Proposed Educator Effectiveness Guidelines Jennifer Coleman, Ph.D. Richland School District One Co-Chair, Testing and Accountability Roundtable Superintendent’s Roundtable

Principles of ESEA Waiver Principle 1: College and Career Readiness Expectations for All Students Principle 2: State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership

Timeline of Notification Thursday (7/19)- ESEA Approved; posted on website Friday (7/20)- proposal added to SCDE website; Educator Effectiveness Guidelines (Principle 3)

Components of Proposed System

Teacher Evaluation and Support Model 1)Teacher’s Professional Performance (TOPS) -substantially revised SAFE-T 2) Teacher Value Added (TVA) -Classroom Value Added (CVA) Group - Non-Classroom Value Added (NCVA) Group (speech therapist, media specialist, guidance counselors) 3) School Value Added (SVA) - elementary- growth rating on state report card - high- increases in LHSAP, increase in graduation rate (on time and 5 year)

CVA Teachers Scale and Weights

NCVA Teachers Scale and Weights

Principal Evaluation and Support Model 1)Professional Performance Scale (PPS) Rating 2)School’s Value Added Rating

Principal Performance Scale (PPS)

Outcome of Evaluation System

Proposed Timeline of Implementation

Phase I- Beta Test on SIG schools

Phase II- Pilot on Volunteer Districts

Phase III-ALL teachers and principals

What approval is needed? These are SCDE positions: Beta test on SIG schools does not need approval because of MOU signed and because they are converting to existing ADEPT/PADEPP Pilot test with volunteer schools does not need approval because it is voluntary Approval of SBE for And because systems would run in parallel with existing ADEPT/PADEPP year needs approval by SBE because it is a statewide change in the evaluation system

Advocacy to Date State Board of Education Meetings Two previous meetings, public session October 10 th - 1pm s to State Board Members Ad Hoc Committee working on guidelines Participation in 3 surveys Have been or will be shared with SBE Advocating for SIG schools to have option to “back out” of enhanced ADEPT in favor of their own system Non-SIG districts to test out alternative systems being developed by Ad Hoc group (difference systems from what SCDE is purposing)

Community Stakeholder Meetings Wednesday October 3 rd, virtual meeting with chance for input Upcoming: five regional statewide meetings

Educator Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee SCASA SCSBA Palmetto State Teachers SCEA Clemson University/Converse CERRA Childs & Halligan Law Firm Nickles Law Firm TAR Roundtable ILR Roundtable HR Roundtable State Teachers of the Year ESOL Teacher/SPED Teacher Superintendents Roundtable Teachers

Purpose of the Committee Explore alternatives to the guidelines that could be presented to the SCDE for adoption Facilitate broader educator input Flexibility within adoption Districts have options to adopt from several systems

Progress of the Committee Two meetings face to face Prepared talking points that were presented at September SBE meeting Sent out the surveys Educator Principal 8 or 9 points for SBE to consider for the state developing multiple different systems for school districts to pilot List of potential technical issues

List of Potential Technical Issues from TAR Does the SCDE have the capacity to accurately calculate teacher and principal grades? How will improvement be calculated in with the switch to SBAC? How will improvement be measured for high schools where students do not take the same test two years in a row? How will growth be measured for 3 rd graders? How will growth be measured for the sample grades (3,5,6,8) in science and social studies? With CVA, nonCVA, and TOPS, you could have three non-comparable models within a school, yet they all have the same outcome scale. (A-F). An A on TOPS is not necessarily comparable to an A on NCVA.

List of Potential Technical Issues from TAR SCDE should be responsible for determining the validity of inferences from the assessments. Are the tests valid for measuring teacher performance? What about the “other” variables? Poverty, teacher turnover, school schedules, summer programs, education level of parents. How are they determining whether the percentages are too high or too low? What is the “impact on student learning” referenced in APS1, part 4. Other measures is too broad, we need explicit criteria. Should NCVA teachers be judged on core area test scores? What about non-standard schools? (early childhood centers, career and technical education centers)

Educator and Principal Evaluation Survey Over 8000 responses to the teacher evaluation survey Over 800 responses to the principal evaluation survey Only open a week Intent was to gather input from larger audience Bring results to October 10 th SBE meeting

Group discussions of survey questions What percent of an educators overall evaluation should be based on “student growth”? 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Group discussions of survey questions What percent of an educators overall evaluation should be based on “student growth”?-RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1 st ) 80% % 70% % 60% % 50% % 40% % 30% % 25% % 20% % 15% % 10% % 5% % 0% % 67.45%

Group discussions of survey questions How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support?

Group discussions of survey questions How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support?- RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1 st ) % % % %

Group discussions of survey questions Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal? Yes No

Group discussions of survey questions Should a school level factor be included as 50% of the evaluation rating of a principal?- RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1 st ) Yes % No %

Questions/Comments?