Peer Review: Getting Serious About Teacher Support and Evaluation

1. Peer Review:Getting Serious About Teacher Support and Evaluation Daniel C. Humphrey, Julia E. Koppich, Jennifer A. Bland, & Kristin R. Bosetti, (2011) http://policyweb.sri.com/cep/projects/displayProject.jsp?Nick=PARPeer

2. Teacher Evaluation is Changing “Teacher Ratings Linked to Tests for First Time” —The News Journal. October 10, 2011. “Hernando County Rolls Out New Teacher Evaluation System” —St. Petersburg Times. October 9, 2011. “Students Come First Laws Upheld in Idaho District Court” —The Huffington Post. October 3, 2011.

3. MA Educator Evaluation Framework Priorities: • Place Student Learning at the Center • Promote Growth and Development • Recognize Excellence • Set a High Bar for Tenure • Shorten Timelines for Improvement “The changes outlined in the new regulations are not simply technical—they represent a culture shift for most school districts” (Chester, 2011).

4. MA Educator Evaluation Timeline • January 2012 – ESE issues Model System forms, templates, and guidance; RTTT districts begin collective bargaining at the local level • June 2012 – ESE provides guidance on district-determined measures of student learning, growth, and achievement • Summer 2012 – RTTT districts submit their proposed educator evaluation systems to ESE for review, including collective bargaining agreements • September 2012 – RTTT districts implement educator evaluation and begin to identify district-determined measures of student learning • By January 2013 – All remaining districts begin collective bargaining • May 2013 – ESE issues direction on gathering student and staff feedback; ESE • reports to the Board on feasibility of parent feedback • By August 2013 – All districts submit plans for district-determined measures of student learning to ESE • September 2013 – All districts implement educator evaluation

5. What Did We Hope to Learn? 1) What does the work of Consulting Teachers look like? 2) What makes the PAR Governing Board tick? 3) What kind of labor-management relations underlie PAR?

6. What Do the Consulting Teachers Do? • Instructional Support • Observations • Lesson Planning • Classroom Management Systems • Analyzing Student Work • Modeling • Evaluating Participating Teachers • Ongoing Training

7. Example from an Evaluation File “Since October 2, our work has included 12 conferences to discuss expectations, one formal classroom observation, 15 informal classroom observations, and 1 full day and 1 half-day of lesson modeling by the Consulting Teacher. Total time together, including observations, discussion, and modeling lessons in the classroom, has been approximately 30.5 hours over 6 weeks.” “Standard 2, Element 6: Using instructional time effectively. This element has not been met. Lesson plans do not take into account the large loss of time during transitional times, nor has Elizabeth met the standard and criterion of maximizing instructional time because of the large amount of time used in dealing with classroom interruptions and off-task behaviors.”

8. Principal Evaluations and Consulting Teacher Evaluations Principals’ Evaluations: Formal Observations: Average 1 (0 to 3) Informal Observations: Average 2 (0 to 7) Evaluation Page Count: Average 7 (2 to 27) Consulting Teachers’ Evaluations: Formal Observations: Average 5 (2 to 6) Informal Observations: Average 38 (12 to 71) Evaluation Page Count: Average 190 (52 to 49)

9. Who is on the Governance Board? • Representatives of district and union • Appointed by each side 3-2 in Poway 4-3 in San Juan • At least one key decision maker each from union and district (critical) Union President Associate Superintendent

10. What Does the Board Do? • Oversee/evaluate work of consulting teachers • Make recommendations to superintendent about PAR teachers • Poway: First year probationary teachers and tenured teachers in PAR • San Juan: Tenured PAR teachers only (BTSA dilemma) • Solve problems • Why district and union decision makers need to be at this table • Prevent problems from becoming grievances or intractable annoyances

11. How Does the Board Operate? • Serious, sophisticated conversations • Focus on teaching and learning • Members not play to roles • Understand significance of their decisions • Decisions require supermajority but almost always unanimous

12. What Do Labor-Management Relations Look Like? • Collaboration+ • Beyond simple civility or feel good cooperation • High stakes decisions on consequential matters • Carryover impact • Poway—Governance Board on professional development • San Juan and Poway—Consideration to using PAR for all teacher evaluations

13. Implications for Labor-Management Relations • Labor-management relations developed through PAR have potential to reshape collective bargaining • Union and districts partners making high stakes decisions • Contract (or other labor-management agreements) becomes a tool for improving teaching and learning

14. Conclusions • The same person can support and evaluate. • Costs: Build on existing programs. Save on lawyers. • Change the nature of evaluation. • Change labor/management relations. • Change to evaluation is coming.

15. Message to Educators: OCCUPY EVALUATION!

16. Blueprint for Teacher Evaluation • Purpose • Who participates? Who evaluates? • Frequency of evaluation • What measures? (multiple?) • Cost (How to pay for it) • How are the results used?