Teacher Evaluation Upgrades and Implementation in Washington, DC

Teacher Evaluation Upgrades and Implementation in Washington, DC Presented by: Michael D. Levy, Supervisory Attorney Advisor Office of Labor Relations & Collective Bargaining, Executive Office of the Mayor, Washington, DC July 2013

Background History • DC Public Schools previously subject to a Board of Education, DC Council; high turnover rate of Superintendents • System previously had long track record of poor student achievement and low test scores • Several unsuccessful attempts by Mayor Anthony Williams to secure control of school system • Mayor Adrian Fenty succeeded in 2007 • Public Education Reform Amendment Act (PERAA) of 2007 • Chancellor (DCPS); Superintendent of SEA (OSSE)

Where we came from- the need for a change • PPEP – “ a hot mess” • Too many steps, too cumbersome, not aligned to agency’s needs or direction • Too much emphasis on seniority rather than effectiveness • “Grade inflation” • Principals hands effectively tied • Union entitled to consultation and say in development of evaluation instrument

What PPEP looked like under the prior CBA (2004 – 2007) • Article 16 addressed the teacher evaluation system. At the outset, it established that the instrument shall be developed by DCPS and that the WTU shall have an opportunity to consult prior to its implementation and on any modifications or developments of a new teacher evaluation instrument. Copies of the evaluation procedures should be made available to each teacher, and a teacher should be given a copy of his/her evaluation no later than September 30 of that calendar year. • Article 16 §E stated that if a teacher received a Needs Improvement on any performance indicator he/she would receive a written plan of assistance along with support, training and resources necessary for improvement. A teacher receiving an overall rating of Needs Improvement would be held on the same step until he/she received a rating of Meets Expectations. If a teacher receives a Needs Improvement for two consecutive years, termination may be recommended.

Statutory/Regulatory Provisions regarding Evaluations • Per D.C. Official Code (2001 ed.) § 1-617.18, notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, or regulation, during fiscal year 2006 and each succeeding fiscal year, the evaluation process and instruments for evaluating District of Columbia Public Schools employees shall be a nonnegotiable item for collective bargaining purposes.

Statutory/Regulatory Provisions. • Title 5 DC Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Chapter 13: • 5 DCMR Sections 1306.8-1306.13 state as follows: • 1306.8 Employees shall have the right to appeal below average or unsatisfactory performance evaluations. • 1306.9 Except as provided in § 1306.3, appeal of a performance rating of "below average" or "unsatisfactory" shall be made in writing to the Superintendent of Schools [Chancellor] within thirty (30) days of receipt of the contested evaluation.

Statutory/Regulatory Provisions cont’d. • 1306.10 An appeal shall set forth the reasons for the appeal. Upon receipt of an appeal, the [Chancellor] may establish an Impartial Review Board consisting of three persons. • 1306.11 The Impartial Review Board shall be responsible for reviewing, on behalf of the[Chancellor], the information available concerning performance of the individual. • 1306.12 The [Chancellor] shall advise the employee, in writing, of the disposition of the contested evaluation. • 1306.13 Any further appeal from the decision of the Superintendent by the employee shall be to the D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, pursuant to procedures established by that office.

Key Collective Bargaining Language • WTU CBA 2007-2012 • 15.1 Recites the statutory language (above) • 15.2 Though not required to do so per Section 15.1 above, DCPS makes the following commitments: • 15.2.1 The WTU shall have the opportunity to consult with the Chancellor on the Teacher evaluation process prior to its implementation. • 15.2.2 Teachers will be provided a copy of the documentation of all formal observations prior to the end of the school year. A teacher shall be given a copy of his/her final evaluation promptly following the final evaluation conference between the teacher and the rating officer. The copy, which includes the signature of the reviewing officer, shall be given to the teacher promptly after the evaluation year but not later than September 30 of that calendar year. • 15.2.3 Copies of the evaluation process shall be made available to each teacher.

