HB 153 Teacher Evaluation and Student Performance Data

1. HB 153 Teacher Evaluation and Student Performance Data Michele Winship, Ph.D. winshipm@ohea.org

2. Supporting Documents • Presentation slides • Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Framework • Current draft Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Model(OTES) • Battelle for Kids Value-Added Talking Points • Battelle for Kids Value-Added Resources • Race to the Top Work Flow Chart • District Assessment Mapping • District Assessment Mapping Sample Template

3. A new era in teacher evaluation • A national push for teacher evaluation reform from policy makers • Recognition through research that current teacher evaluation practices are not effective in helping teachers improve performance and identifying underperforming teachers • A desire to identify levels of teacher performance to reward high performers and remove low performers • RttT mandate to change evaluation practices • State-level policies that change evaluation requirements • Student performance as a significant factor in teacher (and principal) evaluation (adopted in 13 states currently)

4. Why we need evaluation reform…

5. HB 153 Evaluation Framework requirements • Sec. 3319.112 • (A) Not later than December 31, 2011, the state board of education shall develop a standards-based state framework for the evaluation of teachers. The framework shall establish an evaluation system that does the following: • (1) Provides for multiple evaluation factors, including student academic growth which shall account for fifty per cent of each evaluation; • (2) Is aligned with the standards for teachers adopted under section 3319.61 of the Revised Code; • (3) Requires observation of the teacher being evaluated, including at least two formal observations by the evaluator of at least thirty minutes each and classroom walkthroughs; • (4) Assigns a rating on each evaluation in accordance with division (B) of this section; • (5) Requires each teacher to be provided with a written report of the results of the teacher's evaluation; • (6) Identifies measures of student academic growth for grade levels and subjects for which the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code does not apply; • (7) Implements a classroom-level, value-added program developed by a nonprofit organization described in division (B) of section 3302.021 of the Revised Code; • (8) Provides for professional development to accelerate and continue teacher growth and provide support to poorly performing teachers; • (9) Provides for the allocation of financial resources to support professional development. (HB 153 as signed by the Governor)

7. HB 153 LocalRequirements for Teacher Evaluation Sec. 3319.111 [Effective 9/29/2011] Teacher evaluation (A) Not later than July 1, 2013, the board of education that of each school district, in consultation with teachers employed by the board, shall adopt a standards-based teacher evaluation policy that conforms with the framework for evaluation of teachers developed under section 3319.112 of the Revised Code. The policy shall become operative at the expiration of any collective bargaining agreement covering teachers employed by the board that is in effect on the effective date of this section and shall be included in any renewal or extension of such an agreement. (B) When using measures of student academic growth as a component of a teacher's evaluation, those measures shall include the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code. For teachers of grade levels and subjects for which the value-added progress dimension is not applicable, the board shall administer assessments on the list developed under division (B)(2) of section 3319.112 of the Revised Code. (C)(1) The board shall conduct an evaluation of each teacher employed by the board at least once each school year, except as provided in divisions (C)(2) and (3) of this section. The evaluation shall be completed by the first day of April and the teacher shall receive a written report of the results of the evaluation by the tenth day of April. (2) If the board has entered into a limited contract or extended limited contract with the teacher pursuant to section 3319.11 of the Revised Code, the board shall evaluate the teacher at least twice in any school year in which the board may wish to declare its intention not to re-employ the teacher pursuant to division (B), (C)(3), (D), or (E) of that section. One evaluation shall be conducted and completed not later than the fifteenth day of January and the teacher being evaluated shall receive a written report of the results of this evaluation not later than the twenty-fifth day of January. One evaluation shall be conducted and completed between the tenth day of February and the first day of April and the teacher being evaluated shall receive a written report of the results of this evaluation not later than the tenth day of April. (3) The board may elect, by adoption of a resolution, to evaluate each teacher who received a rating of accomplished on the teacher's most recent evaluation conducted under this section once every two school years. In that case, the biennial evaluation shall be completed by the first day of April of the applicable school year, and the teacher shall receive a written report of the results of the evaluation by the tenth day of April of that school year.

