Evaluating North Carolina ’ s Race to the Top Initiatives: An Overview

Evaluating North Carolina’s Race to the Top Initiatives: An Overview Collaborative Conference for Student Achievement March 21, 2012 Jeni Corn, Friday Institute, NCSU Trip Stallings, Friday Institute, NCSU

NC Race to the Top Evaluation NC RttT is designed to be a “game changer” A coordinated set of innovative activities and policy reforms designed to collectively improve the performances of students, teachers, leaders, and schools Evaluation contributes to NC RttT“changing the game” in two ways: • Program Evaluation: Provide formative information on the implementation of NC RttT initiatives Inform decisions to improve implementation • Policy Evaluation: Assess – from the perspective of students, teachers, leaders, and schools – the improvements that have occurred as a result of NC RttT initiatives collectively and, to the extent possible, the contributions of specific individual initiatives Inform decisions about sustainability and impacts

Focus of the Evaluation • External evaluation provides objective analysis of the activities described in NC’s RttT grant proposal: • Implementation fidelity • Short-term outcomes • Collective/overall impact • It is notan evaluation of specific teachers, leaders, or schools

NC RttT Evaluation: Team Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation-NC(CERE-NC): SERVE Center, Carolina Institute for Public Policy, and Friday Institute Steering Committee: Gary Henry, Terri Shelton, & Glenn Kleiman Principal Investigator: Gary Henry Management Committee: Trip Stallings, Jessica Anderson, and Julie Marks Team Leaders: Teacher and Leader Effectiveness – Rod Rose Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders – Trip Stallings Professional Development – Jeni Corn Turnaround of LEAs and Schools – Charles Thompson Local-Level Implementation and Spending – Eric Houck Overall Impact – Gary Henry and Julie Marks Other Leadership Roles: LEA Coordinator - Alexa Edwards (aedwards@serve.org; 336 315-7436); State Liaison - Trip Stallings (dtstalli@ncsu.edu; 919 513-8576)

NC Race to the Top Evaluation: Key Milestones in Year 1 Spring 2011: Evaluation designed and staffed, and baseline data collection initiated (e.g. interviews with RttT implementation leaders, Teacher & Principal Survey, local expenditures, field work in schools that have undergone turnaround) Summer 2011: Scopes of work for evaluation of initiatives finalized; Developed, piloted, & trained for instructional observation instruments; ongoing fieldwork Fall 2011: Completed draft reports and initial briefings for: Baseline analysis of School Turnaround, STEM, distribution of teacher quality, and PD, as well as plans for RLA cost-effectiveness; Began analysis of baseline Teacher & Principal Survey Winter 2011-12: Conducted briefings on analysis of teacher value-added models; Finalized drafted reports (http://cerenc.org) and presented to SBE; began Y2 SOW activities

NC RttT Initiatives: Evaluation Organization • Teacher and leader effectiveness Integration of value-added student achievement measures into educator evaluation system • Equitable supply and distribution of teachers and leaders Teach for America, NC Teacher Corps, Regional Leadership Academies, Teacher Induction Program, Virtual Public School, Incentives • Professional development All professional development activities in support of RttT initiatives, including: PD for standards and assessment, IIS, and data use; and PD delivery capacity-building efforts • Turnaround of LEAs and schools Low-achieving LEAs and schools; STEM schools • Local-level implementation and spending on RttT Cloud computing, allocation of RttT funds, cost savings • Overall impact of RttT on students, teachers, and school leaders • Omnibus survey of teachers and principals

1. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Purpose of this Evaluation Project • To ensure quality, consistency, and fairness of new and ongoing teacher and principal evaluation processes through examination of validity and reliability across multiple observational perspectives • To examine educators’ perspectives on new evaluation standards and the effect of these standards on educators’ practices

1. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation Questions • Have valid and reliable measures of student growth been identified for inclusion in the teacher and administrator/principal evaluation process? • Does the revised evaluation process allow for/make meaningful distinctions between teachers’ and administrators’ effective and ineffective performance? • How do educators view the implementation/rollout of the evaluation process? Does the new evaluation process change educators’ attitudes? Does it change educators’ practices? • Do performance incentives for teachers in low-performing schools have positive effects on student and teacher outcomes?

1. Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation Approaches • Data sources: existing scholarship; quantitative data (including longitudinal DPI data and survey data collected from principals, teachers, and students); and qualitative data (including teacher and principal interviews, focus group data, and observations of teachers). • Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders Purpose of this Evaluation Project • To provide both summative and formative information about RttT efforts to increase the overall supply and to ensure the equitable distribution of effective educators statewide Evaluation Strands • Baseline • Regional Leadership Academies • NCTC & TFA Expansion • Strategic Staffing • New Teacher Induction • NCVPS Blended STEM Courses

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders • Overall Evaluation Questions • What is the nature and quality of the experiences provided by each of the initiative programs? • Are students affected by each of these programs better off than students in schools and districts not served by these programs? • Are these initiatives cost-effective and sustainable? • To what extent did the initiatives further the goal of having an effective teacher in every classroom and an effective principal in every school?

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders Evaluation Approaches: Not just . . . .

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders Evaluation Approaches: Also . . .

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery (I)

2. Equitable Supply and Distribution of Teachers and Leaders Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery (II)

3. Professional Development Purpose of this Evaluation Project • To conduct ongoing analysis of the delivery and quality of state- and local-level professional development, with the goal of analyzing the impact of the PDI on local capacity, teacher practices, and student achievement. • We will examine longitudinal education data combined with data collected using a sample of schoolsapproach.

3. Professional Development Major Evaluation Questions

3. Professional Development Evaluation Approaches • Interviews and focus groups • Observations PD, teaching practices, PLCs, local PD Sessions • Research-based review of PD content and delivery, including reviews of the NCDPI Online Repository and eLearning Portal diagnostics • Data reviews and analyses administrative data, PDI-specific data (PDI Participation Database data, survey data including PD Exit Surveys, leadership inventory, reflection), NCEES summary data, student data including EOG/EOC, graduation rates; LEA PD expenditure data • Document reviews LEA PD Action Plans, other PDI-specific documents Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery

4. Turnaround of LEAs and Schools Purpose of this Evaluation Project • To understand the extent to which and the ways in which interventions by the District and School Transformation division (DST) improve outcomes for students in the state’s lowest-performing schools and districts • To explore the fidelity of implementation of the STEM Schools initiative and examine its impacts on students, teachers, principals, schools, and school networks.

4. Turnaround of LEAs and Schools Turnaround of LEAs and Schools Evaluation Questions • What problems are identified in the low-performing schools and districts? • What are the main intervention strategies that the District and School Transformation unit employs to improve low-performing schools? • What are the intended mechanisms of improvement? • How do the strategies work? Do the strategies and mechanisms play out as intended? • What is the impact of the intervention strategies on intermediate outcomes as well as student achievement and graduation rates?

4. Turnaround of LEAs and Schools STEM Anchor Evaluation Questions • To what extent have the network of STEM anchor and cluster schools been implemented as intended? • What are the impacts of the network of STEM anchor and cluster schools on student and on school-level outcomes and how do these impacts compare with the impacts of other transformation models? • Can the impacts on student performance be disaggregated by student and school characteristics? • What mechanisms are put in place for the sustainability and scaling up of the model, or its most successful elements?

4. Turnaround of LEAs and Schools Evaluation Approaches • DST: 30+ site visits, multiple interviews (over the next three years with multiple people), observations, focus groups, surveys, artifact review, document analysis, and quantitative analyses. • STEM: Predominantly qualitative analyses (observations of professional development, site visits to STEM schools, interviews with providers), with quantitative analyses (student and school staff surveys, administrative data). Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery

5. Local-Level Implementation & Spending Purpose of this Evaluation Project • To determine how Race to the Top funding is being allocated and used across districts and schools throughout NC

5. Local-Level Implementation & Spending Cloud Questions • To what extent does the Cloud reduce state & local expenditures for technology? • To what extent does the Cloud provide reliable, secure, accessible, and efficient service? • How satisfied are LEAs with the Cloud Computing infrastructure? Local Spending Questions • How do local districts spend RttT funds? • Are some local RttT spending patterns associated with higher student performance in schools and districts? Local Efficiencies and Savings Questions • Do RttT funds alter costs incurred by the state and districts?

