Cited by 103Teacher Education and AssessmentsEducational Assessment and ImprovementSchool Choice and Performance

State and Local Efforts to Investigate the Validity and Reliability of Scores from Teacher Evaluation Systems

Herlihy, Corinne, Karger, Ezra, Pollard, Cynthia, Hill, Heather C., Kraft, Matthew A., Williams, Megan, Howard, Sarah·2014·Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

Abstract

Context In the past two years, states have implemented sweeping reforms to their teacher evaluation systems in response to Race to the Top legislation and, more recently, NCLB waivers. With these new systems, policymakers hope to make teacher evaluation both more rigorous and more grounded in specific job performance domains such as teaching quality and contributions to student outcomes. Attaching high stakes to teacher scores has prompted an increased focus on the reliability and validity of these scores. Teachers unions have expressed strong concerns about the reliability and validity of using student achievement data to evaluate teachers and the potential for subjective ratings by classroom observers to be biased. The legislation enacted by many states also requires scores derived from teacher observations and the overall systems of teacher evaluation to be valid and reliable. Focus of the Study In this paper, we explore how state education officials and their district and local partners plan to implement and evaluate their teacher evaluation systems, focusing in particular on states’ efforts to investigate the reliability and validity of scores emerging from the observational component of these systems. Research Design Through document analysis and interviews with state education officials, we explore several issues that arise in observational systems, including the overall generalizability of teacher scores; the training, certification, and reliability of observers; and…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016146811411600108

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herlihy, C., Karger, E., Pollard, C., Hill, H. C., Kraft, M. A., Williams, M., & Howard, S.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Published
2014-01
Volume
116
Issue
1
Pages
1-28
ISSN
  • 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 0161-4681
  • 1467-9620
OpenAlex
W1017076799
Cited by
103
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
65.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
teacher evaluation system, scoring reliability, score validity, classroom observation, high-stakes testing, Race to the Top, state education policy, multiple raters, teachers' unions, student performance data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review