8. HB 153 Opportunities and challenges • Opportunities • Create evaluation systems that improve instructional practice through formative feedback and educator reflection • Design a complete “system” of evaluation with formative feedback and support and not just a typical observation check list • Work together to identify best practices and scale them up through our locals • Bargain the process for changing the evaluation system as well as the procedures, practices and tools • Work collaboratively with administrators who are subject to the same requirements

9. HB 153 Opportunities and challenges • Challenges • Short timeline to complete the work and operationalize the system (July 1, 2013) • Unfunded mandate for non-RttT locals • Changing perceptions (ours and theirs) about the purpose of evaluation • Incorporating student growth in a way that benefits teachers and doesn’t rank and sort them • Limited state support at the present time • Non-explicit requirement to create assessment systems to provide required student growth metric • Annual evaluations for all but accomplished teachers

10. Post HB 153—RttT and non-Rttt districts • HB 153 leveled the evaluation playing field • RttT districts and non-RttT districts are all required to reconstruct their evaluation systems to align with the adopted state framework based on the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession • All districts are now on virtually the same timeline: • RttT districts were required to implement their new evaluation systems by the 2013-2014 school year or sooner depending on their Scope of Work timeline and changes that are bargained collaboratively (MOU) • Non-RttT districts are required to adopt their evaluation systems no later than July 1, 2013 and implement them at the expiration of the current CBA (discrepancy in timeline—can’t implement if not created)

11. Post HB 153—RttT and non-Rttt districts • HB 153 places an additional burden on ALL districts to address the requirement of the 50% student growth measure • The only measure currently available is value-added data for teachers in grades 3-8 in reading and math (some districts have extended data through Battelle for Kids initiatives) • ODE is creating a “list of student assessments that measure mastery of course content” which districts can use (may need to purchase) • However, there will be many grade levels and courses with no existing assessments; districts will have to create their own

12. Post HB 153—RttT and non-Rttt districts • HB 153 creates an advantage for RttT districts • RttT districts can use their funds to buy the time and support to re-create their evaluation systems, including the development of an assessment system • RttT districts can use their funds to purchase support for assessment systems (data management, specific testing protocols, testing materials and grading support) • However…these funds will go away. How will the systems be supported financially in the future?

13. Evaluation Reform guidelines • We must begin with the belief that the main purpose of teacher evaluation is improved teaching practice and student learning. • Teacher performance is to be measured through multiple sources of evidence, with observation as one source. • Student performance is required to be 50% of the evaluation, BUT student performance is to be measured through multiple sources of data, not just a single standardized test score. • The State Board of Education has adopted a framework; districts must still develop their evaluation systemthat includes processes, procedures and forms.

15. Evaluation 50% part 1Student Growth Measures • Student academic growth will be measured through multiple measures which must include value-added scores on evaluations for teachers where value-added scores are available. • Value-added scores are ONLY available for tested grades and subjects, math and reading in grades 3 – 8. Some extended reports are available in locals who participate in Battelle for Kids projects. • Even if there are value-added scores, there must be additional student growth measures for all teachers.

16. Three categories of student growth measures • Districts will create a local student growth measure worth 50% of the evaluation from a combination of the following: • Value-Added Data • ODE-approved Student Assessments • Menu of Options Determined by the District

17. Student Growth Measures • Local boards of education may administer assessments chosen from the Ohio Department of Education’s assessment list ($$$) for teachers of subjects where value-added scores are not available. • and/or local measures of student growth using state-designed criteria and guidance. • This will require districts to create local measures of student growth (assessments) in areas where there are no standardized assessments.

18. Dividing the 50% student performance pie

19. Dividing the 50% student performance pie

20. Ohio’s Value-Added System Accountability Measures and Reports • Maintained by ODE • LRC • Valued-Added • AYP Growth Measure • ODE Reports-School • and District (LEA) • Measures SAS® Data Processing • Maintained by SAS® • Single Limited Access • Password Protected Data: • District/LEA and school • Student information • Analytic tools • Teacher-level reports • Limited Use Public Access • Includes BFK SAS® EVAAS® • reporting • Enhanced reporting • features Diagnostic Tools EVAAS® • Developed & supported • by BFK • Regional System • Trained VAL’s support districts/LEAs through DVALT training • Support to teacher-teams • Focus on school improvement • Toolkits • Online courses Technical Assistance and Support ODE- BFK Partnership