5. Local-Level Implementation & Spending Evaluation Approaches • Mixed-method approach, combining document review, interviews, surveys, and quantitative analysis of administrative data Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery

6. Overall Impact Purpose of this Evaluation Project • To provide estimations of the overall impact of RttT-funded initiatives • To explore under what conditions and circumstances the initiatives collectively and in various combinations appeared to be most effective, and for whom • To consider sustainability options beyond the life of the grant • To track and compare the metrics/goals defined in the proposal

6. Overall Impact Evaluation Questions • Was each RttT initiative implemented as intended? • What are the overall impacts of RttT on increasing student performance, such as achievement, engagement, attendance, graduation? • Are the impacts of RttT on student performance larger in some schools/districts than others (for example, high-poverty or low-performing schools)? • Are some RttT initiatives more effective in increasing student performance than others? • How can the successful RttT initiatives be sustained after 2014?

6. Overall Impact Evaluation Approaches • The Overall Impact evaluation will consider selected quantitative and qualitative data and results from all initiative-level evaluations, as well as cross-initiative and all-inclusive data Key Deliverables and Estimated Delivery

7. Omnibus Teacher and Leader Survey • Administered to probability sample of 358 schools across the state – a selection of schools that is reflective of the state as a whole • Assesses “Instructional Climate” • 23 dimensions on leadership and organizational conditions affecting instruction • Baseline Survey completed – Fall 2011 • Next administration in progress now (Feb/Mar 2012) and annually throughout RttT Evaluation

Initial Findings (http://cerenc.org) • DST: Evidence of success in providing high-quality assistance to most targeted low-achieving schools. Evidence of several undermining factors in the schools that made little or no progress. • STEM Baseline: STEM schools serve greater proportions of lower-income, minority, and rural-based students. Student performance is higher in high-minority STEM (vs high-minority non-STEM) schools. • STEM Formative: Most Y1 implementation activities were high-quality; however, delays in selecting schools for the network and in agreeing on curriculum development expectations hindered optimal implementation. • VAM: Three VA models – a fixed-effects model, an EVAAS model, and a random effects model – outperformed all others; a final model – a different EVAAS model – was not testable.

Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development Findings: Implementation and Support • Cross-Division collaboration at NCDPI • 2,212 attendees at 6 Summer Institutes • 1,457 (66%) completed post-Institute survey; 83% rated Institute as valuable or very valuable. Report pp. 28-42

Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development Recommendations: Implementation and Support • Encourage and strengthen cross-divisional work • Provide more pre-Institute information • Reorganize content sessions • ReconceptualizeLEA planning sessions • Foster more collaboration across LEAs/charter school Report pp. 42-47

Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development Recommendations: Implementation and Support (cont.) • Address concerns about ongoing, post-Institute support • Incorporate greater attention to technology • Build on strengths of the best resources • Review approaches to addressing diversity • Improve locations and logistics Report pp. 42-47

Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development Findings: Teachers’ Baseline Data • Elementary and Region 8 (Western Region) teachers most satisfied with prior PD • TWCS items were very consistent with data from the PD dimensions of the RttT Omnibus Survey Report pp. 53-58

Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development Findings: Principals’ Baseline Data • Concerned about funding for PD • Planning greater use of cost-effective online and blended approaches • Using NCTEP to inform PD planning • Before Institutes, about 50% of sample schools had received PD on one or more of: new standards, formative and summative assessments, and/or use of data to improve instruction Report pp. 58-62

Evaluation Results Spotlight:Professional Development Recommendations: Baseline Data • Extend PD activities already in place in many LEAs • Focus on developing coherent programs that address major PD needs • Differentiate PD for elementary, middle, and high school teachers • Harness growing interest in online approaches to PD, collaboration, mentoring, and resources. • Provide additional support for schools and districts rated low on PD on the TWCS and Omnibus Survey Report p. 11

Evaluating North Carolina ’ s Race to the Top Initiatives: An Overview