Transcript Slide 1
Teacher Evaluation Process Update March 13, 2015 SCASPA Roundtable ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER UPDATE ESEA Flexibility Waiver Update Since reauthorization of ESEA was not on the horizon, the purpose of the waiver was to relieve state education agencies (SEA’s) and local education agencies (LEA’s) of the burden of the “all or nothing” accountability of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and to allow states and locals to design reforms to improve academic achievement and to increase the quality of instruction for all students. What did SEA’s and LEA’s gain? • Relief from the “100% Proficient” requirement by Spring 2014 • Flexibility regarding district and school improvement requirements. • Flexibility to support school improvement efforts. • More funding flexibility • Other additional flexibilities were permitted. ESEA Flexibility Waiver Update What S.C. agreed to do: In Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students In Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support In Principle 3: Support of Effective Instruction and Leadership In Principle 4: Reduce red tape and unnecessary paperwork. ESEA Flexibility Waiver Update • The S.C. waiver request was submitted and approved by the U.S. Department of Education in 2012. • The waiver was approved for 2012-13, 2013-14, and 201415. • Now: extension opportunity for up to 3 additional years • Several technical and timeline amendments have been made to Principle 2 and Principle 3. ESEA Flexibility Waiver Update Where are we now? • In March of 2014, the SCDE applied for a one-year extension of the waiver for 2014-15. • To be approved, the SCDE must adhere to the major requirements of the first three Principles. • The 2013-14 amendment for Principle 2 would be extended through 2014-15 • With this extension we have an opportunity for a “pause” year. ESEA Flexibility Waiver Update Where are we now? • Principle 3 requires the adoption of a teacher and principal evaluation system that includes student growth as a significant factor in the evaluation system. • On June 11, 2014 the State Board approved the Educator Evaluation System that included student growth as a measure. • On March 11, 2015, revisions to those guidelines were approved by the State Board. EXPANDED ADEPT UPDATE Expanded ADEPT for Classroom-Based Teachers 1. All teachers collect Student Growth evidence each year (after phase in) – – – Statewide assessment score measures Student Learning Objectives 30% to 20% - Matrix model 2. All teachers create individual professional growth and development plans every year 3. Observations – All induction contract and annual contract teachers every year – Continuing contract teachers on recertification cycle + – Any teacher at any time at the principal’s discretion 4. All teachers confer with and receive feedback from the school’s instructional leader/designee – SLO conferences (approval, mid-year, evidence) – Goals-Based Evaluation conferences (planning, annual review) – Observation feedback on areas for improvement, guide PD 5. Other evidence of Professional Practice (long-range plans, work samples, reflection, professional review, self-assessment) Changes Since Initial Posting • Student growth – induction and annual use one year; others use multiple (redline 13). • Science and High School EVAAS questions (redline 13, 14, 34, 36) • Clarify that growth is every year (redline 13). • Professional practice – content not specifically divisions into 4 domains (redline 18) • Take out implication that induction and annual teachers must receive their EVAAS scores the next fall (redline 25) • Revise section on continuing contract teachers with a NI or U (redline 27) – Teacher Employment & Dismissal Act. • PADEPP – added emphasis on distributed leadership Continuing Contract Teachers ADEPT Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Student Growth (SG) Prof. Growth & Development Plan Observations + + + + Feedback GBE GBE GBE GBE SAFE-T Formal/Informal Evidence District Rating Levels Levels Reported to the State (with personally identifiable information (PII) Levels Reported without PII +As 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 required by the district and at the discretion of the principal. Expanded ADEPT Domains 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Design and Planning Instruction Instruction The Learning Environment Professionalism Student Growth PADEPP Principal Professional Standards Vision Instructional Leadership Effective Management Climate School-Community Relations Ethical Behavior Interpersonal