Download
1 / 18
E N D
2. What is the connection? This is the essential question. How and why are we connecting teacher evaluation to these “human capital decisions”? And what does that mean anyway? This is the essential question. How and why are we connecting teacher evaluation to these “human capital decisions”? And what does that mean anyway?
3. The Tennessee First to the Top Act contemplates the new performance evaluation system being used as a factor in all human capital decisions, including:
professional development
retention
tenure
promotion
compensation
dismissal Regular, annual performance evaluation for all employees should mean greater availability of meaningful data to use in the course of making the human capital decisions we face everyday.
Education is a “people-driven” enterprise. Therefore, we should focus on our people – students and teachers.
The Tennessee Department of Education has stated that one of its goals in the design of the teacher evaluation framework is to have a system that is both “fair and defensible.”
If the evaluation system is fair and defensible, it will mean that the drivers of these human capital decisions are fair and defensible.
As such, there should be more “objectivity” (i.e. fairness) in our decision-making than we presumably have today.
Regular, annual performance evaluation for all employees should mean greater availability of meaningful data to use in the course of making the human capital decisions we face everyday.
Education is a “people-driven” enterprise. Therefore, we should focus on our people – students and teachers.
The Tennessee Department of Education has stated that one of its goals in the design of the teacher evaluation framework is to have a system that is both “fair and defensible.”
If the evaluation system is fair and defensible, it will mean that the drivers of these human capital decisions are fair and defensible.
As such, there should be more “objectivity” (i.e. fairness) in our decision-making than we presumably have today.
4. Determine the relative value of individual components of the evaluation process in the overall summative evaluation rating.
Understand how a “3” – “at expectations” performance – is earned on the summative evaluation rating.
Understand the connection between the TEAM evaluation framework and tenure.
Clarify what tenure does and doesn’t mean in this new context.
5. Multiple measures for evaluating performance.
Developmental, not punitive.
Focus on professional growth.
The new system is fair and defensible because of the “multiple measures” inherent to the system. There is no SINGLE factor that will drive the overall evaluation.
Because the observation component is closely aligned with everyday classroom instruction, the TEAM system will be developmentally focused.
The multiple observations provide the opportunity for support and growth based on interim feedback. The system is now FORMATIVE, rather than a summative “autopsy” with no opportunities for improvement.
The new system is fair and defensible because of the “multiple measures” inherent to the system. There is no SINGLE factor that will drive the overall evaluation.
Because the observation component is closely aligned with everyday classroom instruction, the TEAM system will be developmentally focused.
The multiple observations provide the opportunity for support and growth based on interim feedback. The system is now FORMATIVE, rather than a summative “autopsy” with no opportunities for improvement.
6. The three components (50% observation, 35% student growth, 15% student achievement) will be combined into a single rating on a 5-category scale.
TDOE to provide guidance on how component score ranges relate to 5-category scale. “Rock solid” on the instructional rubric tells only half the story of the overall performance evaluation.
The 3 components of TEAM will provide a comprehensive view of teaching AND learning, which should be the two main drivers of evaluating overall teacher performance.
The Tennessee Department of Education will provide final guidance regarding how all three components relate to final summative evaluation. So, what does that mean? And what might it look like? Let’s break it down…. “Rock solid” on the instructional rubric tells only half the story of the overall performance evaluation.
The 3 components of TEAM will provide a comprehensive view of teaching AND learning, which should be the two main drivers of evaluating overall teacher performance.
The Tennessee Department of Education will provide final guidance regarding how all three components relate to final summative evaluation. So, what does that mean? And what might it look like? Let’s break it down….
7. Summative Evaluation comprised of Observation, Student Growth, and Other Achievement Measure.
A “5” on the rubric alone does not equate to “significantly above expectations” (a “5”) on the summative evaluation.
The observation component of the summative evaluation will combine all the observations, covering 19 indicators plus the professionalism rubric.
Putting it all in perspective….
