ESEA Flexibility Package - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

ESEA Flexibility Package

Description:

ESEA Flexibility Package Implications for State Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:65
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: Janic60
Learn more at: http://people.uncw.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ESEA Flexibility Package


1
ESEA Flexibility Package
Implications for State Teacher and Leader
Evaluation Systems
2
Background and Overview
  • Announcement on September 23, 2011
  • Flexibility package provides the basis for a new
    state-federal partnership in which states
  • advance rigorous goals of teacher effectiveness
    and college and career-readiness for all
    students, and
  • receive greater flexibility to determine how to
    best meet those goals through waivers from
    provisions of NCLB, including highly qualified
    teachers (HQT) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
  • Largely aligned with most emerging systems.
  • States planning to apply that have not yet begun
    work on new educator evaluation systems will have
    to work aggressively to meet timelines.

3
ESEA Flexibility Program Summary
  • To apply for this new flexibility, states must
    address four major principles within specific
    timelines and describe how the state will fully
    implement
  • College and career-ready standards and aligned
    assessments (Common Core or those aligned with
    state institutions of higher education)
  • A rigorous state accountability system (based
    largely on principles articulated by CCSSO)
  • A commitment to design, pilot, and implement a
    system of teacher and leader evaluation based
    significantly on student growth measures
  • A commitment to evaluate and adjust state-level
    administrative and reporting requirements to
    reduce burden on districts and schools
  • States must meet all requirements in order to
    receive flexibilitythey are not able to request
    a limited waiver based on partial implementation
    of these requirements.

4
Focus on Effective Instruction and Leadership
Flexibility Package Requirements
  • Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership
    through Educator Evaluation Requirements
  • Develop and adopt guidelines for teacher and
    principal evaluation and support systems
  • Ensure LEAs implement evaluation and support
    systems

5
Specific Requirements on Supporting Effective
Instruction and Leadership
  • States must develop teacher and leader evaluation
    support systems that
  • Are used for continual improvement of instruction
  • Meaningfully differentiate performance using at
    least three performance levels
  • Use multiple valid measures including a
    significant factor of student growth for all
    students and include 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 for grades in which there is a
    state assessment for current students and
    students taught in the previous year
  • Inform personnel decisions

6
Specific Requirements on Supporting Effective
Instruction and Leadership
Additionally, states must explain their process
for ensuring that each LEA develops and
implements teacher and leader evaluation systems
consistent with state guidelines.
7
Timeline for Implementation
  • States have a four-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 Provide a plan to develop
    guidelines for evaluation and support systems,
    process for ensuring LEA implementation, and
    assurance that SEA has provided student growth
    data to teachers or will do so by the deadline
    required.
  • SY 2011-12 SEA adopts guidelines for teacher and
    principal evaluation and support systems SEA
    provides student growth data to teachers.
  • SY 2012-13 LEAs develop evaluation and support
    systems consist with state guidelines
  • SY 2013-14 LEAs pilot implementation of
    evaluation and support systems.
  • SY 2014-15 LEAs fully implement evaluation and
    support systems.

8
Analysis and Key Issues
  • Timeline required for evaluation implementation
    There is ambiguity on required timelines for
    states that apply under later application
    windows.
  • Initial materials do not define the specificity
    of the "guidelines" that states must develop in
    2011-12.
  • Guidelines likely will be high-level
    requirements, similar to what was required for
    RTTT plans.
  • Timelines likely would be pushed forward at all
    points for states applying for the following
    academic year.
  • We will await further input and clarification in
    the forthcoming peer review guidance.

9
Analysis and Key Issues, continued
  • Role of the SEA and LEA  The language regarding
    the Departments intent for LEAs (rather than
    SEAs) could imply that LEAs develop systems of
    evaluation however, early indications from the
    Department suggest that statewide models would
    meet these requirements. 
  • We will seek clarification as to whether a state
    using a statewide model is expected to develop
    its system as part of the guidelines in 2011-12
    or during 2012-13.

10
Analysis and Key Issues, continued
  • Required use of the evaluation In addition to
    highlighting the importance of using evaluations
    to improve instruction and drive professional
    learning, the package requires states to ensure
    that LEAs use evaluations to  "inform" employment
    decisions. 
  • This phrasing seems to indicate an openness for
    state for a for a range of approaches, from
    considering evaluations in combination with a
    variety of other factors to being a priority
    factor to driving decision-making. 

11
Analysis and Key Issues, continued
  • Evaluation measure standards All measures are
    required to be valid, which could be a high
    technical standard for states.
  • Growth measures are required to be comparable,
    though this term is not defined.
  • For non-tested grades and subjects, the
    Department provides a fairly comprehensive list
    of options, but, notably, does not include
    group/grade/ school-level measures, although such
    measures appear to meet the criteria outlined. 

