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

2. 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

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

4. Components of Proposed System

5. 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)

6. CVA Teachers Scale and Weights

7. NCVA Teachers Scale and Weights

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

9. Principal Performance Scale (PPS)

10. Outcome of Evaluation System

11. Proposed Timeline of Implementation

12. Phase I- Beta Test on SIG schools

13. Phase II- Pilot on Volunteer Districts

14. Phase III-ALL teachers and principals

15. 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 2014-15 And because systems would run in parallel with existing ADEPT/PADEPP 2014-2015 year needs approval by SBE because it is a statewide change in the evaluation system

16. Advocacy to Date State Board of Education Meetings Two previous meetings, public session October 10 th - 1pm Emails 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)

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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 2014-2015 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.

22. 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)

23. 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

24. 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%

25. 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% ----------------1.68% 70%-----------------1.86% 60%-----------------2.72% 50%-----------------8.65% 40%-----------------4.32% 30%-----------------7.65% 25%-----------------10.78% 20%-----------------10.84% 15%-----------------4.26% 10%-----------------14.97% 5%-------------------5.08% 0%-------------------21.52% 67.45%

26. Group discussions of survey questions How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support? 3 4 5 6

27. Group discussions of survey questions How many teacher evaluation rating levels would you support?- RESULTS (preliminary as of October 1 st ) 3 --------48.98% 4 --------20.77% 5 --------13.93% 6 --------1.33%

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

29. 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 -----21.82% No -----72.73%

30. Questions/Comments?