ILASCD April 2022 Journal

Article Why are We Still Doing That?

Using Standardized Test Data for Monitoring Student Growth in Teacher Evaluation Jennie Winters, Ph.D. Since the enactment of the Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA), school districts in Illinois have been challenged by the inclusion of student growth data in their teacher evaluation systems. PERA required districts to evaluate teachers using both professional practice and student growth measures, but Milanowski et al (2015) found that student growth has been the greater challenge of the two components, noting assessment literacy, development of assessments, infrastructure, and data warehouse development as problematic elements.

Part of the difficulty centers around the dual purposes of teacher evaluation: 1) supporting continuous improvement (formative) and 2) rating for employment decisions (summative). Multiple researchers have found that districts struggle to balance these two objectives (Gilles, 2007; Lillejord et al., 2019; Papay, 2012). Although both purposes have been found to influence teaching practices, Malunda et al. (2016) found that formative evaluation led to increases in the quality of teaching practice. Pennington and Mead (2016) recommended 50