FFT-based teacher ratings in Pennsylvania's pilot were overwhelmingly concentrated in the top two performance categories, with less than 0.1 percent rated failing¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-08 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In 2012-2013 pilot data, less than 13 percent of teachers received the top PPR rating (distinguished), almost 85 percent were rated proficient, around 2.6 percent received needs improvement, and less than 0.1 percent were rated failing. → Stephen Lipscomb 2015
Evidence¶
Stephen Lipscomb 2015¶
Stephen Lipscomb, Jeffrey Terziev, Duncan Chaplin. (2015). Measuring Teachers' Effectiveness: A Report from Phase 3 of Pennsylvania's Pilot of the Framework for Teaching. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/measuring-teachers-effectiveness-a-report-from-phase-3-of-pennsylvanias-pilot-of-the-framework
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Analysis of pilot observation data from the 2012-2013 school year covering 6,676 teachers in 269 Pennsylvania districts. The report states "less than 13 percent of teachers received the top rating (distinguished)" and "almost 85 percent were rated in the second highest category (proficient)"; less than 0.1 percent were rated failing and around 2.6 percent needs improvement.
"Based on these pilot data from the 2012–2013 school year, we estimate that, although less than 13 percent of teachers received the top rating (distinguished) for the overall PPR score, almost 85 percent were rated in the second highest category (proficient)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Rating distributions and FFT-VAM relationships were broadly similar across the two pilot phases, though top-two-category ratings decreased somewhat in Pittsburgh — related
- FFT scores showed acceptable-to-good internal consistency, with the overall PPR score more internally consistent than any single domain score — related
- Principal practice ratings varied across the score range in New Jersey's pilot year, but most principals received ratings of effective or highly effective — related
- Performance tasks did little to differentiate teachers, with most receiving high scores and over a third receiving default scores due to missing data — related
- Districts rate ISAT alignment to state learning standards highest among five rated areas, but fewer than half use the top two categories, and month administered and speed of reporting rate lowest — related
- Most school leaders received scores in the top two performance categories on FFL-measured practices — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
fft-pilot-ratings-concentrated-top-two-categories |
title |
FFT-based teacher ratings in Pennsylvania's pilot were overwhelmingly concentrated in the top two performance categories, with less than 0.1 percent rated failing |
description |
FFT-based teacher ratings in Pennsylvania's pilot were overwhelmingly concentrated in the top two performance categories, with less than 0.1 percent rated failing |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
source_checked |
2026-10-08 |
recheck_by |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — stephen-lipscomb-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.