Waiver World

More news came out this week in NCLB Waiver World. Of interest are extensions for Indiana and Kansas, and the refusal to extend the waiver in Oklahoma. Lessons include: you don't need to specify a test score percentage for student growth as a "significant factor" in educator evaluations, and if you're not adopting common core, your higher ed institutions need to be ready to certify the standards you do adopt as "college ready."

"Significant Factor"
Waiver Principle 3 requires changes to teacher and principal evaluations. States must include student growth as a "significant factor," and in the ESEA-required tested grades and subjects (ELA and math in grades 3-8 and once in HS; science once in elementary, middle, and high) those tests must be part of student growth. Kansas proposed guidelines without specifying percentages. As reported in the Topeka Capital-Journal, "Test scores will be one of the indicators, but the state won’t mandate what percentage that must comprise of a given teacher or principal’s evaluation." 
This approval is interesting given representations made by some that the USED won't approve waiver amendments if certain percentages are not included in a state's guidelines. Now we have proof that USED will approve plans with more flexibility. 

College- & Career-Ready Standards
Both Oklahoma and Indiana moved away from the common core state standards and related assessments, which had been their method for complying with Principle 1 of the NCLB waiver.
Indiana went the "Virginia" route. Indiana's State Board adopted the 2014 Indiana State Standards and its Commission on Higher Education certified that students meeting those standards would not need remedial course work in post-secondary education.
Oklahoma decided to revert to its 2010 state standards. USED gave the state until August 12 to supply evidence that its higher ed institutions had certified the standards as "college- and career-ready." Oklahoma send a letter stating it could not submit evidence by the deadline, and did not have a timetable for getting it - so the waiver was not extended for School Year 14-15.
Other states facing the anti-common core movement should take note if they want to keep their NCLB waivers: make sure your higher ed institutions are on board.
Oklahoma faces the challenges that Washington state is experiencing in undoing the waiver and reverting to NCLB metrics.

Data From the Changing Evaluation Systems

Interesting reads in the educator evaluation sphere included two that came out today.

In Do Evaluations Penalize Teachers of Needy Students?,  Stephen Sawchuk at EdWeek pulls together data analysis from DC and Pittsburgh and concludes:

                

                There are a few takeaways from all of this: 

• Critics have lambasted "value added" systems based on test scores as favoring teachers of better-performing students. But alternative measures, like observations and surveys, appear to be just as susceptible.
• It's hard to know based on currently available data whether these patterns reflect flawed systems or a maldistribution of talent; in fact, it could be a combination of both—but as Di Carlo writes about D.C., "none of the possible explanations are particularly comforting."
• Could the likelihood of lower scores discourage teachers from wanting to work in schools with more minority students or disadvantaged students? 

At a time when states are to be developing new Title II equity plans (due to USED in April 2015), these takeaways are especially troubling. 

And Bellwether Education Partners released today Teacher Evaluations in an Era of Rapid Change: From "Unsatisfactory" to "Needs Improvement." Of their 5 conclusions, one of concern is the variation among districts within the same state. Here's one example - their graphic for some Florida counties: 

Hillsborough or Manatee are looking like better places to work than Pasco, right? I wonder whether graphs like these will become recruitmet tools. 

Yea for Delay

USED's Secretary Delisle is offering states the opportunity to postpone using new state assessments as part of "student growth" in teacher and principal evaluation systems. (Excerpted below.) Many have asked for this delay for many reasons, including that most states will be implementing new "college- and career-ready" assessments. There's also a hint that other flexibility might be available.

Dear Chief State School Officer:

 ...

The 2014-15 school year is an important one as we continue an essential but complex transition period. Most States will be fully implementing new, rigorous academic standards while also transitioning to new State assessments and implementing educator evaluation and support systems. We continue to hear from educators– just as you do – about the importance of ensuring this transition occurs in a thoughtful and strategic manner. Thus, I am writing to inform you of an important new element of flexibility we will offer States based on your experiences in implementation.

 ...

 However, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) also recognizes that building these systems is complex and that effectively implementing them can pose challenges. As this work has evolved, although they have the necessary authority to implement the systems fully, many SEAs have indicated a need for additional time to incorporate student growth based on State assessments into educator ratings for teachers and principals of tested grades and subjects during the transition to new assessments in 2014–2015.  Still, other SEAs have informed the Department that they need to modify their implementation plans in other ways due to lessons learned or challenges facing their LEAs.   The Department has heard those concerns, and will grant the following additional flexibilities to individual States that need them:

• SEAs that need flexibility to delay inclusion of student growth on State assessments in evaluation and support systems during the transition to new assessments aligned with college- and career- ready standards.  The Department is offering SEAs transitioning to new assessments the flexibility of additional time to incorporate student growth on State assessments for one year, during the transition to new assessments, which most States plan for 2014-2015.  This flexibility is available if the SEA provides two assurances:

1.   In addition to continuing to implement their educator evaluation systems using multiple measures of student growth, the SEA or its LEAs will calculate student growth data based on State assessments during the transition year for all teachers of tested grades and subjects, in order to ensure and improve SEA and/or LEA capacity to make these calculations in an accurate manner going forward; and

2.   Each teacher of a tested grade and subject and all principals will receive their student growth data based on State assessments for the 2014-2015 school year in order to provide educators with all available information and build a deeper understanding of the information and its uses. 

 ...

Sincerely,

Deborah S. Delisle

NJ Reducing Test Scores to 10% of Ed Eval

On August 6, 2014, the NJ State Board of Education approved regulation changes that would reduce the weight of test scores in the evaluation of teachers of math and English from 30% to 10% in SY 14-15. Under the changes, "student growth" for those teachers would also include Student Growth Objectives (SGOs, aka Student Learning Objectives) weighted at 20%. Observations will be 70% of their evaluations. Teachers of the "non-tested" grades and subjects will have SGOs at 20% and observations at 80%. The reg changes also include an expedited review for those who contest the use of the SGOs to drop their overall ratings to "partially effective" or "ineffective."


Just another example of how states have the flexibility to define "student growth" in a way that does not overly rely on the test score measures from new tests that will be coming online in SY 14-15.