Skills Staff Development Principal’s Professional Development Student Growth Activity “Fall” Mid-Year 2014-15 Train ClassroomBased (C-B) Teachers Train & Support Leaders & Evaluators Spring Summer SY15-16 Induction SY15-16 Induction PK-5 Teachers All Rosters -VAM PK-5 Teachers’ District SLO Orientation District SLO Orientation All Principals All Evaluators VAM Analysis All Principals All Evaluators VAM Analysis All Induction Annual – SAFE-T PK-5 Teachers Write SLOs All Induction Annual – SAFE-T PK-5 Teachers SLO Conference All Induction Annual – SAFE-T PK-5 Teachers SLO Evidence All Rosters-VAM Evaluator Peer Review SLO DraftApproval Support SLO Mid-Year Conference Support SLO EvidenceReview Support Rosters-VAM Continuous Improvement Debrief-Planning Train C-B Teachers 6-12 Teachers VAM Analysis 6-12 Teachers 6-12 Teachers Principals Evaluators 16-17 Induction 1 Implement All C-B Teachers C-B Teachers Annual - SLO C-B Teachers Annual – SLO C-B Teachers Annual - SLO Rosters-VAM Evaluator Peer Review Implement C-B Teachers Induction and PK-5 2015-16 14-15 VAM Analysis Train & Support Leaders & Evaluators 15-16 VAM Analysis 2016-17 Train & Support Leaders & Evaluators SLO DraftApproval Support SLO Mid-Year Conference Support SLO EvidenceReview Support Rosters-VAM Continuous Improvement Debrief-Planning Train C-B Teachers Targeted Support Based on Results New Educators Targeted Support Based on Results New Educators Targeted Support Based on Results New Educators Targeted Support Based on Results New Educators Decision Matrix for Teacher Professional Practice 1 4 Domains 2 3 4 South Carolina Educator Evaluation Summative Rating Decision Matrix Summative Rating on Professional Practice Needs Proficient Exemplary Unsatisfactory (U) Improvement (NI) (P) (E) Needs Unsatisfactory Proficient Exemplary Improvement Needs Any Proficient Exemplary Improvement Any Any except U P or E P or E Any Any except U NI or P or E P or E Student Growth Unsatisfactory Professional Practice Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Proficient Exemplary Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Exemplary Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Proficient Exemplary Decision Rules 1. Any rating of “Unsatisfactory” for Student Growth results in a summative rating no higher than “Needs Improvement.” 2. A summative rating of “Exemplary” requires a rating of “Exemplary” in both Professional Practice and Student Growth. 3. A rating of “Unsatisfactory” in any of the four domains results in overall Professional Practice rating of “Unsatisfactory.” 4. Any two ratings of “Needs Improvement” without an “Unsatisfactory” results in a “Needs Improvement” rating on Professional Practice. 5. No ratings of “Unsatisfactory” and no more than one “Needs Improvement,” but less than 2 “Exemplary,” results in a “Proficient” rating on Professional Practice. 6. At least two “Exemplary” and no ratings of “Unsatisfactory” or “Needs Improvement” results in “Exemplary” on Professional Practice. SLO IMPLEMENTATION SLO Implementation Training Spring 2015 Fall 2014 Summer and Fall 2015 Growth vs Proficiency 90 80 70 60 50 PRE POST 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D SLO Toolkit ED.SC.GOV/SLO SLO Guidebook • Focus at Teacher Level • Detailed document that explains SLO information including: – Purpose – Benefits – Creation Process and timeline – Various types – Setting Growth Targets – Data Collection – Evaluation and Scoring • Includes Sample Templates PowerPoint • Training Module Designed for Teachers Facilitator Script • Accompaniment to PowerPoint • Designed for easy use by trainers • Step-by-step process of delivery Points to Consider • The Training is a Framework – Build on it to fit the needs of your district • Training Time Frame – There is no recommended time for training. We estimate the training will take about 2 hours, however, the time it takes participants to complete activities, participant questions, and additional district information may affect the training time frame • Just the Beginning – This is a living document; Over 2015-2016 year, “just in time” training modules will be added to assist with implementation. Next Steps Create/Review your roll out plan. Determine decisions that have been made at the district level and decisions that should be made. Think about additional evidence that may be collected to support the SLO measures. Encourage teachers to identify evidence sources. Determine what assessments to use within the SLO process (Consider assessments currently in use that are appropriate, and think about what you may need to add.)