TOSS 2014 Legislative ConferenceTOSS 2014 Legislative Conference Dr. Sara HeyburnDr. Sara Heyburn Dr. Paul FlemingDr. Paul Fleming Teachers and Leaders Division, TDOETeachers and Leaders Division, TDOE

Overview  Teacher Licensure  Administrator Licensure  Administrator Evaluation Pilot 2

Teacher Licensure 3

Process  August 2013 – SBE passes final reading on licensure changes  October 2013 – SBE calls for stakeholder input on alternatives  December 2013 – SBE, TDOE meets with TOSS work group to discuss alternative proposals  January 30, 2014 – SBE reviews two new proposals, A and B A: Advancement tied to overall; renewal tied to TCA required in-service B: Advancement tied to overall; renewal tied to overall  April 2014 – SBE to review and vote on modified proposal B 4

SBE Approved Policy (Aug 2013) Proposal AProposal B License types and validity periods  Practitioner - 3 years, renewable once  Professional - 6 years, renewable  Practitioner - 3 years (Practitioner II status*)  Professional - 5 years, renewable  Practitioner - min of 3 years, max of 6  Professional - 6 years, renewable Advancement criteria  Earn a 2 or better on overall* evaluation score and TVAAS (if applicable), for two of three years  Earn a 3 or higher overall for at least two of three years Renewal criteria  Earn a 2 or better on overall evaluation and TVAAS, if applicable  One-year extension if insufficient data  No performance requirement  Complete annual in- service as required by TCA  Earn a 3 or higher on overall evaluation for at least 1/2 of all active years  One-year extension if insufficient data Review status  1 year  Must earn a 2 or better on overall and TVAAS, if applicable  1 year  Must get director sign-off on successful completion of in-service hours  1 year  Must earn a 3 or better on overall evaluation Appeal  Yes Other N/A  Report of ‘inefficiency’ data by school district (i.e. teachers scoring 1’s or 2’s)  Report of ‘inefficiency’ data by school district  Safe harbor for NTGS teachers *Overall as referenced here, indicates overall evaluation score

Revised Administrator Evaluation 6

Why Do We Evaluate Administrators? To provide high quality feedback that deepens skills and improves leader performance, leading to increased student learning. High quality feedback Deeper skills Improved leader performance Increased student learning

Administrator Evaluation Advisory Council  15 Council members, comprised of Directors, Instructional Supervisors, University Leadership Preparation Professors, Principals, and Assistant Principals meet monthly to share and provide feedback about the Pilot evaluation.  Review data and feedback from the 10 districts involved in the revised Administrator Evaluation Rubric Pilot during the school year, inform revisions to the rubric content, processes, and supporting tools, and with Department staff, make a joint recommendation for statewide rollout of the revised Administrator Evaluation rubric to the State Board of Education.  Seek feedback from various stakeholders to inform revisions to the current administrator licensure policy, and with Department staff, make a joint-recommendation for a revised licensure policy to the State Board of Education in

Participating Districts  Davidson County  Decatur County  Franklin County  Jackson-Madison County  Lexington City  Milan SSD  Putnam County  Trousdale County  Wilson County  Union County

Getting to Know the Revised Rubric The rubric includes:  A preamble that generally defines the ‘Theory of Action’ grounding the rubric  4 TILS Standards  22 indicators  Multiple descriptors for each indicator  2 types of evidence for each indicator: practices and outcomes  A brief ‘Glossary of Terms’ 10

Contact Us  If you have any questions about the pilot process, please reach out to Pennye Thurmond at or Paul Fleming at