Educator evaluation lessons learned from other states

Connecticut Performance Evaluation Advisory Council12.20.2011

1

Recent flurry of legislation passed to improve educator evaluation systems

Evaluations seen as key, but little policy momentum until a few years ago

Race to the Top competition led to policy changes in 21 states during 2009 and 2010

Momentum carried over into legislative sessions last spring, with 11 more states passing laws and rules

2

Sources: State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011); Build to Succeed? Ranking New Statewide Teacher Evaluation Practices. Democrats for Education Reform. (2011); Teacher Evaluation and Tenure Reform Legislation. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2011).

3

32 states have made teacher evaluation policy changes from 2009 to 2011

Source: State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011

4

23 states require evaluations that include objective evidence of student learning

Source: State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011

What do state best practices include? 4 rating levels Annual reviews for all teachers Multiple measures of student growth that are a significant

part of teacher evaluations Evaluations that provide teachers with useful feedback and

results linked to professional development Strong training for evaluators A statewide committee (like PEAC) that meets regularly to

provide implementation guidance Pilot process or staggered implementation

5

What have states learned about how to implement new evaluation systems effectively?

No evaluation system is going to be perfect→Will want versions 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0

Involve educators at every stage of development, implementation and refinement

Communicate effectively about why these reforms matter for teachers →Use a teacher support frame as well as an accountability frame

Focus on supports for teachers (what will they get out of new evaluation systems?)

6

State evaluation guidelines – what have states done to date?

This varies by state and the kind of law each passed

Almost all specify which components of evaluations should be used

Most identify percentages for those components

You can break down states into three types based on level of state vs. local control

7

What’s the right level of specificity for states and districts?

Strong state model (DE, LA, MI, RI, TN)

Strong local control (AZ, MA, MN, NV, NY, OH)

State model with district opt-in (CO, IL, IN, OK)

8

Source: State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011)

Three structural options for Connecticut

1. Prescriptive model - specific percentages for multiple measures of student growth, teacher observation, other components → (DE, LA, MI, RI, TN)

2. Moderate model with minimum requirements - provide approved components for evaluations and minimum percentages for some → (AZ, MA, MN, NV, NY, OH)

3. State “default” model with local development option - offer well-developed state model with opt-out approval process for district-designed systems that meet minimum requirements→ (CO, IL, IN, OK)

9

Pros & cons for the prescriptive model Prescriptive model - specific percentages for multiple

measures of student growth, teacher observation, other components

PROS→Level of specificity can be a plus because it ensures consistency in

district evaluation systems across the state. →Can offer a “waiver” option for districts who want to establish their

own model, as long as they meet minimum requirements.

CONS→Can work well if level of agreement is high among statewide

stakeholders, but can limit local development, buy-in, and creativity.→How many districts would opt for the “waiver” option and would this

tax CSDE capacity?

10

Pros & cons for the moderate model Moderate model with minimum requirements – provide

approved components for evaluations and minimum percentages for some

PROS→Ensures some consistency in evaluation systems across the state→Provides local flexibility but also emphasizes state priorities

CONS→Many districts may elect to use minimum requirements and not push

for bolder evaluation systems→Does not often establish strong local buy-in among teachers and

administrators

11

Pros & cons for the state “default” model State “default” model with local development option - offer well-

developed state model with opt-out approval process for district-designed systems that meet minimum requirements

PROS→Districts “default” to a state model if stakeholder agreement on a new

system isn’t reached at the local level, which ensures more teacher and administrator collaboration up front

→ A well-developed state “default” model frees up high-capacity districts but also helps low-capacity districts who can adopt state model or look to it as a starting point.

CONS→More work for states to develop “default” model→Districts/stakeholder groups may complain that each district creating its

own system will take too much time, but buy-in up front can help with model development and implementation.

12

What’s right for Connecticut?

Right level of state vs. local control?

Right amount of specificity?

Right amount of enforcement and compliance?

Connecticut history of local control

13

Questions and Discussion

Discussion of state best practices

Discussion of state-level options for Connecticut

Next steps

14

Contact Information John Luczak

→john@educationfirstconsulting.com→847-769-3290

Adam Petkun→adam@educationfirstconsulting.com→541-513-4195

15

16

Thank Youwww.educationfirstconsulting.com