DN Editorial: Good teachers: What the research says

Charter schools, vouchers, teacher evaluations - all three are hot- button issues, not only in the realm of education reform, but in the larger national debate. All three are also the subject of bills that may soon pass in Harrisburg.

For example, Gov. Corbett is pushing for vouchers, which would give grants to parents to send their children to private and parochial schools; many others are pushing for a bill that would bring charter schools under state oversight; and Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeffrey Piccola has a bill that would provide for a statewide system of teacher evaluation.

These are complicated and controversial issues, often sparking loud arguments that break along partisan lines. Like so many arguments, they can fester in the absence of deep research that provides a basic understanding of the real issues and what's at stake. Often, much of what passes for research is skewed to support one position or another.

So a new Philadelphia-based research effort that attempts to cull the best legitimate research on education topics is a welcome addition to these debates. Today, the firm Research for Action is launching the Pennsylvania Clearinghouse for Education Research (PACER), and releasing its first brief on teacher evaluations.

Though teacher quality is singled out as the key to a child's academic success, there remains debate about the proper tools for measuring how effective a teacher is. Is it fair to judge teachers solely on student performance?

In Pennsylvania, 99 percent of teachers received a "satisfactory" rating in 2009-2010, and this trend is borne out throughout the country. Obviously, that runs counter to the reality of struggling schools and struggling students. This may be why teacher evaluations is the rare education issue that has supporters on both sides of the aisle - as well as among teacher unions.

The PACER report surveys the larger landscape of evaluations, and culls from rigorous research on the subject from across the country.

But this is accessible research, with the major issues explained in a series of questions and answers.

And while it is absent of recommendations, the brief suggests that a combination of evaluation techniques that includes test scores and classroom observation is worth considering.

(Go to www.philly.com/rfa to see the brief; Research for Action's executive director, Kate Shaw, will be live chatting at that site at noon today.)

PACER plans to release eight to 10 research briefs per year linked to emerging policy issues in Harrisburg. We doubt these reports will lower the volume on the debates, especially over vouchers, but some of those arguments - and some of our laws - will now be informed by facts.