For the right kind of rural district, researchers at George Mason University find that a cost-effective teacher evaluation system improves student math outcomes, and possibly reading outcomes too.
That's the conclusion of an Annenberg working paper authored by Seth Hunter and Katherine Bowser, which suggests that rural districts should strongly consider the Network for Educator Effectiveness (NEE) teacher evaluation system to improve evaluation of their teachers.
NEE is a comprehensive system for educator training and evaluation managed by an independent center at the University of Missouri. It includes a peer observation tool (with training for observers) that a district's school leaders can use, student and teacher survey instruments, and an online portal to record results and connect educators with relevant resources. The researchers only considered NEE's observation component since NEE districts did not use value-added measures (VAMs) or surveys during the study period.
Much of the research exploring the effect of teacher evaluations on student outcomes has concentrated on large urban districts, raising questions about how findings relate to districts with fewer students, teachers, and resources. Focusing on rural districts, the authors find that NEE has the potential to improve math scores while offering rural districts considerable savings compared to developing and overseeing their own evaluation system.
The authors compared rural school districts using NEE to similar districts that use their own custom-built evaluation systems. These districts were similar in terms of prior-year student achievement trends and per-pupil spending trends. The research explored how NEE affected deviations from those trends.
Some teacher evaluation system analyses have found little evidence of impact across the board, but they surfaced bright spots of states and districts seeing positive outcomes (see here & here). Similarly, this study finds that on average, across all types of students, NEE has no effect on student math and reading achievement. But looking at the average doesn't tell the whole story.
This research shows that NEE improves student math outcomes in rural schools under two circumstances: When the school's average student prior-year achievement score is below the state average or when a school's average teacher years of experience falls below the state average. In other words, NEE improved student math results in rural schools where students struggled academically or where there were more inexperienced teachers than the state average.
Reading scores also increased under those same conditions, which may be due to the evaluation system, but the researchers note that they couldn't rule out that the benefit came from chance or some other factor.
As a result, for rural schools with high concentrations of struggling students or less experienced teachers, adopting NEE appears to be a cost-effective approach to improve outcomes for the students who need it the most, in a relatively short time frame. The question remains though, how long will these results hold up?
That's the conclusion of an Annenberg working paper authored by Seth Hunter and Katherine Bowser, which suggests that rural districts should strongly consider the Network for Educator Effectiveness (NEE) teacher evaluation system to improve evaluation of their teachers.
NEE is a comprehensive system for educator training and evaluation managed by an independent center at the University of Missouri. It includes a peer observation tool (with training for observers) that a district's school leaders can use, student and teacher survey instruments, and an online portal to record results and connect educators with relevant resources. The researchers only considered NEE's observation component since NEE districts did not use value-added measures (VAMs) or surveys during the study period.
Much of the research exploring the effect of teacher evaluations on student outcomes has concentrated on large urban districts, raising questions about how findings relate to districts with fewer students, teachers, and resources. Focusing on rural districts, the authors find that NEE has the potential to improve math scores while offering rural districts considerable savings compared to developing and overseeing their own evaluation system.
The authors compared rural school districts using NEE to similar districts that use their own custom-built evaluation systems. These districts were similar in terms of prior-year student achievement trends and per-pupil spending trends. The research explored how NEE affected deviations from those trends.
Some teacher evaluation system analyses have found little evidence of impact across the board, but they surfaced bright spots of states and districts seeing positive outcomes (see here & here). Similarly, this study finds that on average, across all types of students, NEE has no effect on student math and reading achievement. But looking at the average doesn't tell the whole story.
This research shows that NEE improves student math outcomes in rural schools under two circumstances: When the school's average student prior-year achievement score is below the state average or when a school's average teacher years of experience falls below the state average. In other words, NEE improved student math results in rural schools where students struggled academically or where there were more inexperienced teachers than the state average.
- Among rural schools with below-average prior-year student achievement, NEE increased math scores by approximately 2.3 months of learning. These results appeared the year after the NEE teacher evaluation system was administered.
- In schools where the typical teacher had below-average years of experience, math scores improved by 1.3 months of learning. These results took longer to realize—two years after the teacher evaluation process started. Researchers say the two-year delay for results is likely because the schools must impart a great deal of professional knowledge to their staff. Also, the new teacher performance expectations, measures, and increased feedback sessions (compared to feedback they received before NEE) could be overwhelming for teachers.
Reading scores also increased under those same conditions, which may be due to the evaluation system, but the researchers note that they couldn't rule out that the benefit came from chance or some other factor.
What are the policy implications?
NEE's adoption has grown in popularity from six of Missouri's 500+ districts in 2011–12 to 320 districts in Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska, and the $3/student per year fee is lower than what other rural districts paid to build their own systems. In other words, even if the system provides a net-neutral benefit, NEE may still be the best option available to rural districts that are required to conduct teacher evaluations.As a result, for rural schools with high concentrations of struggling students or less experienced teachers, adopting NEE appears to be a cost-effective approach to improve outcomes for the students who need it the most, in a relatively short time frame. The question remains though, how long will these results hold up?