1. Educator Effectiveness in ESEA Reauthorization March 8, 2011 CCSSO State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE)

2. Presenters  Adam Ezring, Senior Advocacy Associate, CCSSO  Scott Palmer, partner and co-founder of Education Counsel  Circe Stumbo, Consultant, CCSSO, Moderator and Discussant  Janice Poda, CCSSO, Discussant 2

3. Webinar Logistics  Everyone is muted  Use the chat function to make a comment or ask a question  You may chat privately with individuals on your team  If you have problems, you may send William Bentgen a message via chat or email at williamb@ccsso.org williamb@ccsso.org 3

4. SCEE Framework

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. Poll

10. 1.How many people are you responding for? 2.How familiar are you with CCSSO’s March 2010 ESEA policy statement? a.Very familiar b.Somewhat familiar c.I have a sense of the positions but am not very familiar d.Have not reviewed 10

11. Poll 3.How familiar are you with the ongoing national debates about reauthorization as they relate to educator effectiveness? a.Very familiar b.Somewhat familiar c.I have a sense of the debates but am not very familiar d.I have not been tracking the reauthorization debates about educator effectiveness 11

12. ESEA Reauthorization OVERVIEW and PROSPECTS

13. Bold, Broad Reforms  This is a period of significant education policy reform at the state and local levels, driven in part by federal reforms  There is broad consensus on education policy reforms  There is broad interest in a new federal role and state-local-federal partnership 13

14. Bold, Broad Reforms  At the federal level, we have seen and will continue see the shift toward educator effectiveness play out several major pieces of legislation  Race to the Top  State Fiscal Stabilization Fund  Teacher Incentive Fund  Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization 14

15. Opportunities and challenges to Reauthorization this year  Movement in the Senate  Support from ED and the president  Momentum behind college- and career-readiness  Consensus on need for reform  If not fixed, administration may “fix” through rules  General interest in new state-federal roles  Complications in the House  No resources  Back-up in essential Congressional actions  Debate about accountability vs. mandates  Incentives for Republicans not to collaborate  If not done right, will just have tweaks, not overhaul 15

16. Possible Timeline  If significant progress is not made by summer, unlikely reauthorization will take place before the presidential elections  This likely would put us in an Administrative focus under Section 9401 "waiver" authority, which also creates opportunities for state leadership 16

17. ESEA Reauthorization TOPICS IN EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS

18. ESEA and Educator Effectiveness  Congress likely will address educator effectiveness in reauthorization  Evaluation of teachers and principals is at the heart of the debate 18

19. Evaluation at the heart, but a full range of issues on hand  Professional Standards  Teacher and Leader Preparation Programs  Initial Licensure and Re-Licensure  Recruitment, Hiring, and Distribution  Compensation  Working Conditions  Mentoring and Induction  Ongoing Professional Development  Teacher and Leader Evaluation 19

20. Clues from Race to the Top: (D) Great Teachers & Leaders D(1)Providing high quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals D(2)Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance D(3)Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals D(4)Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs D(5)Providing effective support to teachers and principals 20

21. ESEA and Other Key Legislation  Educator effectiveness debate focused in ESEA Title II ($3 billion program), but issues arise across ESEA—and other federal programs  Title II current focus is Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)  Other key legislation: TIF, Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA), Education Sciences Research Act (ESRA) 21

22. Title II and Other Federal Legislation  Current ESEA discussions of Title II  Formula funding to move to evaluations based on student achievement  Competitive funding for TIF-like program  Greater focus on teacher prep and alternative pathways, merging with Title II of the Higher Education Act  Potential continued focus on equitable distribution 22

23. Related Provisions and Interests  Next generation assessments and accountability  Data systems: Linking student achievement and growth to teachers, leaders, and preparation programs  Evaluation of ESEA programs and requirements  Innovation and transformational leadership  Workable solutions for rural schools 23

24. CCSSO’s Statement  Require states to  set professional educator standards and  establish meaningful teacher and principal evaluation systems based on multiple measures that include returns on student achievement, but leave states and districts the flexibility to design those evaluation systems and define their use; 24

25. ESEA Reauthorization DISCUSSION

26. Discussion  What do you think about the potential shift in federal law toward requiring teacher evaluation based on student achievement, while leaving the mix of measures up to states and districts?  Does this give too much of a federal push? Not enough? 26

27. What should we measure as evidence of effectiveness?  Student achievement and growth?  Observable behaviors that we know impact student achievement, growth, and experiences?  Responsibility to the profession and to other professionals in the education environment?  Knowledge of content and how to teach content? 27

28. What should we measure as evidence of effectiveness?  What role can the updated InTASC standards and the ISLLC 2008 standards play in the discussions around educator effectiveness?InTASC standardsISLLC 2008 standards 28

29. Discussion  If the requirement to develop a statewide system of educator evaluation is being included in reauthorization, what kind of timelines would be workable for developing, piloting, and refining statewide evaluation systems? 29

30. Discussion  Do you want to keep HQT/HOUSSE or does that get phased out? 30

31. What other issues are on your radar?  Data systems and use  Systems of support  Inequitable distribution  Alternate routes  Preparation  Educator recruitment  Preparation  Retention  Professional development  Capacity building  Formula funding vs. competitive grants 31

32. Concerns  Hyper-focus on teachers without equivalent focus on school leaders  Focus on individuals and not teams  Focus on growth not achievement raises concerns about equity, the initial basis for standards-based reform  Locus of authority (federal, state, local)  Other? 32

33. Next Steps  Share your discussions with your delegation to CCSSO’s Legislative Conference  Follow the blog; post your comments  Sample meeting agendas are on the Collaboration Site 33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. Coming Up  March 22, 2:00-3:00 pm EDT Special webinar for state team leads  April 12, 2:00-3:30 pm EDT Monthly Webinar: Policy Implications of the New InTASC Standards  May 10, 2:00-3:30 pm EDT Monthly Webinar TBA: Follow-Up with Summit Speaker(s) 40

41. Coming Up  April 27, Washington, DC 2:00-5:00 pm, Summit orientation for SCEE team leads  April 28-29, Washington, DC National Summit on Educator Effectiveness  April 30, Washington, DC State Team Action Planning 41

42. National Summit on Educator Effectiveness  Opening keynote by David E. HouleDavid E. Houle  Lots of state team time  Time to network with peers in other states  Some time with SCEE partners and some private time just with state teams  Closing keynote by Michael FullanMichael Fullan 42

43. National Summit on Educator Effectiveness  Topics cover gamut of the SCEE agenda, including data systems (you may want to have someone on the team who is familiar with your state’s infrastructure and plans for your data systems) 43

44. Thank you to our presenters, discussants, and all the state teams who participated today!