21. Value-Added modeling • Value-Added Modeling (VAM) has become the “gold” standard for measuring educator effectiveness. • One year’s growth in one year’s time is the benchmark = effective. • Teachers who exceed this growth rate have a positive value-added rating (+) = highly effective • Teachers who fail to meet this growth rate have a negative value-added rating (-)

22. Value-Added modeling • BUT…VAM modeling is flawed. • The tests used to generate the scores were never designed to measure teacher effectiveness. • “Student test scores alone are not sufficiently reliable and valid indicators of teacher effectiveness to be used in high-stakes personnel decisions, even when the most sophisticated statistical applications such as value-added modeling are employed.” (EPI Briefing Paper--Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers)

23. Limitations of VAM • Given that students are not randomly assigned to classes, VAM can’t distinguish between teacher effects and the effects based on students’ needs. • VAM do not provide information to help “struggling” teachers. • Lack of properly scaled year-to-year tests makes it difficult to evaluate gains along the continuum. • Mobility of students (especially in high needs schools) impact the data • VAM cannot distinguish among teachers in the middle range of performance.

24. Limitations of VAM • About 69% of teachers can’t be accurately assessed with VAMs* • Teachers in subject areas that are not tested • Teachers in grade levels (lower elementary) where no prior test scores are available • Special education & ELL • VAM estimates vary with the tests used • If a teacher is in the bottom quintile based on one test there is a 43% chance she will be in the bottom quintile on a different test, but a 16% chance she will be in the top two quintiles. • If a teacher is in the top quintile based on one test there is a 43% chance she will be in the top quintile on a different test, but a 13% chance she will be in the bottom two quintiles.

25. Teacher-level value-added reporting • Rollout Schedule • 30% of LEAs Link in Year 1 RttT (reports received fall 2011) • 60% of all RttT LEAs in Year 2 • 100% of all LEAs in Ohio in Years 3 & 4 • Requirements—Accuracy of Reporting • Must conduct linkage • Minimum number of students and time enrolled • Access to Reporting • Online via EVAAS® accounts • Password protected • Grades/Subjects Available • ODE: grades 4-8, math & reading • BFK: grade 3, math & reading; grades 3-8, science & social studies; high school—algebra I & II, geometry, pre-calculus, biology, chemistry, English 9, 10 & 11 • Issue—Public Records Requests

28. Resources for Value-Added

29. Sign up for a portal account

30. Using Student Performance data effectively • Used properly, student performance data DOES have a role in school and district improvement efforts, it CAN positively impact student performance. • Nationally, we have come to believe that the data itself—the “score”—is the end game instead of the starting point. • And…an overreliance on and faith in value-added metrics as accurate measures of TEACHER performance has entirely skewed the way we use student performance data.

31. Using Student Performance data effectively • To be meaningful, student performance data should be used by educators to • Identify achievement gaps, • Inform instructional practice, and • Direct professional development. • To effectively use the data, teams of educators should • Be trained in the analysis and interpretation of student performance data, • Have real-time access to the data, and • Meet regularly in teams to analyze the data and plan intervention, instruction and professional development.

32. Using Student Performance data effectively How do we create the conditions for educators to use student performance data effectively?

33. Developing a Student assessment system • Use the assessments you have first. • Determine what assessments you need to create a rigorous, comparable and inclusive assessment system that is designed to provide student performance data to be used for educator professional growth and also for inclusion in an evaluation system. • Chart a course of action with a timeline, persons responsible and deliverables.

34. Developing a Student assessment system • Requiring student performance in teacher evaluations means districts will need to: • Map current school-based and district-wide assessments in all grades and subjects • Determine where assessment “gaps” exist • Create groups of educators to select/develop appropriate assessments for “gaps” • Create an assessment timeline for all grades and subjects • Collect, analyze and store student performance data • Provide time and training for educators to work together with student data to improve their own instruction

35. District Assessment Mapping

36. Evaluation 50% part 2Teacher performance • Each evaluation will consist of two formal observations of the teacher at least thirty minutes each in duration, as well as periodic classroom walkthroughs. • Teacher performance metrics must also use multiple and variable sources of data, such as lesson plans, samples of student work, classroom assessment results, and portfolios, in addition to data from direct observation in classrooms.