A single indicator in a single observation will have a very small effect on the overall summative evaluation rating. It is important to distinguish a “5” on the instructional rubric from a “5” on the summative evaluation. They are not one in the same. And, we will see, that one does not necessarily equate to the other, as the instructional rubric is only 50% of the summative evaluation.
Because of the multiple measures, which encompass multiple observations, teachers should understand that a single indicator in a single observation will have a small impact on the summative evaluation rating.
Instead of debating the number “scores” with the evaluator, it is more productive to focus on the relative strengths and areas for improvement identified in an observation.
Student mastery underpins all of the indicators in the instructional rubric. If students did not demonstrate mastery, it is difficult (if not impossible) to provide evidence to support a score of “3” in any individual indicator.
The key implication in the design of this framework and the multiple measures of inputs and outcomes is that we cannot separate good teaching from demonstrated student learning. Teaching and learning go hand in hand. It is important to distinguish a “5” on the instructional rubric from a “5” on the summative evaluation. They are not one in the same. And, we will see, that one does not necessarily equate to the other, as the instructional rubric is only 50% of the summative evaluation.
Because of the multiple measures, which encompass multiple observations, teachers should understand that a single indicator in a single observation will have a small impact on the summative evaluation rating.
Instead of debating the number “scores” with the evaluator, it is more productive to focus on the relative strengths and areas for improvement identified in an observation.
Student mastery underpins all of the indicators in the instructional rubric. If students did not demonstrate mastery, it is difficult (if not impossible) to provide evidence to support a score of “3” in any individual indicator.
The key implication in the design of this framework and the multiple measures of inputs and outcomes is that we cannot separate good teaching from demonstrated student learning. Teaching and learning go hand in hand.
8. How might the Summative Rating be determined?
We will calculate a “raw score” that corresponds to a “scaled score.” An EXAMPLE below:
This is an example! We have not received the final “raw score” ranges and corresponding “scaled scores” from the TDOE. This is an example! We have not been provided raw score to scaled scores from the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE).
However, this is a reasonable assumption for how the scores will be converted based on an equal distribution of 5 ratings categories.
It is clear that a teacher will not need to score a “5” on the instruction rubric (or any one component of the summative evaluation) in order to obtain a “5” or “significantly above expectations” on the final summative report.
It is also important to note that it doesn’t require a “3” on all components of the summative evaluation to be considered “at expectations” on the final summative report.
This is an example! We have not been provided raw score to scaled scores from the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE).
However, this is a reasonable assumption for how the scores will be converted based on an equal distribution of 5 ratings categories.
It is clear that a teacher will not need to score a “5” on the instruction rubric (or any one component of the summative evaluation) in order to obtain a “5” or “significantly above expectations” on the final summative report.
It is also important to note that it doesn’t require a “3” on all components of the summative evaluation to be considered “at expectations” on the final summative report.
9. How might the Summative Rating be determined?
The TDOE will provide details around how student data (both student growth and other achievement) will be converted to a 1 – 5 measurement.
Teachers with individual TVAAS data can choose to have both the 35% and 15% components use that score.
However, teachers with Level 1 or Level 2 ratings on individual TVAAS data cannot be required to use TVAAS as other 15%.
The other 15% student data measurement will be determined based on the TDOE “menu of options” and district guidelines.
Options finalized by TDOE at end of August 2011. The student data component has been designed to provide teachers every opportunity to show evidence of student success.
Teachers with low individual TVAAS scores will have the option to include another measurement with more favorable evidence as a component of the evaluation.
The “menu of options” will be finalized with TDOE by the end of August 2011.
The district will provide guidance on meaningful alignment for certain grade-levels/subjects. For instance, graduation rate may be included in the menu options, but should a kindergarten teacher be able to use graduation rate for their 15% measure? Clearly, the answer is no. As such, the district will provide guidance on which options are appropriate for grade-levels/subject areas.
The student data component has been designed to provide teachers every opportunity to show evidence of student success.
Teachers with low individual TVAAS scores will have the option to include another measurement with more favorable evidence as a component of the evaluation.
The “menu of options” will be finalized with TDOE by the end of August 2011.
