USED Grants MD an Extension on Use of Test Scores in Evaluation

The Baltimore Sun has reported that Maryland has received a one-year extension on the use of test scores in its educator evaluation system while they work through the change to a new assessment.

Evaluation Frequency

How frequently is educator evaluation required?

The federal incentives. To receive an ESEA waiver states must require evaluation of teachers and principals "for continual improvement of instruction . . . on a regular basis. . . ."  (FAQ C-51). That was a change from the Race to the Top grant competition, which required "annual evaluation of teachers and principals," so in looking at what "most" states are doing, it is important to distinguish the Race to the Top states from the other waiver states.

States. State law also impacts how frequently educators must be evaluated. Although many states began with an annual, full evaluation, some are not pulling back to require limited, informal, or less frequent review. For example, Rhode Island's General Assembly amended its laws to require review every three years for "highly effective" teachers, every two for "effective" rated teachers, and annual review for all others. Another proposal would have reduced the interval to every 4 or 5 years. Arkansas and Virginia have reviews every three years.

South Carolina. In SC, "continuing contract teachers must be evaluated on a continuous basis," which may be "formal or informal." S.C. Code 59-26-30(B)(5); S.C. Reg. 43-205.1.V.B. The 2006 ADEPT guidelines interpret "continuous basis" as "every year." Those guidelines refer to goals-based evaluation as "informal" evaluation, which may be on a 5-year cycle with annual review. Continuing contract teachers recommended for "formal" evaluation "must be notified in writing no later than April 15," with written notice of the reasons and description of the process. S.C. Reg. 43-205.1.V.B. The June 11, 2014 guidelines require that "[a]ll educators must be evaluated on an annual basis." "However, the type and extent of the evaluation must be based on the intended purpose of the evaluation (see Section 7 below), the educator's level of experience, the educator's prior effectiveness rating(s), and the educator's current performance." (pp. 25-26)

Although the SC statute calls for principals to be evaluated "at least once every three years," the regulations for tier 2 principals require a full evaluation of all principal standards "every other year" with at least Standard 2, Instructional Leadership, in the alternate year. S.C. Reg. 43-165.1.III.B.(1). Again the June 2014 guidelines require "on an annual basis" subject to purpose, experience, prior ratings, and current performance.

Questions. While a full, annual evaluation might be desirable for giving educators feedback to improve instruction, questions remain about how that gets implemented well and whether evaluators have capacity to complete that number of annual evaluations. How the evaluation elements are defined also matters. E.g., how many observations by how many people for how long? The experiment that is underway because of Race to the Top and the ESEA waivers could give us interesting information on these questions.

Equity Plans and Effectiveness

The US Department of Education announced its  Excellent Educators for All Initiative today. This is a new version of the old equity plans that states have had on file for a long time, but those plans related to distribution of highly qualified teachers. The USDE wants states to file new plans by April 2015.  Before writing the plans state educator agencies are to gather data: "To prepare a strong plan, each SEA will analyze what its stakeholders and data have to say about the root causes of inequities and will craft its own solutions."

What does this have to do with evaluation? 

The old plans looked at distribution of highly qualified educators. The new plans will likely look at distribution of both highly qualified and highly effective educators - the ones with the highest evaluation ratings, including student growth as a significant factor. So the issue will be how will states encourage districts to encourage the highest rated teachers to go to the schools with the biggest equity issues? 

The Great Teachers and Leaders Center has been preparing for this announcement - it has an entire "Learning Hub" called Moving Towards Equity that is available for states to use for free. They also offer states free technical assistance. 

The USDE letter also mentions a support network, but Edweek's Politics K-12 reports that this is only getting $4.2 million to be used nationwide - less than would be given to three schools under the School Improvement Grant program. 

Despite the free technical assistance, this is likely to be one more un- or under-funded mandate layered on states, that trickles to districts and impacts teachers, especially the highest rated ones. 

And don't forget that the USDE was asking for equity-effectiveness plan updates in the original ESEA waiver extension guidance - but backed off of that when states pushed back. 

What if SC's ESEA flexibility waiver isn't renewed?

The US Department of Education announced July 3 that it has extended the ESEA-NCLB flexibility waiver for six states until the end of school year 14-15. SC was not in this first announcement. See the Politics K-12 Edweek blog  on this. Technically SC's waiver ended with SY 13-14. 

Changes to the evaluation systems occurred so SC could keeps its ESEA waiver. Will those changes matter if SC's waiver is not renewed? What are the issues related to renewal for SC? 

To get a waiver, states had to agree to: 

1. Adopt "college- and career-ready standards" and "high-quality assessments." Both terms in quotes are defined in the waiver materials. 

