ESEA Flexibility Package – Principle Three: Discussion of Guidelines Requirements and Technical Assistance Opportunity EducationCounsel LLC Council of Chief State School Officers June 13 th and 15 th, 2012

2 "ESEA Flexibility" package represents a significant, initial shift from a compliance frame toward an innovation frame and a new state-federal partnership in which states:  Present comprehensive plans re (1) implementation of CCR standards and assessments, (2) design of CCR accountability and supports, and (3) movement on teacher and leader evaluation (TLE) based on student achievement.  Receive greater flexibility in terms of waivers of current NCLB provisions, including AYP, school improvement, and HQT. For a significant number of states, this process provides an opportunity to jump start or accelerate work in developing systems of educator evaluation and effectiveness. USED ESEA Flexibility TLE requirements are largely aligned with early adopter states/ RTTT, but on an ambitious timeline. Approximately 20+ states are new TLE entrants or accelerating efforts based on NCLB waivers Background and Context

3 The purpose of this call is to continue discussions among states that are accelerating or beginning new work on educator evaluation in response to ESEA Flexibility with particular focus on the development and approval of state guidelines. This effort will provide your state with guidance and context on the U.S. Department of Education guideline process, as well as an opportunity for states to share information and communicate. In addition, assistance will draw on the lessons of the fastest-moving states on how to design, implement, and sequence use of evaluations in a manner that is most likely to strengthen the profession and advance student outcomes. Purpose

4 States must develop teacher and leader evaluation and support systems that meet several baseline requirements: Are used for continual improvement of instruction/student achievement (including for SWDs and ELLs) [core NCLB 9401 waiver requirements] Meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three performance levels Use multiple valid measures, including a significant factor of student growth for all students and other measures of professional practice, such as observations, teacher portfolios, and student or parent surveys Evaluate educators on a regular basis Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback to guide professional development Provide growth data to reading/language arts and math teachers in tested grades Inform personnel decisions Additionally, states must explain their process for ensuring that each LEA will develop and implement teacher and leader evaluation systems consistent with state guidelines. USED ESEA Flexibility TLE Requirements

5 States have a 3-4-year period to adopt, develop, pilot, and fully implement systems of educator evaluation consistent with the requirements. States submitting in the first two application windows must: At Submission: SEA must provide a high-quality plan for development of guidelines for evaluation and support systems, process for ensuring LEA implementation, and assurance that SEA has or will provide student growth data to teachers. SY : SEA must adopt "guidelines" for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems; SEA must provide student growth data to teachers. SY : LEAs [or SEA] must develop evaluation and support systems consistent with state guidelines. SY : LEAs must pilot implementation of evaluation and support systems. SY : LEAs must fully implement evaluation and support systems, with use for personnel decisions beginning in SY USED ESEA Flexibility Timeline for TLE Implementation

6 There have been a number of questions from states about what constitute "guidelines." Based on conversations with USED, review of waiver guidance, review of early adopter state plans, etc., it appears that guidelines must: Demonstrate a clear, certain pathway to statewide design, implementation, and use over the next 3-4 years through law, regulations, or possibly guidelines (depending on authority) Set clear parameters that can guide district (and/or state) design decisions and ensure a common level of quality, beginning in SY Incorporate student growth, consistent with USED definition, in a significant way across all types of teachers and principals – this could mean setting a percentage, developing a matrix, or tying growth outcomes to specific consequences Address how the evaluation systems will reflect growth by students with disabilities and English learners Involve teachers and principals in design and implementation Ensure educators receive feedback from the evaluation that can be used to improve instruction and be linked to targeted professional development Address in (at least) broad terms each of the USED ESEA Flexibility TLE requirements and how the state will ensure district action consistent with those requirements and within the required timeline, including through review, approval, and monitoring Substantive Guidance on TLE Guidelines