The district will provide guidance on meaningful alignment for certain grade-levels/subjects. For instance, graduation rate may be included in the menu options, but should a kindergarten teacher be able to use graduation rate for their 15% measure? Clearly, the answer is no. As such, the district will provide guidance on which options are appropriate for grade-levels/subject areas.
10. How might the Summative Rating be determined?
All three components of the evaluation will be converted to a 1 – 5 raw score.
The TDOE will provide details on this conversion factor.
The weighting formula will be applied to determine the summative evaluation rating.
Observation – 50%. The average of all 4 or 6 observations including all 19 indicators plus professionalism.
Student Growth – 35%. Individual or school-wide TVAAS or other student growth data.
Other Student Achievement – 15%. Selected from TDOE “menu of options,” including school/individual TVAAS data. This page is just an “internal summary,” reviewing the components of the summative evaluation and how it will be calculated.
Highlight the steps and weightings as a reinforcement. This page is just an “internal summary,” reviewing the components of the summative evaluation and how it will be calculated.
Highlight the steps and weightings as a reinforcement.
11. Potential Examples (2011-2012 School Year) –
4th Grade Core Subject Teacher
7th Grade Art Teacher
The three examples provided here (continued on next page) detail three different scenarios that are very plausible in our district. Please take time to walk through each of the three examples in detail.
Example 1 (4th Grade Core Subjects)
This is a 4th grade teacher relatively new to the profession – holding an apprentice license. The teacher works in a high-achievement school and most of her students have a history of proficient or advanced performance.
The teacher had challenges with the instructional rubric, generally earning 2’s in the indicators, but also showing signs of strength with some areas rated as a 3. On the observation component of the TEAM framework, the teacher averaged 2.34 across all 19 indicators in the course of 6 observations plus the professionalism rubric.
As a result of the teacher’s instructional challenges, her individual TVAAS data did not demonstrate expected growth for her students. The teacher’s rating on the value-added component of the TEAM framework is a 2.00 based on the results of the April 2012 TCAP testing.
The teacher and principal agreed to use TCAP proficiency as the 15% “other achievement” component of the framework. Although her students did not achieve expected growth, most did meet benchmarks for proficient or advanced on TCAP (though some who were advanced in 3rd grade slipped to proficient in 4th grade). As such, the teacher earned a 5.00 on this component of the evaluation framework based on the scores reported in June 2012, based on the TCAP tests administered in April.
Taking these 3 components and applying the appropriate weighting as defined by state law, this teacher earns an overall summative evaluation “raw score” of 2.62. This equates to a “scaled score” of At Expectations (2.61 – 3.40) in the final annual evaluation report.
Example 2 (7th Grade Art Teacher)
This is a 7th grade art teacher who is very experienced and works at a low-achievement school.
The teacher performed solidly on the instructional rubric, generally earning 3’s in all the indicators, with a few indicators rated as 2, but some areas rated very strong and earning a 4. On the observation component of the TEAM framework, he averaged 2.91 across all 19 indicators in the course of 4 observations plus the professionalism rubric.
This teacher does not have individual TVAAS data. However, he focused on integrating reading strategies into his art lessons, which helped to improve student growth across all subject areas in the school. The teacher’s rating on the value-added component of the TEAM framework, based on school-wide value-added, is a 4.00.
The teacher and principal agreed to use school-wide value-added as the 15% “other achievement” component of the framework, which aligned well with his plans to integrate reading strategies into his classroom. As such, the teacher earned a 4.00 on this component of the evaluation framework as well.
Taking these 3 components and applying the appropriate weighting as defined by state law, this teacher earns an overall summative evaluation “raw score” of 3.46. This equates to a “scaled score” of Above Expectations (3.41 – 4.20) in the final annual evaluation report.
The three examples provided here (continued on next page) detail three different scenarios that are very plausible in our district. Please take time to walk through each of the three examples in detail.
Example 1 (4th Grade Core Subjects)
This is a 4th grade teacher relatively new to the profession – holding an apprentice license. The teacher works in a high-achievement school and most of her students have a history of proficient or advanced performance.
