As more and more states take up evaluating educators based on value-added models, (measures which seek to determine what each teacher has added to the educational achievement of each of his or her students), I have to ask myself “why?” This method for evaluating teachers is broken and has not proved an effective way for determining competent teachers and definitely does not determine competent SLPs.
You see, states are often turning to the reading and math tests used for No Child Left Behind accountability. Because those tests are already being administered to many of it’s students, it’s understandable that states are choosing these convenient tests to base teacher evaluations off of. However, these tests were not designed for the use in evaluating teachers or other professionals, making them unfit for this purpose.
In a briefing paper prepared for the National Academy of Education (NAE) and the American Educational Research Association, these authors found three specific problems with evaluating educators using value-added models (VA models)
- VA models of teacher effectiveness are highly unstable. Teachers’ ratings differ substantially from class to class and from year to year, as well as from one test to another. As SLPs, we know the importance of stability in testing (which is why we happily shell out so much money for highly reliable tests such as the CELF, right?)
- Teachers’ VA ratings are significantly affected by differences in the students who are assigned to them, even when models try to control for prior achievement and student demographic variables. In particular, teachers with large numbers of new English learners and others with special needs have been found to show lower gains than the same teachers who are teaching other students. Interesting, right? Since these students typically make up our entire caseload.
- Value-added ratings cannot disentangle the many influences on student progress. These include home, school and student factors (including peer relationships) that influence student learning gains and that matter more than the individual teacher in explaining changes in test scores.
Studies have found that:
- Teachers teaching in grades in which English-language learners (ELLs) are transitioned into mainstreamed classrooms are the least likely to show “added value.”
- Teachers teaching larger numbers of special education students in mainstreamed classrooms are also found to have lower value-added scores, on average.
- Teachers teaching gifted students show little value-added because their students are already near the top of the test score range.
- Ratings change considerably when teachers change grade levels, often from “ineffective” to “effective” and vice versa.
So what does this have to do with SLPs? Because districts are often unaware of current evaluations used for SLPs, they are turning teacher evaluations. And here’s why those evaluations are not appropriate for SLPs:
1. They do not measure what we are trained to work on. How on earth do state reading and math tests determine the progress that Lucy made with her /th/ sound, or Johnny with his receptive language or Austin with his social skills?
2. SLPs are not teachers. Both of my parents are teachers and I have the utmost respect for them (especially today with everything they are being faced with!) However, I did not take a single education course in college and do not have a teaching certificate. Instead, I have a Pupil Services Certificate which allows me to work in a public school. This means SLPs should be evaluated on a different measure, one that takes into consideration the work they do. I really love PACE from ASHA and also helped to create my own for my district HERE.
3. Often, principals or other administrators who have no knowledge of our role or job are being tasked with evaluating SLPs. It would be difficult for me to provide a fair evaluation on a job I knew nothing about.
Evaluating educators is a tough topic and I’m not sure I’ve we’ve found the perfect solution yet. I’d love to hear YOUR thoughts on this topic! How are you currently being evaluated and by whom? Comment below with your opinions on VA models and your own evaluations!
Come as you are. Leave encouraged.
I'd love for you to join my newsletter family so that I can start sending weekly encouragement as well as access to an entire library of free resources like this Student Self-Progress Report Sheet!
Angela Wiggins says
February 1, 2016 at 5:21 pmWe were just talking about SLP evaluations this morning! In our county, we are evaluated on an ancient tool created by the state of Georgia. It is truly outdated!
I just previewed your SLP Administrative Portfolio. I would love to see this Sunday for the SLP Must Have Sale 🙂
Carol says
February 2, 2016 at 12:54 amThe Curriculum Director at our school was assigned to evaluate me and the other SLP and she was told at first that she would be using the OTES (Ohio’s teacher eval tool) for us. We complained and she came up with the “Peterson” to use instead. It’s more of a rubric and was relatively painless. She observed each of us in the fall and said she would another time before school is out. For the 15 years that I’ve been employed by this district, this is the first evaluation I’ve had!
Jennifer Castellari says
February 2, 2016 at 1:38 amOur district is not evaluating slp’s based on student growth because some of our slp’s have a teaching certificate and some don’t. So they must evaluate us equally, without student growth.
Nancy says
August 18, 2018 at 2:02 pmIn my district (IL), all teachers and SLPs who still hold teaching credentials have to have student growth as part of their evaluation. How did you get all SLPs off of student growth? We’re told it’s school code so there’s no way around it.
Kayla says
February 2, 2016 at 12:51 pmLast year was my first year working. I was evaluated as a teacher under the TPGES evaluation system. Last year the therapeutic specialist evaluation forms were still in their pilot year. I made sure to thoroughly explain to my evaluators why those forms were not appropriate for an SLP. Thankfully all of my evaluators were very receptive to what I had to say and I scored well although the teacher evaluation forms as you said have nothing to do with us. We are now evaluated on the OPGES evaluation forms which are tailored towards specialists within the school. SLPs have their own version of the form and I feel that my scoring is much more aligned to what I actually do at this point. This is the form that we are scored on. http://education.ky.gov/teachers/PGES/otherpages/Documents/OPGES%20Framework%20therapeautic%20specialists.pdf
Sonia Hare says
February 5, 2016 at 3:22 pmHi Nicole 🙂
I agree with you & Kayla (who commented above). Our school district also uses the Danielson framework like Kayla’s school in KY, which helps to better align our evaluation as SLPs with what we actually do on a daily basis. In addition, within the framework Charlotte Danielson encourages teachers and professionals to advocate for themselves in the sense of creating a portfolio to show what you do and how you do it (very similar to what you are suggesting Nicole) with respect to the domain areas. My administrators have not made this a mandate however, when I completed mine it helped tremendously, because they come to observe 2-3 times and in no way do those 203 times encompass all that I do and what goes into our jobs. I was able to show “evidence” of my professionalism in all of the domain areas that they evaluate.
It is a great idea to show what you do to complete your job (e.g., scheduling, meetings, data, paperwork, planning, your environmental setting, communication with parents, etc.)-some of my coworkers are not receptive because it takes time and/or they do not feel they should not have to “gloat” about themselves.
I say go for it!!!
Nikki says
February 7, 2016 at 9:49 pmMy school system in TN uses the TEAM model, which has rubrics & observation guidelines specific to SLPs, social workers, school psychs, media specialists, gen ed. teachers, etc. I appreciated when they adopted that model. But it only counted for 50% of our score until this year. The remaining you could choose achievement or growth scores in various subject areas, which are tested in 3-5th in my building. Which meant I as a preschool SLP had 1/2 my score based on 12 teachers in my building in grades & subjects I have nothing to do with. Terrible. I think our district or the state changed it so more of our score comes from our evaluations. I always say I do my job regardless of my eval scores. But it’s ridiculous to have such a poor measurement of our profession though.