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.)