7 Although conversations with and within USED continue, states will likely be required to follow a process that includes submission of TLE guidelines in early summer followed by USED review and approval. Specific steps may include: States submit draft guidelines (by June 25 th ) along with an updated draft of Principle Three for a separate review process by peers and USED, similar to the process used for the broader application. Feedback is expected to be a mix of ensuring requirements and providing "technical assistance" and will be provided through peer review later this summer so that states can make any necessary changes to guidelines. This suggests that initial guidelines submitted by the state could be in draft or pending further state action/approval based on feedback. USED certifies that guidelines meet waiver requirements, and states fully adopt guidelines by/near the beginning of SY USED continues to monitor state progress through Process for TLE Guidelines

8 Colorado submitted its guidelines as part of its comprehensive proposal in November and was approved in February. Still in the midst of design, its guidelines, which largely rely on state regulations (recently affirmed by state legislature), provide potentially helpful markers regarding one example of appropriate substance and level of detail. Colorado's regulations ( 1 CCR ) address, at a high-level, the state's educator performance standards and the elements of evaluation instruments generally, including: broad requirements regarding growth and professional practice measures, the frequency of the evaluation, and different categories of performance levels.1 CCR Regulations also outline in a fairly non-detailed manner a number of processes (often without substantive specificity) to accomplish key activities, most of which had not yet occurred, including: the development of evaluation requirements, the design of a model instrument, the provision of materials and resources to support and build district capacity, and district training on the evaluation. Notably, in both its guidelines and in regulations, Colorado provides a detailed articulation of the state role in monitoring districts throughout the design and implementation phases, and demonstrates clear authority and mechanisms to ensure districts implement according to state requirements. State Example: Colorado

9 Based on experiences from some of the fast-moving states and districts, there are emerging lessons for states to consider: Design: Experience of early states/districts has clarified pathways and options in terms of system design, including range of current and improving measures, metrics, etc. Implementation: Design is important, but implementation is key, and is best viewed as part of design and continuous improvement. Ensure the state has allocated resources that sufficiently support district capacity, training, monitoring and refinement. Balance: The acceleration to develop guidelines and put in place new systems of educator evaluation should not come at the expense of quality or buy in. States must find the right balance and phase in for each context, particularly regarding "high-stakes" use (and there may/should be flexibility in USED requirements in that regard). Professional Development: Evaluation is an important under-pinning to a broader set of policy reforms, and a broader focus on educator effectiveness. Movement on educator evaluation along with data systems, Common Core, etc., provides an opportunity to advance reform re embedded, collective professional development and practice. Continuous Improvement: This is the big shift! TLE design will and should evolve based on pilot, implementation, new data sources, etc. Build that into your plans – in policy, practice, and communications. Promising Practices

10 Where is your state in this process re TLE guidelines? How is your state addressing the substantive requirements for guidelines? Where are your challenges? Where could other states learn from you? How is your state planning to address the guidelines submission process? What if any concerns do you have re authority, timelines, etc.? How can this group be most helpful? Cross-State Discussion on TLE Guidelines

11 Groups of states are working collaboratively through EducationCounsel's Teacher and Leader Evaluation Network and CCSSO's State Consortium for Educator Effectiveness (scee.groupsite.com/main/summary) to share resources and emerging best practice. Important resources from these and other leading groups include:scee.groupsite.com/main/summary Teacher and Leader Evaluation Framework, jointly adopted by CCSSO, the National Governor's Association, and EducationCounsel - Teacher Evaluation 2.0, from the New Teacher Project, proposes six design standards for rigorous and fair teacher evaluation systems - tntp.org/publications/issue-analysis/view/teacher- evaluation-2.0/ tntp.org/publications/issue-analysis/view/teacher- evaluation-2.0/ Driving Alignment and Implementation: The Role of the Principalship in ESEA Flexibility - B &utm_medium= &utm_cmpaign=ESEA%2Breport%2B %2Bpersonal B &utm_medium= &utm_cmpaign=ESEA%2Breport%2B %2Bpersonal Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observations with Student Survey and Achievement Gains - Measuring Student Achievement in Non-‐Tested Grades and Subjects: Approaches, Issues, and Options for DCPS, District of Columbia Public Schools, October 2011 Resources

Discussion Contact Scott Palmer, Managing Partner, EducationCounsel, Robin Gelinas, Senior Policy Advisor, EducationCounsel, Mary-Dean Barringer, Educator in Residence, CCSSO,