html5-img
1 / 30

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 . Principle 1: College and Career Readiness Expectations for All Students

brooks
Download Presentation

Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D. Richland School District One Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability Roundtable Superintendent’s Roundtable

  2. 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

  3. Timeline of Notification • Thursday (7/19)- ESEA Approved; posted on website • Friday (7/20)- proposal added to SCDE website; Educator Effectiveness Guidelines (Principle 3)

  4. Components of Proposed System

  5. 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)

  6. CVA Teachers Scale and Weights

  7. NCVA Teachers Scale and Weights

  8. Principal Evaluation and Support Model • Professional Performance Scale (PPS) Rating • School’s Value Added Rating

  9. Principal Performance Scale (PPS)

  10. Outcome of Evaluation System

  11. Proposed Timeline of Implementation

  12. Phase I- Beta Test on SIG schools

  13. Phase II- Pilot on Volunteer Districts

  14. Phase III-ALL teachers and principals

  15. 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

  16. 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)

  17. Community Stakeholder Meetings • Wednesday October 3rd, virtual meeting with chance for input • Upcoming: five regional statewide meetings

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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)

  23. 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

  24. 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%

  25. 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%

  26. Group discussions of survey questions • How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support? • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6

  27. 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%

  28. Group discussions of survey questions • Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal? • Yes • No

  29. 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%

  30. Questions/Comments?

More Related