• SC's legislature has required new standards starting in SY 15-16. Will those be "college- and career-ready"? Standards must be either "common to a significant number of states" (aka common core state standards), or ""approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level." So whatever standards are developed would need to be "certified" by SC's higher ed institutions. 
• The legislature also prohibited use of the SMARTER Balanced assessment. A new assessment is required by statute to be selected by September 30 - but will it meet the "high-quality" definition? The assessment must cover the standards and be "valid, reliable, and fair for its intended purposes." but it must also cover the full range of standards no matter how difficult to measure; elicit complex student demonstrations or applications of knowledge and skills;  provide an accurate measure for the "full performance continuum, including high- and low-achieving students"; provide accurate growth measures over a full course/year; provide growth data that can be used to determine whether students are on track to being college- and career-ready; assess ELLs and students with disabilities; provide alternate assessments; and produce data "that can be used to inform: determinations of school effectiveness...; determinations of individual principal and teacher effectiveness for purposes of evaluation; determinations of principal and teacher professional development and support needs; and teaching, learning, and program improvement."
• SC has pending proposed changes to its application concerning assessment. 

2.  Adopt a State-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system. That's the A-F grades that are assigned to schools and districts based primarily on mean scale score changes in testing. SC recently (June 2) received approval for 22 changes, all related to this element 2. 

3.  Support effective instruction and leadership - primarily through changes to principal and teacher evaluation and support systems. SC has a pending amendment request from March, which is when SC's extension was requested. 

4. Reducing duplication and unnecessary burden - states were to reduce red tape. Most people have forgotten that this requirement even exists, and USED did not ask for state plans on it. 

So how likely is it that SC's extension request will be granted? USED has frequently said it wants to work with states to get to "yes" on waivers. Given the uncertainty on principle 1 - standards and assessments - it may be a while before we know whether SC will receive an extension for SY 14-15. And if the extension is not granted, what will happen to the evaluation changes?  Stay tuned. 

Help from Washington, DC?

Assistant Secretary Deb Delisle (from Ohio and recently a resident of Myrtle Beach) sent a notice today to state school chiefs that the US Department of Education will implement a process "that provides SEAs [State Education Agencies] with support that will enable them to meet the requirements" of the educator evaluation sections of their waivers. 

What does that mean? 

Later in the notice she says States will "continue to progress with implementation of their teacher and principal evaluation and support systems," while USED is "offering flexibility where needed for targeted, State-specific adjustments to implementation steps, timelines, and sequencing."

What does that mean? 

Probably that so long as SC is implementing and progressing on its evaluation systems, it can extend a few timelines - like the one that has been requested related to SLOs. 

So maybe we don't have to implement SLOs in August 2014. 

SLOs in SC - Part IV: Growth Targets

SLOs are being used to measure student growth in "non-tested" grades and subjects. The theory is that educators will be able to look at baseline student achievement assessment data, set a year's growth target that is rigorous and appropriate for a student based upon that data, implement instructional strategies and progress monitoring, collect post-assessment data, and determine whether a student met the growth target. And measures of student achievement must be "comparable" within the district.

Assumptions about setting growth targets include that -

1. A valid, reliable baseline assessment exists that covers the course content standards (and a range of standards above and below that grade level?); 
2. Sufficient information exists about the assessment to determine what one year's growth (or perhaps "typical growth"? Or "rigorous"?) should be for students whose baselines are at varying levels; 
3. A valid, reliable post-assessment exists that covers the course content standards for that grade level (+/- other grade levels?)
4. The course content standards for all grades and subjects are of equal difficulty (is high school World Geography equal to high school Calculus?)

The American Institutes for Research (AIR) have materials posted on the site for the Center for Great Teachers & Leaders that discuss various methods (and pitfalls) for setting growth targets.

• Basic Growth Targets - All students have the same growth target - e.g., increase 20 points between the pre- and post-assessment. 
• Formula Growth Targets - E.g., all students will growth by half the difference between 100 and their pre-assessment score. A student with a baseline of 50 would have a target of 75 (100-50 = 50/2 = 25 + 50 = 75)
• Performance Level Targets - A student's performance level will increase by 1 fall and spring. Although PASS courses will use VAM, and example would be a Below Basic1 student moving to Below Basic 2; or a Below Basic 2 student moving to Proficient. 
• Individualized Targets - For example, NWEA provides various targets on MAP (average expected, comparison groups) based upon a student's pre-test score. 
• Tiered Growth Targets - Students are grouped based on the pre-assessment and given tiered targets. Either similar scores, or similar increases can be used. Advanced Tiered Growth Targets set expectations at a baseline or +X points, whichever is greater. 

• Preassessment - Growth Score
• 0 - 45 points       65
• 46 - 70 points     75
• 70+ points          85

None of these methods for setting growth targets is perfect. For example, an "average" expected growth targets means that half of the students (and therefore teachers with that target) make that target; half  the students (and therefore teachers) do not reach that score. Basic growth targets do not account for closing achievement gaps. Formula targets may not provide enough rigor and "stretch" for top-performing students.

Because SC teachers have (hopefully) a year to get ready for implementing SLOs in SY 15-16, it is highly recommended that during SY 14-15 assessments be reviewed, and data on "typical one year's" growth be collected.  This year when it doesn't "count," why not administer a pre-test, try setting goals, collect post-data, and see how students performed?  That way you'll have at least one year's data on that assessment to inform setting goals for SY 15-16.