The teacher had challenges with the instructional rubric, generally earning 2’s in the indicators, but also showing signs of strength with some areas rated as a 3. On the observation component of the TEAM framework, the teacher averaged 2.34 across all 19 indicators in the course of 6 observations plus the professionalism rubric.
As a result of the teacher’s instructional challenges, her individual TVAAS data did not demonstrate expected growth for her students. The teacher’s rating on the value-added component of the TEAM framework is a 2.00 based on the results of the April 2012 TCAP testing.
The teacher and principal agreed to use TCAP proficiency as the 15% “other achievement” component of the framework. Although her students did not achieve expected growth, most did meet benchmarks for proficient or advanced on TCAP (though some who were advanced in 3rd grade slipped to proficient in 4th grade). As such, the teacher earned a 5.00 on this component of the evaluation framework based on the scores reported in June 2012, based on the TCAP tests administered in April.
Taking these 3 components and applying the appropriate weighting as defined by state law, this teacher earns an overall summative evaluation “raw score” of 2.62. This equates to a “scaled score” of At Expectations (2.61 – 3.40) in the final annual evaluation report.
Example 2 (7th Grade Art Teacher)
This is a 7th grade art teacher who is very experienced and works at a low-achievement school.
The teacher performed solidly on the instructional rubric, generally earning 3’s in all the indicators, with a few indicators rated as 2, but some areas rated very strong and earning a 4. On the observation component of the TEAM framework, he averaged 2.91 across all 19 indicators in the course of 4 observations plus the professionalism rubric.
This teacher does not have individual TVAAS data. However, he focused on integrating reading strategies into his art lessons, which helped to improve student growth across all subject areas in the school. The teacher’s rating on the value-added component of the TEAM framework, based on school-wide value-added, is a 4.00.
The teacher and principal agreed to use school-wide value-added as the 15% “other achievement” component of the framework, which aligned well with his plans to integrate reading strategies into his classroom. As such, the teacher earned a 4.00 on this component of the evaluation framework as well.
Taking these 3 components and applying the appropriate weighting as defined by state law, this teacher earns an overall summative evaluation “raw score” of 3.46. This equates to a “scaled score” of Above Expectations (3.41 – 4.20) in the final annual evaluation report.
12. Potential Examples (2011 – 2012 School Year) –
10th Grade Algebra II Teacher
What are the implications?
How do these examples affect your view of the standards for APEX? For tenure? The three examples provided here detail three different scenarios that are very possible in our district. Please take time to walk through each of the three examples in detail.
Example 3 (10th Grade Algebra II)
This is a 10th grade Algebra II teacher who is mid-career and works at a moderate-achievement school.
The teacher performed exceptionally well on the instructional rubric, generally earning some 3s, some 4s and a couple of 5’s on the rubric. On the observation component of the TEAM framework, she averaged 3.75 across all 19 indicators in the course of 4 observations plus the professionalism rubric.
This teacher has individual TVAAS data. Her students demonstrated mastery in the key skills, and showed tremendous growth over the course of the year, far-exceeding expected results on the state Algebra II EOC exam. The teacher’s rating on the value-added component of the TEAM framework is a 5.00.
The teacher and principal agreed to use the level of proficient and advanced students on the state Algebra II EOC as the 15% “other achievement” component of the framework, which aligned well with the goal of achieving “college readiness,” for the school and the district. Many of the teacher’s students were able to meet the proficient standard. She earned a 4.00 on this component of the evaluation framework.
Taking these 3 components and applying the appropriate weighting as defined by state law, this teacher earns an overall summative evaluation “raw score” of 4.23. This equates to a “scaled score” of Significantly Above Expectations (4.21 – 5.00) in the final annual evaluation report.
In discussion….
Teachers should notice that a teacher who reaches “at expectations” may not be necessarily distinguish themselves in all three components of the summative evaluation.
Most importantly, teachers should see that it is possible to earn a “5” – significantly above expectations – on the new evaluation. Based on multiple measures, there will be a fair number of teachers who reach this status.
