Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines

Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines

Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D.Richland School District One

Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability RoundtableSuperintendent’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)

Components of Proposed System

Teacher Evaluation and Support Model

1) 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)

CVA Teachers Scale and Weights

NCVA Teachers Scale and Weights

Principal Evaluation and Support Model

1) Professional Performance Scale (PPS) Rating2) School’s Value Added Rating

Principal Performance Scale (PPS)

Outcome of Evaluation System

Proposed Timeline of Implementation

Phase I- Beta Test on SIG schools

Phase II- Pilot on Volunteer Districts

Phase III-ALL teachers and principals

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%


• 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%


• How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support?• 3• 4• 5• 6


• 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%


• Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal?• Yes• No


• 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%

Questions/Comments?

Documents

Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines