The purpose of this essay is to provide an overview of the challenges of accounting for students with disabilities (SWDs) and English learners (ELs) in the evaluation of mainstream teachers. We focus on the two prominent indicators of teaching quality—classroom observations and value-added scores. We begin by describing each indicator and outlining the specific challenges related to the inclusion of SWDs and ELs in mainstream teacher evaluation. We then suggest recommendations for states and districts to ensure that teacher evaluation systems adequately and fairly account for these students. Finally, we provide researchers with a set of recommendations for improving the evidence base surrounding the validity of teacher evaluation measures with regard to SWDs and ELs.
AbediJ.HofstetterC. H.LordC. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1–28.
2.
AugustD.CarloM.DresslerC.SnowC. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50–57.
3.
BakerE. L.BartonP. E.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH. L.LinnR. L.. . . ShepardL. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluation teachers. Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute.
4.
BellC.GitomerD.McCaffreyD.HamreB.PiantaR.QiY. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17, 62–87.
BlantonL. P.SindelarP. T.CorreaV. I. (2006). Models and measures of beginning teacher quality. Journal of Special Education, 40, 115–127.
7.
BriggsD.DominiqueB. (2011). Due diligence and the evaluation of teachers: A review of the value-added analysis underlying the effectiveness rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District teachers by the Los Angeles Times. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
8.
BriskM.ZisselsbergerM. (2011). “We’ve let them in on the secret”: Using SFL theory to improve the teaching of writing to bilingual learners. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 111–126). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
BrownellM.BishopA.GerstenR.KlingnerJ.PenfieldR.DiminoJ.HaagerD.. . . SindelarP. T. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75, 391–411.
10.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. R.RockoffJ. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 17699.
11.
ChinA.DaysalN. M.ImbermanS. (2011, October). Impact of bilingual education programs on limited English proficient students and their peers: regression discontinuity evidence from Texas. Working paper. Retrieved from http://www.uh.edu/~achin/research/bilingual_ed_texas_oct2011.pdf
12.
DanielsonC. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
EchevarriaJ.VogtM.ShortD. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English-language learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
15.
GlazermanS.LoebS.GoldhaberD.StaigerD.RaudenbushS.WhitehurstG. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
16.
GoldhaberD.HansenM. (2010). Is it just a bad class? Assessing the stability of measured teacher performance. CEDR Working Paper 2010-3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
17.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2002). Inferring program effects for specialized populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities?Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 584–599.
18.
HarrisD. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
HillH. C.BlunkM. L.CharalambousC. Y.LewisJ. M.PhelpsG. C.SleepL.BallD. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430–511.
20.
HillH. C.CharalambousC. Y.KraftM. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41, 56–64.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.AlonzoJ.Braun-MoneganJ.TindalG. (2007). Recommendations for accommodations: Implications of (in)consistency. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 194–206.
23.
KoprivaR. J.EmickJ. E.Hipolito-DelgadoC. P.CameronC. A. (2007). Do proper accommodation assignments make a difference? Examining the impact of improved decision making on scores for English language learners. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 11–20.
24.
McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R.KoretzD.LouisT. A.HamiltonL. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67–101.
25.
McCaffreyD. F.SassT.LockwoodJ. R.MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572–606.
26.
PanequeO.BarbettaP. (2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 171–193.
27.
Pennock-RomanM.RiveraC. (2011). Mean effects of test accommodations for ELLs and non-ELLs: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(3), 10–28.
28.
PerieM.GriggM.DonahueP. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
RothsteinJ. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 175–214.
30.
RussellM.KavanaughM. (2012). Assessing students in the margin: Challenges, strategies, and techniques. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
31.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
SireciS. G.ScarpetiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
33.
ThompsonS. J.MorseA. B.SharpeM.HallS. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessments of students with disabilities. The Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2005/Accommodations_Manual_How_2005.pdf
34.
ThurlowM. L.BremerC.AlbusD. (2011). 2008-09 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report No. 59). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007, April9). Final Rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal Register, 72, 17748–17781.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities?Journal of Special Education, 37, 140–147.
39.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on teacher effectiveness. New York, NY: The New Teacher Project.
40.
ZehlerA. M.FleischmanH. L.HopstockP. J.StephensonT. G.PendzickM. L.SapruS. (2003). Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SpEd-LEP students. Retrieved from www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021195/policy_report.pdf