12
Analysis and Key Issues, continued
  • Evaluation measure weighting States are required
    to include student growth and measures of
    professional practice in their guidelines on
    evaluation design.  Growth measures are required
    to be a "significant factor," but the Department
    leaves it up to the state to decide what
    "significant" means. 
  • Performance levels Having at least three areas
    of performance specified is a clear indication
    the Department is acknowledging the importance of
    meaningful differentiation.
  • Frequency Requirements on the frequency of the
    evaluation are broad, using the term "regular
    basis," and do not prescribe any specific
    frequency (e.g. annual).

13
Analysis and Key Issues, continued
  • Training SEAs are required to ensure all
    teachers, principals, and evaluators receive
    training on the evaluation system and their
    responsibilities however, the Department does
    not require that evaluators be certified to
    ensure their proficiency in implementing the
    evaluation with fidelity, which is broadly
    considered best practice.
  • Reporting requirements LEAs are required to
    report annually to the public and to the SEA the
    percentage of teachers and principals at each
    performance level at the State, LEA, and school
    levels, as well as the aggregate distribution by
    school poverty quartile.  This requirement will
    likely necessitate new data sharing and reporting
    capabilities between the SEA and LEAs. 
    School-level reporting of principal evaluation
    data as well as teacher evaluation data at small
    schools could also mean results of individual
    educator evaluations are publicly reported.

14
Waiver Submission Timeline and Process
  • The U.S. Department of Education has outlined a
    rolling process for states to apply for waiver
    flexibility.
  • For states to receive flexibility by the end of
    the 2011-12 school year, they must submit a
    flexibility request during one of the first two
    application windows
  • First Application Deadline November 14, 2011
    with a December 2011 peer review
  • Second Application Deadline mid-February 2012
    with a spring 2012 peer review
  • States are also requested to notify the
    Department by October 12, 2011 of their intent to
    request flexibility and the application period in
    which they intend to apply.
  • The Department will host Technical Assistance
    webinars in Sept.-Oct. 2011.

15
Waiver Submission Timeline and Process
  • The U.S. Department of Education has outlined a
    rolling process for states to apply for waiver
    flexibility.
  • There will be an additional opportunity to apply
    after the 2011-12 school year.
  • States needing additional time can request to
    freeze their AMOs in exchange for taking
    preliminary steps towards meeting the required
    principles.
  • Waivers will be granted through the end of the
    2013-14 school year with the option to request an
    extension.

16
Suggested Immediate Next Steps
  • States pursuing ESEA flexibility should assess
    their status against Department requirements and
    weigh their need for relief against readiness to
    act.
  • Gap analysis Where do state systems meet and not
    meet flexibility requirements? What needs to be
    done and by when?
  • Authority What must take place so that the state
    can develop and adopt guidelines? Are new
    regulations or guidance required? State
    legislation?
  • Alignment How does this work fit with other
    policy reforms currently being implemented?
    (Common Core, RTTT, etc.) How can the SEA ensure
    coherence?

17
Suggested Immediate Next Steps, continued
  • Stakeholder engagement Who needs to be involved?
    What existing systems and processes can be
    leveraged? What core messages need to be
    communicated?
  • Capacity What resources do the state and
    districts have to develop and implement systems
    of evaluation that meet Flexibility requirements?
    What policy decisions should be decided at the
    state versus district levels?
  • Expertise Where internal expertise exists?
    What external support may be needed? What
    resources exist that can be leveraged?
  • Systems What processes and mechanisms need to be
    established to inform policies, build will,
    support implementation, etc.?

18
Resources
  • 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/ma
    in/summary) to share resources and emerging best
    practice. Important resources from these and
    other leading groups include
  • 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/teache
    r-evaluation-2.0/

19
Resources
  • Evaluating Principals, from New Leaders for New
    Schools, provides ideas for the design and
    implementation of evaluation systems to increase
    principal effectiveness - www.nlns.org/evaluating
    -principals.jsp
  • More than Measurement The TAP Systems Lessons
    Learned for Designing Better Teacher Evaluation
    Systems -www.tapsystem.org/publications/eval_lesso
    ns.pdf
  • Initial findings from the MET Project -
    www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Finding-P
    olicy_Brief.pdf

20
Questions?
Contact Janice Poda, Strategic Initiative
Director, janicep_at_ccsso.org Kathleen Paliokas,
Program Director, Kathleenp_at_ccsso.org Robin
Gelinas, Senior Policy Advisor,
robin.gelinas_at_educationcounsel.com
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com