Introduction
In this blog, I'm comparing teacher evaluation systems from Tucson Unified School District (TUSD), located in my home town, and Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE). I looked at the "value-added" models but they reminded me of an attempt to apply actuarial science to teachers and schools. They also reminded me of systems health insurance companies use to monitor physicians and hospitals, probably because I worked for a health insurance company in the past. Healthcare is full of acronyms too and VAMS sounds like a new healthcare acronym: BPCI, CAD, HFMA, PTCA and TBI to name a few. And there are issues with data measurement, “If VAMs are not meaningfully associated with either the content or quality of instruction, what are they measuring?"I decided to take a look at some less data-driven models. Both TUSD and RIDE's models are easy to understand and implement.
TUSD's Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model
"The model is made up of four components including the Danielson Framework, Academic Growth, the Student Survey, and the Teacher Reflection. Each component factors into a teacher's final score, albeit with different weighting. The Danielson Framework comprises the majority of the score determination by making up 56% of the total score. The Academic Growth makes up 33% of the total score. The Student Survey makes up 10% of the total score and the Teacher Reflection is 1% of the total score."
This year, Academic Growth will be calculated using scores from pre-post assessment tests which contain multiple choice questions plus written answers.
Student Surveys are based on the Tripod Study from Harvard University and will, "measure seven classroom climate constructs including: Care, Challenge, Control, Clarify, Captivate, Confer, and Consolidate. Each survey has a different number of total questions."
Finally, "the Teacher Self Reflection is completed by the teacher and is scored either 1 or zero depending on whether it was completed or not."
RIDE's Teacher Evaluation and Support System
"The Rhode Island Model relies on multiple measures to paint a fair, accurate, and comprehensive picture of teacher performance. All teachers will be evaluated on four measures:
1. Professional Practice: Classroom Environment - This measure represents Domain 2 of the Teacher Professional Practice Rubric, which includes four components.
2. Professional Practice: Instruction - This measure represents Domain 3 of the Teacher Professional Practice Rubric, which includes four components.
3. Professional Responsibilities - The Professional Responsibilities Rubric includes four domains: School Responsibilities and Communication, Professional Growth, and Planning. The ratings of these four domains combine to create one measure of Professional Responsibilities.
4. Student Learning - This measure assesses the teacher's impact on student learning through the use of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) and/or Student Outcome Objectives (SOOs), and the Rhode Island Growth Model (RIGM), when applicable.
Evidence from each of the four criteria will be combined to produce a Final Effectiveness Rating of Highly Effective, Effective, Developing or Ineffective"
RIDE teachers additionally receive three evaluation conferences a year, three classroom observations a year and it's Professional Practice Rubric features the Danielson Framework embedded within it. The model also includes a Professional Growth Goal which may be adjusted mid-year. RIDE also has a Performance Improvement Plan for teachers who need support. 
Summary
I found elements in both models which were to my liking. Both models feature the Danielson Framework which describes a teacher's responsibilities towards his or her students. It operates as a professional set of standards. Other professions have similar standards and members are judged according to them. I'd prefer to be judged according to the Danielson Framework. 
TUSD's pre-post student assessment tests are good because they let teachers know how students view their teaching methods. I'd like to know the effects of my teaching methods directly from my students. Although only worth one point, the teacher self-reflection is important because it requires teachers to think carefully about their work. Perhaps it could be completed after reviewing the pre-post assessment tests.
RIDE includes professional growth and school responsibilities and communication in it's model. I believe that a professional growth goal is critical because it allows teachers to work towards continuous improvement. And there should be a rating for school responsibilities and communication.
To conclude, my summary of top picks for judging are: the Danielson Framework, pre-post assessment tests, teacher self-reflection, professional growth goal and school responsibilities and communication. I'd prefer to be judged by some of these measurements.
Resources
Walker, T. (2014, May 30). New Study Strikes Latest Blow Against 'Value-Added" Teacher Evaluation. Retrieved from: http://neatoday.org/2014/05/30/new-study-strikes-latest-blow-against-value-added-teacher-evaluation-2/.
Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model 2015-16. Retrieved from: http://www.tusd1.org/contents/govboard/packet07-14-15/7-14-15-BAI20-TeacherEvaluationScaling2015.pdf.
Rhode Island Model Evaluation and Support System Teacher Edition IV. Retrieved from: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Teachers-and-Administrators-Excellent-Educators/Educator-Evaluation/Guidebooks-Form.
Danielson 2014-2015 Rubric Adapted to New York Department of Education Framework for Teaching Components. Retrieved from: http://www.cfn107.org/uploads/6/1/9/2/6192492/danielson_2014-2015_rubric.pdf