Key Collective Bargaining Language cont’d. • 15.2.4 DCPS and the WTU recognize the importance of the evaluation process. To that end, DCPS shall develop and implement professional development for all Teachers on the evaluation process. • 15.3 DCPS’s compliance with the evaluation process, and not the evaluation judgment, shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure. • 15.4 The standard for separation under the evaluation process shall be “just cause,” which shall be defined as adherence to the evaluation process only.

Key Collective Bargaining Language cont’d. • 15.5 Employees maintain their rights to appeal below average or unsatisfactory performance evaluations pursuant to Title 5 of the DCMR, Sections 1306.8-1306.13

IMPACT ROLLOUT TIMELINE • IMPACT 1.0 -August 2009/fall 2009 – significant RIFs at that time as well • IMPACT PLUS (Compensation/bonuses) – fall 2010 - (compensation rolled out separately)Litigation regarding when the bonuses to take effect continued through 2012 • IMPACT 2.0 August 2010 (Compensation did not change; observation rubric changed, but no other dramatic changes) • Revised guidebooks in 2012 - not much else changed

IMPACT ROLLOUT TIMELINE cont’d. • IMPACT 3.0 - August 2012 - more significant changes • The number of observations were reduced for high performers; teacher's option to be observed less; • Also changed the student value-added mix from 50 per cent to 35 per cent for student achievement scores

Ratings under IMPACT • Four categories of rating under IMPACT, namely:1. Highly Effective - high performers eligible for bonuses2. Effective - satisfactory3. Minimally Effective - subject to termination after two consecutive years of being rated Minimally Effective4. Ineffective - subject to immediate termination

Other significant provisions relating to evaluations • Article 36 §36.3 states that DCPS shall implement a performance-based pay and/or bonus system in fall 2010 with the collaboration of the WTU. According to Article 36 §36.4, participation in the system is on a voluntary “qualify-in” basis. The system shall be based on the following parameters: • The program shall be construed to support improved achievement for all students; • DCPS and WTU shall collaborate on the development, implementation, and restructuring of the program and the related support mechanisms;

Other significant provisions • DCPS shall provide a strong base pay structure including competitive benefits; • DCPS and WTU shall collaborate on the development and ongoing improvement of a dynamic set of instructional and performance standards for all teachers in the program; • A significant amount of professional development shall be provided to all teachers and administrators on the instructional, performance, and program standards; • All teachers may qualify for the individual performance-pay system and the program shall not use quotas for budgeting purposes;

Other significant provisions • The best programs are easily understood and focus on causal effect; • The components of the individual performance-pay system shall be interdependent; • Funding for this program shall be sufficient and stable; • DCPS shall provide the infrastructure necessary to sufficiently run the individual performance-pay system.

Other significant provisions • Article 36 §36.6 provides that teachers who receive an evaluation score of Minimally Effective shall be held on their current salary step. While teachers who receive an evaluation score of Effective or higher shall be immediately moved to the next step. • Article 36 §§ 36.12, 36.13 & 36.14 allow teachers who receive a score of Effective or higher on their most recent evaluation to be eligible for tuition expenses reimbursement, a one-time bonus for obtaining dual certification, and a one-time bonus for receiving a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification.

Other significant provisions • Even summer and part-time positions “Impacted:” • Article 29 §29.1 states that teachers applying for summer and part-time school positions shall be considered by qualification to teach specific subject matter, which is determined by educational background and competence as indicated by performance evaluations.

Performance-Based Excessing Policy • 4.5 Performance-Based Excessing Policy • 4.5.1 Definition • 4.5.1.1 An excess is an elimination of a Teacher’s position at a particular school due to a decline in student enrollment, a reduction in the local school budget, a closing or consolidation, a restructuring, or a change in the local school program, when such an elimination is not a ‘reduction in force’ (RIF) or ‘abolishment.’

Excessing Policy cont’d. • 4.5.2.4 The Supervisor shall consider the recommendations of the Personnel Committee and shall retain the right to make the final excessing decision. • 4.5.2.5 DCPS shall retain the right to make the final excessing decision according to the following rubric: • Rating Points • 1) Previous Year’s Final Evaluation • Highest - 50; Second Highest - 40; Third Highest - 30 • Fourth Highest 0; Lowest - 0

Excessing policy cont’d. • 2) Unique Skills and Qualifications • Low - 0 • Medium - 10 • High - 20 • 3) Other Contributions to the Local Educational Program • Low – 0 • Medium – 10 • High - 20

Excessing policy cont’d. • 4) Length of Service* • 20+ Years - 10 • 10-19 Years - 5 • 1-9 Years - 1 • *Individuals with DC residency at the time of excessing shall receive a five-year service credit. Individuals with veteran status at the time of excessing shall also receive a five-year service credit.

IMPACT challenges • Logistically, because of the legislative structure in DC there was no negotiation with the WTU regarding IMPACT. Agency took forceful stance that it had the authority to proceed and did • Not even impact & effects bargaining • Administration able to put evaluation instrument in place and allowed unions (particularly the WTU) to challenge the procedures only, through the grievance and arbitration process, but not the instrument itself or the final evaluation rating.

CURRENT LITIGATION REGARDING IMPACT • DC Court of Appeals case – Arbitrability of challenge to IMPACT instrument and final ratings as opposed to processes followed • If they win on process can they overturn the final rating that couldn't be challenged directly due to the law? May be an issue of what type of relief they can get. If cannot mount a substantive challenge to the instrument or the final ratings what relief is possible? • The DC Court of Appeals will probably give us that answer later this year

CURRENT LITIGATION REGARDING IMPACT cont’d. • AFSCME challenging implementation of IMPACT & failure to engage in impact and effects bargaining (re Paraprofessionals - Educational Aides) – DCPS won before the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) as bargaining not explicitly requested, but now remanded by the Board to Hearing Examiner to gather additional facts and make a fresh determination • Final result still pending

IMPACT IN THE NEWS • New D.C. Teacher Ratings Stress Better Test Scores • By Bill Turque, Washington Post October 01, 2009 • D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee has launched a rigorous evaluation system that will make some District teachers among the first in the nation to have their job security tied to standardized test scores. • The effort to hold teachers accountable for student progress, which began last week, is a cornerstone of Rhee's agenda and a goal for education reformers nationwide. They contend that the best way to improve schools is to continuously monitor and improve teacher performance. The "value added" -- what instructors contribute to student growth on tests -- is a more meaningful indicator of progress than the absolute numerical targets in the federal No Child Left Behind law, advocates say….

IMPACT IN THE NEWS • Posted at 07:00 AM ET, 08/16/2011 • D.C. teacher tells chancellor why IMPACT evaluation is unfair • By Valerie Strauss, Washington Post • Here is a letter that Alyson Perschke, a fourth-grade teacher in D.C. Public Schools, wrote to Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson about her evaluation under the IMPACT assessment system. Henderson has responded by email to Perschke, offering to meet with her about it. • IMPACT is a system instituted under former chancellor Michelle Rhee which evaluates some teachers in part on the standardized test scores of their students and is largely based on five half-hour evaluations of teaching skills each year by administrators and master teachers. • Last month, 206 D.C. public school teachers were fired for poor performance under IMPACT, amounting to 5 percent of the 4,100 teachers in the city school system. • IMPACT has been controversial for a number of reasons, including what critics say is the unfair practice of judging teachers on how well their students do on a high-stakes test when teachers are not responsible for all of the factors that go into how well a student does in school. …

IMPACT IN THE NEWS • Clips from Washington Post (slides above) • Modifications to IMPACT appear to have been influenced to some extent by reports in media (e.g. fewer observations for high performers) • Changes of administration – Mayors Fenty and Gray; Chancellors Rhee and Henderson; WTU Presidents, George Parker, Nathan Saunders, new President elected July 2013 (effect unclear) • Reform continues as a high priority • Greater oversight from DC Council • Q & A

Teacher Evaluation Upgrades and Implementation in Washington, DC