Alvera J. Lesane, Ed.D Jed Stus Ethan Todd December 2013

1. Senate Bill 402 (Ratified): Understanding Teacher Contracts and the Selection of 25% of Eligible Teachers to Receive Four-Year Contracts with Monetary Implications Alvera J. Lesane, Ed.D Jed Stus Ethan Todd December 2013

2. Suggested Norms • Our spirit celebrates all teachers • We accept the charge of doing our best work creating a 25% contract plan • We will listen as allies • We will save space for different thoughts • We will be flexible as information comes that may change our course of action • After considering all options, we will work together to produce a collaborative plan

3. SB 402 (Ratified) Basics • No tenure for those who did not have it in 2012-2013 • Tenure eliminated for all on July 1, 2018 • One-year contracts offered to those with < three years experience • Superintendent evaluates all with three+ years experience by June 30, 2014 • Recommend 25% rated proficient or higher for four-year contracts effective July 1, 2014 and include $500 annual increase • BOE can adjust 25% pool offered 4 year contracts • Contracts may be 1, 2 or 4 years (2 and 4 yrs reserved for those rated prof.) • Current due process retained, except: • No written reason required to nonrenew admin and classified staff • Hearing officer review process eliminated • Judicial appeal eliminated for all except teachers • Ends tenure for grandfathered principals (retain 2 and 4 year contracts)

4. TIMELINE No new awards of career status 8/1/2013 SBE to provide a model contract to LEAs 1/1/2014 Deadline for all 4-year contracts to be made and accepted 6/30/2014 Permanent elimination of career status for all career status teachers (Full repeal of old GS 115C-325) New laws regarding new teacher contracts, suspensions, dismissals, demotions, hearings before the BOE and appeal rights (excludes teachers electing to maintain career status) 7/1/2014 6/30/2018 Today 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 One –Time Event (affecting next 4 years) Local decisions, planning and review of teacher performance and evaluation in preparation for issuance of contracts 9/1/2013 - 5/1/2014

5. Timeline - Phase 2(July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018) FOUR-YEAR CONTRACT (must relinquish tenure) ONE-YEAR CONTRACT CONTINUED CAREER STATUS ONE YEAR CONTRACT ONE YEAR CONTRACT ONE YEAR CONTRACT ONE YEAR CONTRACT

6. Timeline - Phase 3(effective July 1, 2018) FOUR-YEAR CONTRACT CONTINUED CAREER STATUS ONE YEAR CONTRACT ONE YEAR CONTRACT ONE YEAR CONTRACT ONE YEAR CONTRACT

7. Future Intention? • Section 9.5 of SB 402 “When a robustevaluation instrument and process that accurately assesses and evaluates the effectiveness of teacher, especially in the area of student growth, is wholly implemented in North Carolina, it is the intent of the General Assembly that the evaluation instrument and process be utilized in the implementation of a plan of performance pay for teachers in this State.”

8. Definition of a “Teacher” • As defined by NC GS 115C-325(a)(6), “teacher” includes: - Classroom teachers and instructional support personnel - With a standard professional or vocational license - Who are employed to fill fulltime, permanent position • According to NCDPI’s Policy manual (14.2.3), the following positions are eligible for career status: - Audiologists - Classroom Teachers - Guidance Counselors - School Psychologists - School Social Workers - Speech Language Pathologists • CTE Teachers - Media Coordinators • Coaches (i.e. IFs, Blended Learning, AIG)

9. CALCULATING THE 25% Total eligible classroom teachers 926 Total eligible other “teachers” 141 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Total eligible teachers 1067 x 25% --------- Teachers eligible to be offered 4-year contract266

10. TEACHER CAUTIONS • Teacher Turnover • Teacher Growth Process • New Teachers • Experienced Teachers • Threats to Collaboration • Impact on Morale • Potential to create Divisiveness • Future Use = Pay for Performance

11. What do we want?

12. What are we challenged to accomplish? In response to SB402, the Teacher of the Year Forum was tasked with helping the superintendent decide the parameters which define the 25%, including: • Approach • Criteria • Prioritization of the Criteria

13. APPROACH • Quantitative by District • Quantitative by Site • Qualitative • Hybrid • Rubric • And the winner is … Hybrid by Site/Support Area

14. Criteria Overview • Criteria for consideration: • Evaluation data • EVAAS • Leadership • Advanced Degrees/National Board Certification • Attendance • Seniority/Longevity • Discipline • Collaboration

15. EVALUATION PROS Evidence-Based Related to Performance CONS Inter-rater reliability among administrators and sites Large pool of eligibility based on ratings (i.e. proficient, accomplished and distinguished) Differences in full and abbreviated evaluation cycles Support Staff Different evaluation instruments Differences in implementation One year vs. multiple years

16. EVALUATION DATAStatewide Eligibility for Four-Year Contract Eligible (Proficient or better on NCEES 1-5) Not Eligible (At least one below proficient rating on NCEES 1-5) 89,288 Teachers 3,321 Teachers 96.41% 3.59% *** Figures do NOT exclude teachers who have been in the district less than 3 years and, therefore, are not eligible for a 4-year contract.

17. EVALUATION DATAStatewide Eligibility for Four-Year Contract

18. LEADERSHIP PROS Opportunity to define leadership within the I-SS, considering factors such as: Assigned position vs. volunteer Over time vs. one-time event Peer perspective CONS Standardizing the understanding of leadership Availability of opportunities for consideration for all Individuals may be compensated for the leadership role Duplicative as a factor on evaluation instrument Effectiveness in the role vs. simply serving in the role Inter-rater reliability How to define for support roles One year vs. multiple years

19. SENIORITY/LONGEVITY PROS Can assist with retention efforts Objective criteria Highlights commitment to I-SS CONS No clear connection to performance District vs. school site Failure to consider could impact more seasoned teachers

20. DISCIPLINE PROS Easy to rate based on district personnel file Employee must be aware CONS One year vs. multiple years Identify discipline issues to include Consistency across district (what is documented) Changes in administration

21. EVAAS PROS Measures teacher impact (student growth) Related to Performance CONS Data not currently available for everyone One year vs. multiple years May not work as well to select from the entire eligibility pool (perhaps second level qualifier) Lack of understanding regarding EVAAS and how it is determined Impact of varied and increasing class sizes on teacher performance

22. ADVANCED DEGREES/NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION PROS Easy to measure Indicates commitment to continual learning Provides opportunities to share knowledge within educational environment CONS No clear connection to the performance Inequities due to recent lack of compensation and financial constraints Contradicts intent of General Assembly

23. ATTENDANCE PROS Connection to student performance Would not include acceptable leave (i.e. FMLA) CONS One year vs. multiple years May not work as well to select from the entire eligibility pool (perhaps second level qualifier) Determining an acceptable absence vs. and unacceptable absence

24. COLLABORATION PROS Assists with the maintenance of collaborative efforts built over time in I-SS CONS Difficult to measure for teachers without a subject or school-based PLC Our ability to collaborate is at the center of everything we do for students. Our key successes as a district are related to our ability to collaborate.

25. CRITERIA PRIORITIZATION • Potential First Level Criteria • Evaluation data (56) • Leadership (136) • Seniority/Longevity (161) • Collaboration (162) • Discipline (168) • Potential Second Level Criteria • EVAAS (180) • Advanced Degrees/National Board Certification (208) • Attendance (224)

26. Next Steps

27. QUESTIONS AND ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK