Title: ESEA Flexibility Package
1ESEA Flexibility Package
Implications for State Teacher and Leader
Evaluation Systems
2Background 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.
3ESEA 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.
4Focus 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
5Specific 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
6Specific 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.
7Timeline 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.
8Analysis 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.
9Analysis 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.
10Analysis 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.
11Analysis 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.
12Analysis 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).
13Analysis 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.
14Waiver 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.
15Waiver 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.
16Suggested 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?
17Suggested 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.?
18Resources
- 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/
19Resources
- 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
20Questions?
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