Proposed educator effectiveness guidelines
Download
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