Teachers may want to talk through the impact of how they feel about the “fairness” of the new tenure standards as well as APEX in light of these examples. The three examples provided here detail three different scenarios that are very possible in our district. Please take time to walk through each of the three examples in detail.
Example 3 (10th Grade Algebra II)
This is a 10th grade Algebra II teacher who is mid-career and works at a moderate-achievement school.
The teacher performed exceptionally well on the instructional rubric, generally earning some 3s, some 4s and a couple of 5’s on the rubric. On the observation component of the TEAM framework, she averaged 3.75 across all 19 indicators in the course of 4 observations plus the professionalism rubric.
This teacher has individual TVAAS data. Her students demonstrated mastery in the key skills, and showed tremendous growth over the course of the year, far-exceeding expected results on the state Algebra II EOC exam. The teacher’s rating on the value-added component of the TEAM framework is a 5.00.
The teacher and principal agreed to use the level of proficient and advanced students on the state Algebra II EOC as the 15% “other achievement” component of the framework, which aligned well with the goal of achieving “college readiness,” for the school and the district. Many of the teacher’s students were able to meet the proficient standard. She earned a 4.00 on this component of the evaluation framework.
Taking these 3 components and applying the appropriate weighting as defined by state law, this teacher earns an overall summative evaluation “raw score” of 4.23. This equates to a “scaled score” of Significantly Above Expectations (4.21 – 5.00) in the final annual evaluation report.
In discussion….
Teachers should notice that a teacher who reaches “at expectations” may not be necessarily distinguish themselves in all three components of the summative evaluation.
Most importantly, teachers should see that it is possible to earn a “5” – significantly above expectations – on the new evaluation. Based on multiple measures, there will be a fair number of teachers who reach this status.
Teachers may want to talk through the impact of how they feel about the “fairness” of the new tenure standards as well as APEX in light of these examples.
13. A “5” on the observation rubric isn’t required to earn a “5” on the final summative evaluation rating.
Scores on individual indicators in a single observation have a very small effect. Therefore, use the observation process to focus on professional growth and development.
The final evaluation will be based on “multiple measures” to provide every opportunity for success.
This slide reinforces the first two objectives of the session by providing summary of what goals have been accomplished thus far:
Determine the relative value of individual components of the evaluation process in the overall summative evaluation rating.
Understand how a “3” – rock, solid performance – is earned in the summative evaluation rating.
Check for understanding through questioning or as deemed appropriate. This slide reinforces the first two objectives of the session by providing summary of what goals have been accomplished thus far:
Determine the relative value of individual components of the evaluation process in the overall summative evaluation rating.
Understand how a “3” – rock, solid performance – is earned in the summative evaluation rating.
Check for understanding through questioning or as deemed appropriate.
14. To become eligible for tenure, a teacher must meet both experience and performance requirements:
A minimum of 5 years experience in a district
A minimum summative evaluation rating of “above expectations” in the most recent two consecutive years of experience
If a teacher never becomes eligible for tenure, he or she may continue to work in the district on an annually renewable contract until retirement.
There will still be teachers who earn tenure.
But, what does tenure really mean?
Based on the previous examples and discussion, it should be apparent that tenure will still be earned and granted to many teachers.
However, the standards for tenure have increased to require not just a minimum level of experience, but also a minimum performance standard.
A teacher may have a long, prosperous, successful career and never obtain tenure in any district. Based on the previous examples and discussion, it should be apparent that tenure will still be earned and granted to many teachers.
However, the standards for tenure have increased to require not just a minimum level of experience, but also a minimum performance standard.
A teacher may have a long, prosperous, successful career and never obtain tenure in any district.
15. Tenure can now be thought of as a professional designation or recognition akin to:
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards Certification
Teacher of the Year Award
Tenure should not be thought of as an automatic professional milestone.
Advancing from “apprentice” to “professional” licensure is the “new tenure” (based on the old standard).
There is no minimum summative evaluation rating legally required to earn professional licensure.
Tenure has been elevated to signify much more than “time served.” It is an “extra” that teachers may strive for in the same way that some teachers now pursue and desire the National Board Certification or a Teacher of the Year Award.
However, most teachers consider themselves successful even if they never win Teacher of the Year or earn National Board Certification. The same should be the case with tenure.
Historically, being granted tenure and advancing to professional licensure went hand-in-hand for new teachers. Now, the law has separated those two events in a teacher’s career.
Advancing to professional licensure is the “new tenure” based on the OLD standard of minimum years of experience that was required for tenure and almost universal awarding of “B” or higher evaluation ratings.
Many have used the analogy that the old “C, B, A” rating scale is equivalent to “3, 2, 1” on the observation rubric. “4 and 5” are now additional levels that mark increased standards versus the old rating scale/standard.
Unlike the previous evaluation framework, there is no minimum performance standard to advance to professional licensure. According to Vance Rugaard, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Licensure, “There have also been questions about what constitutes a "positive evaluation." A number of folks have asked which numbers on the scale of 1 to 5 would be a "positive evaluation." The state's position is: "we do not want to prescribe any rating that would constitute 'positive evaluation' for purpose of licensure other than the point at which a principal or director would consider the educator for continued employment."
Tenure has been elevated to signify much more than “time served.” It is an “extra” that teachers may strive for in the same way that some teachers now pursue and desire the National Board Certification or a Teacher of the Year Award.
However, most teachers consider themselves successful even if they never win Teacher of the Year or earn National Board Certification. The same should be the case with tenure.
Historically, being granted tenure and advancing to professional licensure went hand-in-hand for new teachers. Now, the law has separated those two events in a teacher’s career.
Advancing to professional licensure is the “new tenure” based on the OLD standard of minimum years of experience that was required for tenure and almost universal awarding of “B” or higher evaluation ratings.
Many have used the analogy that the old “C, B, A” rating scale is equivalent to “3, 2, 1” on the observation rubric. “4 and 5” are now additional levels that mark increased standards versus the old rating scale/standard.
Unlike the previous evaluation framework, there is no minimum performance standard to advance to professional licensure. According to Vance Rugaard, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Licensure, “There have also been questions about what constitutes a "positive evaluation." A number of folks have asked which numbers on the scale of 1 to 5 would be a "positive evaluation." The state's position is: "we do not want to prescribe any rating that would constitute 'positive evaluation' for purpose of licensure other than the point at which a principal or director would consider the educator for continued employment."
16. Tenure affords a teacher due process rights in the event of non-renewal i.e. termination.
A tenured teacher is able to request a hearing via a third-party hearing officer to dispute termination decision.
Tenured teachers may be terminated for insubordination, board policy violations, criminal convictions, any violation of child-protective services regulations, or for inefficiency.
Inefficiency is defined in new legislation to include, though not limited to, earning a “below expectations” or “significantly below expectations” summative rating.
Tenure, in terms of the law, affords teachers due process rights. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Tenured teachers have a presumption of continuous contract renewal. In the event of non-renewal (i.e. termination) at any point, a tenured teacher has the right to demand evidence and require a hearing if they want to dispute the termination.
However, there are certain areas defined in the law that are grounds for termination of a teacher.
The definition of inefficiency was updated in the most recent legislation to incorporate the new teacher evaluation system.
A teacher who receives a summative evaluation rating of “below” or “significantly below” expectations meets the legal definition for inefficiency. A teacher MAY be terminated for this reason. However, there is no MANDATE for terminating a teacher. It is a district decision as to whether or not termination is recommended.
There are circumstances where that certainly may be the case that teachers who do not achieve “at expectations” will still have their contracts renewed i.e. new teachers who are growing in the profession may have performance evaluations of “below expectations,” but still demonstrate professional growth.
There may be other extenuating circumstances that are deemed to be a factor in performance such that the district chooses to provide more opportunities for growth and support. Tenure, in terms of the law, affords teachers due process rights. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Tenured teachers have a presumption of continuous contract renewal. In the event of non-renewal (i.e. termination) at any point, a tenured teacher has the right to demand evidence and require a hearing if they want to dispute the termination.
