added analysis, see: Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness?: An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education, 6(1), 18-42.; Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Assessing the potential of using value-added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions (Working Paper 31). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001369_assessing_the_potential.pdf; Brown Center on Education Policy. Task Group on Teacher Quality, Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D. D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added (Vol. 201, No. 0). Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/EdOp/Brookings%20Value%20ADDED1117_evaluating_teachers.pdf; Glazerman, S., Goldhaber, D., Loeb, S., Raudenbush, S., Staiger, D. O., Whitehurst, G. J., & Croft, M. (2011). Passing muster: Evaluating teacher evaluation systems. Washington: Brooking Institution, 1-36. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/passing-muster-evaluating-teacher-evaluation-systems/; Harris, D. N. (2009). Teacher value-added: Don't end the search before it starts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(4), 693-699.; Hill, H. C. (2009). Evaluating value-added models: A validity argument approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(4), 700-709.; For information about the limitations of value-added analysis, see: Rothstein, J. (2007). Do value-added models add value? Tracking, fixed effects, and causal inference. Center for Economic Policy Studies, Princeton University. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/159rothstein.pdf; as well as: Ballou, D. (2005). Value-added assessment: Lessons from Tennessee. Value added models in education: Theory and applications, 272-297.; See also: Ballou, D. (2002). Sizing up test scores. Education Next, 2(2). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/sizing-up-test-scores/
[4]For information about the use of student-growth models to report on student-achievement gains at the school level, see: Schochet, P. Z., & Chiang, H. S. (2010). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains (NCEE 2010-4004). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved by http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/pdf/20104004.pdf; as well as: Thompson, T. G., & Barnes, R. E. (2007). Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the promise to our nation's children. The Commission on No Child Left Behind, 13-14. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495292.pdf; See also: Walsh, K. (2007). If wishes were horses. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from: http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/wishes_horses_20080316034426.pdf; National Center on Performance Incentives. (2017). Examining performance incentives in education. Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from www.performanceincentives.org
[5] For information regarding the methodologies and utility of value-added analysis, see: Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education, 6(1), 18-42. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/EDFP_a_00027; Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Assessing the potential of using value-added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions (Working Paper 31). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001369_assessing_the_potential.pdf; Brown Center on Education Policy. Task Group on Teacher Quality, Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D. D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added (Vol. 201, No. 0). Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/EdOp/Brookings%20Value%20ADDED1117_evaluating_teachers.pdf; Glazerman, S., Goldhaber, D., Loeb, S., Raudenbush, S., Staiger, D. O., Whitehurst, G. J., & Croft, M. (2011). Passing muster: Evaluating teacher evaluation systems. Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings,1-36. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/passing-muster-evaluating-teacher-evaluation-systems/; Harris, D. N. (2009). Teacher value-added: Don't end the search before it starts. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(4), 693-699.; Hill, H. C. (2009). Evaluating value-added models: A validity argument approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(4), 700-709.; Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (No. w14607). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14607.pdf?new_window=1; For information about the limitations of value-added analysis, see: Rothstein, J. (2007). Do value-added models add value? Tracking, fixed effects, and causal inference. Center for Economic Policy Studies, Princeton University. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/159rothstein.pdf; as well as: Ballou, D. (2005). Value-added assessment: Lessons from Tennessee. Value added models in education: Theory and applications, 272-297.; See also Ballou, D. (2002). Sizing up test scores. Education Next, 2(2). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/sizing-up-test-scores/