ESEA Flexibility Package

1. ESEA Flexibility Package Implications for State Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems

2. Background and Overview • Announcement on September 23, 2011 • Flexibility package provides the basis for a new state-federal partnership in which states: • advance rigorous goals of teacher effectiveness and college and career-readiness for all students, and • receive greater flexibility to determine how to best meet those goals through waivers from provisions of NCLB, including highly qualified teachers (HQT) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Largely aligned with most emerging systems. • States planning to apply that have not yet begun work on new educator evaluation systems will have to work aggressively to meet timelines.

3. ESEA Flexibility Program Summary • To apply for this new flexibility, states must address four major principles within specific timelines and describe how the state will fully implement: • College and career-ready standards and aligned assessments (Common Core or those aligned with state institutions of higher education) • A rigorous state accountability system (based largely on principles articulated by CCSSO) • A commitment to design, pilot, and implement a system of teacher and leader evaluation based significantly on student growth measures • A commitment to evaluate and adjust state-level administrative and reporting requirements to reduce burden on districts and schools • States must meet all requirements in order to receive flexibility—they are not able to request a limited waiver based on partial implementation of these requirements.

4. Focus on Effective Instruction and Leadership Flexibility Package Requirements Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership through Educator Evaluation Requirements: Develop and adopt guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems Ensure LEAs implement evaluation and support systems

5. Specific Requirements on Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership • States must develop teacher and leader evaluation & support systems that: • Are used for continual improvement of instruction • Meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three performance levels • Use multiple valid measures including a significant factor of student growth for all students and include other measures of professional practice, such as observations, teacher portfolios, and student or parent surveys • Evaluate educators on a regular basis • Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback to guide professional development • Provide growth data to reading/language arts and math teachers for grades in which there is a state assessment for current students and students taught in the previous year • Inform personnel decisions

6. Specific Requirements on Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership Additionally, states must explain their process for ensuring that each LEA develops and implements teacher and leader evaluation systems consistent with state guidelines.

7. Timeline for Implementation • States have a four-year period to adopt, develop, pilot, and fully implement systems of educator evaluation consistent with the requirements. States submitting in the first two application windows must: • At Submission: Provide a plan to develop guidelines for evaluation and support systems, process for ensuring LEA implementation, and assurance that SEA has provided student growth data to teachers or will do so by the deadline required. • SY 2011-12: SEA adopts guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems; SEA provides student growth data to teachers. • SY 2012-13: LEAs develop evaluation and support systems consist with state guidelines • SY 2013-14: LEAs pilot implementation of evaluation and support systems. • SY 2014-15: LEAs fully implement evaluation and support systems.

8. Analysis and Key Issues • Timeline required for evaluation implementation: There is ambiguity on required timelines for states that apply under later application windows. • Initial materials do not define the specificity of the "guidelines" that states must develop in 2011-12. • Guidelines likely will be high-level requirements, similar to what was required for RTTT plans. • Timelines likely would be pushed forward at all points for states applying for the following academic year. • We will await further input and clarification in the forthcoming peer review guidance.

9. Analysis and Key Issues, continued • Role of the SEA and LEA:  The language regarding the Department’s intent for LEAs (rather than SEAs) could imply that LEAs develop systems of evaluation; however, early indications from the Department suggest that statewide models would meet these requirements.  • We will seek clarification as to whether a state using a statewide model is expected to develop its system as part of the guidelines in 2011-12 or during 2012-13.

10. Analysis and Key Issues, continued • Required use of the evaluation: In addition to highlighting the importance of using evaluations to improve instruction and drive professional learning, the package requires states to ensure that LEAs use evaluations to  "inform" employment decisions.  • This phrasing seems to indicate an openness for state for a for a range of approaches, from considering evaluations in combination with a variety of other factors to being a priority factor to driving decision-making.

11. Analysis and Key Issues, continued • Evaluation measure standards: All measures are required to be valid, which could be a high technical standard for states. • Growth measures are required to be comparable, though this term is not defined. • For non-tested grades and subjects, the Department provides a fairly comprehensive list of options, but, notably, does not include group/grade/ school-level measures, although such measures appear to meet the criteria outlined. 

