Abstract
The United States is in an era of high-stakes evaluation of educators (i.e., teachers and principals), the results of which are used to inform human capital decision making (i.e., recruitment, hiring, retention, and dismissal), which in turn impacts school capacity and student learning. The present article describes the School System Improvement (SSI) Project, a school-wide educator evaluation initiative that includes 22 high-poverty schools. The primary goal is to present the Year 1 planning for implementation of educator evaluation, highlighting the use of system consultation for planning. The SSI Project team includes researchers in school psychology and special education, school administrators, and teachers. The project aims to implement a multimethod educator evaluation system that generates scores for informing targeted, evidence-based professional development. Project goals are to increase educator competencies that lead to improved student achievement. Finally, directions for training and recommendations for future school reform are presented.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Linda A. Reddy
Linda A. Reddy, PhD, NCSP, is a Professor in the School Psychology Program at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She conducts research in school and classroom assessment and intervention, as well as ADHD-related disorders.
Ryan J. Kettler
Ryan J. Kettler, PhD, NCSP, is an Associate Professor in the School Psychology Program at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. He conducts research in data-based assessment in education, including issues related to universal screening, inclusive assessment, and educator effectiveness.
Alexander Kurz
Alexander Kurz, PhD, BCBA-D, is an Assistant Research Professor in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University and Director of the Arizona Practitioner-Researcher Educational Partnership Office.
Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated institutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this article.