proposed educator effectiveness guidelines
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on

Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines . Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D. Richland School District One Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability Roundtable Superintendent’s Roundtable. Principles of ESEA Waiver . Principle 1: College and Career Readiness Expectations for All Students

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines ' - brooks


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
proposed educator effectiveness guidelines

Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines

Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D.

Richland School District One

Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability Roundtable

Superintendent’s Roundtable

principles of esea waiver
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
Timeline of Notification
  • Thursday (7/19)- ESEA Approved; posted on website
  • Friday (7/20)- proposal added to SCDE website; Educator Effectiveness Guidelines (Principle 3)
teacher evaluation and support model
Teacher Evaluation and Support Model
  • 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)

principal evaluation and support model
Principal Evaluation and Support Model
  • Professional Performance Scale (PPS) Rating
  • School’s Value Added Rating
what approval is needed
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
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
Community Stakeholder Meetings
  • Wednesday October 3rd, virtual meeting with chance for input
  • Upcoming: five regional statewide meetings
educator ad hoc evaluation committee
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
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
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
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 tar1
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
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
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%
group discussions of survey questions1
Group discussions of survey questions
  • 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%

group discussions of survey questions2
Group discussions of survey questions
  • How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support?
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
group discussions of survey questions3
Group discussions of survey questions
  • 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%
group discussions of survey questions4
Group discussions of survey questions
  • Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal?
    • Yes
    • No
group discussions of survey questions5
Group discussions of survey questions
  • 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%
ad