12. Analysis and Key Issues, continued • Evaluation measure weighting: States are required to include student growth and measures of professional practice in their guidelines on evaluation design.  Growth measures are required to be a "significant factor," but the Department leaves it up to the state to decide what "significant" means.  • Performance levels: Having at least three areas of performance specified is a clear indication the Department is acknowledging the importance of meaningful differentiation. • Frequency: Requirements on the frequency of the evaluation are broad, using the term "regular basis," and do not prescribe any specific frequency (e.g. annual).

13. Analysis and Key Issues, continued • Training: SEAs are required to ensure all teachers, principals, and evaluators receive training on the evaluation system and their responsibilities; however, the Department does not require that evaluators be certified to ensure their proficiency in implementing the evaluation with fidelity, which is broadly considered best practice. • Reporting requirements: LEAs are required to report annually to the public and to the SEA the percentage of teachers and principals at each performance level at the State, LEA, and school levels, as well as the aggregate distribution by school poverty quartile.  This requirement will likely necessitate new data sharing and reporting capabilities between the SEA and LEAs.  School-level reporting of principal evaluation data as well as teacher evaluation data at small schools could also mean results of individual educator evaluations are publicly reported.

14. Waiver Submission Timeline and Process • The U.S. Department of Education has outlined a rolling process for states to apply for waiver flexibility. • For states to receive flexibility by the end of the 2011-12 school year, they must submit a flexibility request during one of the first two application windows: • First Application Deadline: November 14, 2011 with a December 2011 peer review • Second Application Deadline: mid-February 2012 with a spring 2012 peer review • States are also requested to notify the Department by October 12, 2011 of their intent to request flexibility and the application period in which they intend to apply. • The Department will host Technical Assistance webinars in Sept.-Oct. 2011.

15. Waiver Submission Timeline and Process • The U.S. Department of Education has outlined a rolling process for states to apply for waiver flexibility. • There will be an additional opportunity to apply after the 2011-12 school year. • States needing additional time can request to freeze their AMOs in exchange for taking preliminary steps towards meeting the required principles. • Waivers will be granted through the end of the 2013-14 school year with the option to request an extension.

16. Suggested Immediate Next Steps • States pursuing ESEA flexibility should assess their status against Department requirements and weigh their need for relief against readiness to act. • Gap analysis: Where do state systems meet and not meet flexibility requirements? What needs to be done and by when? • Authority: What must take place so that the state can develop and adopt guidelines? Are new regulations or guidance required? State legislation? • Alignment: How does this work fit with other policy reforms currently being implemented? (Common Core, RTTT, etc.) How can the SEA ensure coherence?

17. Suggested Immediate Next Steps, continued • Stakeholder engagement: Who needs to be involved? What existing systems and processes can be leveraged? What core messages need to be communicated? • Capacity: What resources do the state and districts have to develop and implement systems of evaluation that meet Flexibility requirements? What policy decisions should be decided at the state versus district levels? • Expertise: Where internal expertise exists? What external support may be needed? What resources exist that can be leveraged? • Systems: What processes and mechanisms need to be established to inform policies, build will, support implementation, etc.?

18. Resources • Groups of states are working collaboratively through EducationCounsel's Teacher and Leader Evaluation Network and CCSSO's State Consortium for Educator Effectiveness (scee.groupsite.com/main/summary) to share resources and emerging best practice. Important resources from these and other leading groups include: • Teacher and Leader Evaluation Framework, jointly adopted by CCSSO, the National Governor's Association, and EducationCounsel • Teacher Evaluation 2.0, from the New Teacher Project , proposes six design standards for rigorous and fair teacher evaluation systems - tntp.org/publications/issue-analysis/view/teacher-evaluation-2.0/

19. Resources • Evaluating Principals, from New Leaders for New Schools, provides ideas for the design and implementation of evaluation systems to increase principal effectiveness - www.nlns.org/evaluating-principals.jsp • More than Measurement: The TAP System’s Lessons Learned for Designing Better Teacher Evaluation Systems -www.tapsystem.org/publications/eval_lessons.pdf • Initial findings from the MET Project - www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Finding-Policy_Brief.pdf

20. Questions? Contact Janice Poda, Strategic Initiative Director, janicep@ccsso.org Kathleen Paliokas, Program Director, Kathleenp@ccsso.org Robin Gelinas, Senior Policy Advisor, robin.gelinas@educationcounsel.com