300 likes | 376 Views
Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines . Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D. Richland School District One Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability Roundtable Superintendent’s Roundtable. Principles of ESEA Waiver . Principle 1: College and Career Readiness Expectations for All Students
E N D
Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D. Richland School District One Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability Roundtable Superintendent’s Roundtable
Principles of ESEA Waiver • Principle 1: College and Career Readiness Expectations for All Students • Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support • Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
Timeline of Notification • Thursday (7/19)- ESEA Approved; posted on website • Friday (7/20)- proposal added to SCDE website; Educator Effectiveness Guidelines (Principle 3)
Teacher Evaluation and Support Model • Teacher’s Professional Performance (TOPS) -substantially revised SAFE-T 2) Teacher Value Added (TVA) -Classroom Value Added (CVA) Group - Non-Classroom Value Added (NCVA) Group (speech therapist, media specialist, guidance counselors) 3) School Value Added (SVA) - elementary- growth rating on state report card - high- increases in LHSAP, increase in graduation rate (on time and 5 year)
Principal Evaluation and Support Model • Professional Performance Scale (PPS) Rating • School’s Value Added Rating
What approval is needed? These are SCDE positions: • Beta test on SIG schools does not need approval because of MOU signed and because they are converting to existing ADEPT/PADEPP • Pilot test with volunteer schools does not need approval because it is voluntary • Approval of SBE for 2014-15 • And because systems would run in parallel with existing ADEPT/PADEPP • 2014-2015 year needs approval by SBE because it is a statewide change in the evaluation system
Advocacy to Date • State Board of Education Meetings • Two previous meetings, public session • October 10th- 1pm • Emails to State Board Members • Ad Hoc Committee working on guidelines • Participation in 3 surveys • Have been or will be shared with SBE • Advocating for SIG schools to have option to “back out” of enhanced ADEPT in favor of their own system • Non-SIG districts to test out alternative systems being developed by Ad Hoc group (difference systems from what SCDE is purposing)
Community Stakeholder Meetings • Wednesday October 3rd, virtual meeting with chance for input • Upcoming: five regional statewide meetings
Educator Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee • SCASA • SCSBA • Palmetto State Teachers • SCEA • Clemson University/Converse • CERRA • Childs & Halligan Law Firm • Nickles Law Firm • TAR Roundtable • ILR Roundtable • HR Roundtable • State Teachers of the Year • ESOL Teacher/SPED Teacher • Superintendents Roundtable • Teachers
Purpose of the Committee • Explore alternatives to the guidelines that could be presented to the SCDE for adoption • Facilitate broader educator input • Flexibility within adoption • Districts have options to adopt from several systems
Progress of the Committee • Two meetings face to face • Prepared talking points that were presented at September SBE meeting • Sent out the surveys • Educator • Principal • 8 or 9 points for SBE to consider for the state developing multiple different systems for school districts to pilot • List of potential technical issues
List of Potential Technical Issues from TAR • Does the SCDE have the capacity to accurately calculate teacher and principal grades? • How will improvement be calculated in 2014-2015 with the switch to SBAC? • How will improvement be measured for high schools where students do not take the same test two years in a row? • How will growth be measured for 3rd graders? • How will growth be measured for the sample grades (3,5,6,8) in science and social studies? • With CVA, nonCVA, and TOPS, you could have three non-comparable models within a school, yet they all have the same outcome scale. (A-F). An A on TOPS is not necessarily comparable to an A on NCVA.
List of Potential Technical Issues from TAR • SCDE should be responsible for determining the validity of inferences from the assessments. Are the tests valid for measuring teacher performance? • What about the “other” variables? Poverty, teacher turnover, school schedules, summer programs, education level of parents. • How are they determining whether the percentages are too high or too low? • What is the “impact on student learning” referenced in APS1, part 4. Other measures is too broad, we need explicit criteria. • Should NCVA teachers be judged on core area test scores? • What about non-standard schools? (early childhood centers, career and technical education centers)
Educator and Principal Evaluation Survey • Over 8000 responses to the teacher evaluation survey • Over 800 responses to the principal evaluation survey • Only open a week • Intent was to gather input from larger audience • Bring results to October 10th SBE meeting
Group discussions of survey questions • What percent of an educators overall evaluation should be based on “student growth”? • 80% • 70% • 60% • 50% • 40% • 30% • 25% • 20% • 15% • 10% • 5% • 0%
Group discussions of survey questions • What percent of an educators overall evaluation should be based on “student growth”?-RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1st) • 80% ----------------1.68% • 70%-----------------1.86% • 60%-----------------2.72% • 50%-----------------8.65% • 40%-----------------4.32% • 30%-----------------7.65% • 25%-----------------10.78% • 20%-----------------10.84% • 15%-----------------4.26% • 10%-----------------14.97% • 5%-------------------5.08% • 0%-------------------21.52% 67.45%
Group discussions of survey questions • How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support? • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6
Group discussions of survey questions • How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support?- RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1st) • 3 --------48.98% • 4 --------20.77% • 5 --------13.93% • 6 --------1.33%
Group discussions of survey questions • Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal? • Yes • No
Group discussions of survey questions • Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal?- RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1st) • Yes -----21.82% • No -----72.73%