37. The Ohio Teacher evaluation system model(OTES)

38. OTES Teacher performance components (page 6) • Goal Setting • Self Assessment against Ohio Standards • Analysis of student data • Identifying 2 professional growth goals • Formative Assessment of Teacher Performance—Formal Observation • Pre-observation conference • Observation • Post-observation conference and reflection • Evidence Collaboration and Professionalism (determined locally) • Student Growth

39. Summative evaluation • The overall teacher performance rating (50%) will be combined with the results of student growth measures (50%) to produce a summative evaluation rating as depicted in the following matrix. • Teachers will be rated in one of four categories: • Accomplished • Proficient • Developing • Ineffective

41. Following the Evaluation… • Teachers with aboveexpected levels of student growth will develop a professional growth plan and may choose their credentialed evaluator for the evaluation cycle. • Teachers with expected levels of student growth will develop a professional growth plan collaboratively with the credentialed evaluator and will have input on their credentialed evaluator for the evaluation cycle. • Teachers with below expected levels of student growth will develop an improvement plan with their credentialed evaluator. The administration will assign the credentialed evaluator for the evaluation cycle and approve the improvement plan. • This is entirely unrealistic and does not reflect what actually happens in schools.

42. Additional HB 153 requirements • At the local level, the board of education will include in its evaluation policy, procedures for using the evaluation results for retention and promotion decisions and for removal of poorly-performing teachers. • Seniority will not be the basis for teacher retention decisions, except when deciding between teachers who have comparable evaluations. • The local board of education will also provide for the allocation of financial resources to support professional development.

43. Bargaining considerations • With a July 1, 2013 deadline for system completion, evaluation work will need to begin ASAP and may not fit into current bargaining cycle • Effective evaluation reform will require collaboration with administration at a very different level in many locals • Future evaluation language in CBAs will need to include all processes, procedures and tools • Stakes are high; we can’t afford to adopt systems that aren’t designed to support teachers

44. Bargaining considerations:process for evaluation reform • Composition and selection of evaluation team members • Timeline for evaluation work • Compensation for work outside of the school day • Mandatory training for evaluators for observation protocols and ratings • Training for staff about evaluation processes, procedures and tools • No-fault piloting provision to work out problems

45. Next Steps for transforming evaluation • Identify and engage district evaluation team, including teachers from various levels/areas • Review and analyze teacher current evaluation polices and rules • Conduct ODE Evaluation GAP Analysis • Review effective evaluation models including the OTES • Select/Develop a district evaluation system and tools • Map and develop student assessments that will provide student performance data • Create training for evaluators and teachers • Construct a pilot timeline • Have volunteer teachers and evaluators pilot the system • Review and revise the system based on pilot data • Train all evaluators and teachers • Implement the new evaluation system

46. Questions?? • Please send any questions to: eiiweb@ohea.org

47. Resources • Teacher Evaluation Systems materials and resources (login required) http://www.ohea.org/teacher-evaluation-systems • www.lauragoe.com Includes various state and local systems and examples of multiple measures for teacher performance and student growth • Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The NEA's Framework http://www.nea.org/home/41858.htm • Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research -- the source for Dr. Hinchey’s presentation:  http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/getting-teacher-assessment-right

48. Resources • Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. • Goe, L., Holdheide, L., Miller, T. (2011) A practical guide to designing comprehensive teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. • Hinchy, P. (2010). Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn From Research. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. • Mathers, C., Oliva, M., with Laine, S. W. M. (2008). Improving instruction through effective teacher evaluation: Options for states and districts. Research and Policy Brief. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. • National Education Association. (2009). Teacher evaluation systems: The window for opportunity and reform. Washington, D.C. • Stronge, J. H, & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance.Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

49. References • Laura Goe--Webinar for Oregon School Coaches, April 20, 2011: http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/Oregon-April%202011.pptx • EPI Briefing Paper--Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers: http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp278 • Rand Education—Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG158.pdf

50. Contact information • Michele Winship • 614-227-3001 • winshipm@ohea.org • Questions? • eiiweb@ohea.org