However, there are certain areas defined in the law that are grounds for termination of a teacher.
The definition of inefficiency was updated in the most recent legislation to incorporate the new teacher evaluation system.
A teacher who receives a summative evaluation rating of “below” or “significantly below” expectations meets the legal definition for inefficiency. A teacher MAY be terminated for this reason. However, there is no MANDATE for terminating a teacher. It is a district decision as to whether or not termination is recommended.
There are circumstances where that certainly may be the case that teachers who do not achieve “at expectations” will still have their contracts renewed i.e. new teachers who are growing in the profession may have performance evaluations of “below expectations,” but still demonstrate professional growth.
There may be other extenuating circumstances that are deemed to be a factor in performance such that the district chooses to provide more opportunities for growth and support.
17. Tenure does not…
“Protect” a teacher in the case of reduction in force.
New legislation outlawed districts from using seniority or tenure as a factor in making lay-off decisions.
Teacher performance and programmatic needs will be the driving force in determining any lay-offs.
“Guarantee” a teacher a position in the district.
Historically, tenured teachers only received “first consideration” in the interview process for district openings.
Teachers tenured after July 1, 2011, can lose tenure if they have two consecutive years below or significantly below expectations.
Teachers tenured before July 1, 2011, can be terminated for inefficiency as previously defined.
Tenure does not elevate the employment status of a teacher such that their performance is still not the ultimate factor when making human capital decisions.
The most recent legislation has made it illegal to use tenure or seniority as the decision point in the event of a reduction in force. There is no “last in, first out” rule. Relative performance and qualifications for programmatic needs will determine who will be retained during lay-offs.
Tenure is not guaranteed job security. All teachers will be expected to perform their responsibilities “at expectations” in order to maintain their positions.
Teachers who earn tenure under the new statute can lose their tenure and return to probationary status , working on an annually renewable contract.
Though teachers who gained tenure under the old statute can never lose their tenure, they can be terminated for inefficiency and other violations defined in state law.
Consider a final check for understanding of the last two objectives:
Understand the connection between the TEAM evaluation framework and tenure.
Clarify what tenure does and doesn’t mean in this new context.
Tenure does not elevate the employment status of a teacher such that their performance is still not the ultimate factor when making human capital decisions.
The most recent legislation has made it illegal to use tenure or seniority as the decision point in the event of a reduction in force. There is no “last in, first out” rule. Relative performance and qualifications for programmatic needs will determine who will be retained during lay-offs.
Tenure is not guaranteed job security. All teachers will be expected to perform their responsibilities “at expectations” in order to maintain their positions.
Teachers who earn tenure under the new statute can lose their tenure and return to probationary status , working on an annually renewable contract.
Though teachers who gained tenure under the old statute can never lose their tenure, they can be terminated for inefficiency and other violations defined in state law.
Consider a final check for understanding of the last two objectives:
Understand the connection between the TEAM evaluation framework and tenure.
Clarify what tenure does and doesn’t mean in this new context.
18. TEAM is meant to be developmental, not punitive.
The focus is on professional growth and continuous improvement.
Our culture is changing to differentiate, recognize and reward performance.
We want all teachers to be successful – when teachers succeed, students succeed.
Opportunities for district professional development aligned with TEAM rubric are forthcoming….
In summary, the TEAM framework is designed for professional growth and support.
This represents a policy shift that will necessarily result in a culture shift in our district and our schools.
Teacher success = student success. Therefore, our leadership, our parents, and our community want teachers to be successful.
There will be more opportunities for support on the instructional rubric through professional development offerings planned for October and beyond. More details to follow…. In summary, the TEAM framework is designed for professional growth and support.
This represents a policy shift that will necessarily result in a culture shift in our district and our schools.
Teacher success = student success. Therefore, our leadership, our parents, and our community want teachers to be successful.
There will be more opportunities for support on the instructional rubric through professional development offerings planned for October and beyond. More details to follow….
