Teacher Evaluation Policy Implementation & Local Flexibility: Burden or Benefit?

Te a c h e r E v a l u a t i o n P o l i c y I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

a n d L o c a l F l e x i b i l i t y : B u r d e n o r B e n e fi t ?

S p o n s o r e d b y : S c h o o l I m p r o v e m e n t N e t w o r k | W r i t t e n a n d r e s e a r c h e d b y : C H G l o b a l S t r a t e g i e s , L L C

November 2013Research Report





S C H O O L I M P R O V E M E N T N E T W O R K

TEACHER EVALUATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION & LOCAL FLEXIBILITY: BURDEN OR BENEFIT?

Research Report

November 2013





Sponsored by:

School Improvement Network+

Written and researched by:

CH Global Strategies, LLC





Study of 50 state departmentof education officials who are responsible for

implementing teacher evaluation policy





How much freedom and flexibility do school districts and local schools have to

innovate in using technology toachieve their professional development needs?





The Results

37 Stateshave flexibility to develop their own

rubric

11 Stateshave a mandated rubric to use to

evaluate teachers

2 StatesCalifornia and Iowa

are still in flux or early implementation





The Results

DCWashington

D.C.

GAGeorgia

HIHawai’i

IDIdaho

MSMississippi

NENebraska

NMNew Mexico

NCNorth Carolina

OKOklahoma

WAWashington

WVWest Virginia

STATES WITH MANDATED INSTRUMENT(S)





Unintended Consequences

• A communication gap between states and local education agencies (LEAs) has led a significant percentage of LEAs to misunderstand the level of autonomy they have in designing their own teacher practice evaluation frameworks.

• The emphasis on compliance with ESEA Waivers at both the state and local levels – often accompanied by tight timelines – is leaving many LEAs little room to ensure that locally developed teacher evaluation rubrics are aligned with teacher practice to help ensure instructional improvement.





“Both states and districts have to ensure that

any system they develop is valid and reliable,

along with being legally defensible in arbitration,

and most districts are challenged by the time

and resources it takes to do this.”

– Janice Poda, Strategic Initiative Director, Education Workforce,

Council of Chief State School Officers.





50 State Survey

• In the 37 states where teacher evaluation legislation gives districts flexibility in designing or selecting a teacher-practice evaluation framework, that flexibility is often not clearly communicated to districts or clearly understood at the district level.

• 73 percent of our school district liaisons report their local education agencies are not at all or only vaguely aware of the flexibility they have in designing alternate teacher-practice evaluation rubrics.

• 74 percent of our school district liaisons say they are somewhat likely, very likely, or certain to be the primary source of LEAs’ information about their state’s teacher evaluation policy.

SURVEYED OUR 50 SCHOOL DISTRICT LIAISONS,WHO WORK DIRECTLY WITH MORE THAN 4,500 LEAS ACROSS THE COUNTRY





Reasons for Confusion

1. Vague or dense policy language• Delaware & Wisconsin

2. Failure on the part of the LEAs to thoroughly review written policy

3. Onerous alternate-rubric approval processes that often demand a quick turnaround

• approval process for alternate rubrics was daunting

• LEAs lacked the capacity to develop an alternate

• Wisconsin LEAs had two weeks to submit alternate choices





Teacher Survey

• Nearly half of evaluations use state-developed frameworks

• 70 percent of the educators surveyed do not believe the evaluation process in their school works effectively

• 67 percent believe their evaluations do not provide a fair and honest reflection of their work

• 46 percent of those surveyed say that their evaluations are not accompanied by professional development or other support that is aligned with the evaluation criteria.

SURVEYED 2,000 EDUCATORS IN 46 STATES





Conclusion

• States and LEAs still have work to do before evaluations truly reflect teacher practice.

• Technicalities are hindering LEAs’ desire and capacity to craftteacher practice rubrics that utilize local flexibility.

• LEAs default to state-developed frameworks instead of something that is better fit for local teaching practices.

• Teachers are dissatisfied with the evaluation process because it is not aligned to their practice.

– Flexibility allows teacher evaluations to align to local practice, with supports aligned to those evaluations, but is not being exercised. Until it is, evaluations will not have the potential of being effective.





Implications and Further Questions

1. Are states and districts grappling with too many teacher effectiveness policies?

2. Does teacher evaluation policy implementation occur too quickly to allow both local compliance and alignment to local practice?

3. Can quality and effectiveness of teacher evaluation systems be guaranteed?

• Are school leaders and teachers part of the policymaking process?

• How are evaluation policies unfolding at the principal level?

• What, if any, professional development guidelines are states calling for in their evaluation policies?





Recommendations

• Provide clear, direct and continuous communication about teacher evaluation policy to LEAs

• Allot more time for local implementation, and offer more assistance in building local capacity

• Carefully consider local educator needs when it comes to evaluation

• Provide thoughtful, judicious review of and feedback to the state about their teacher evaluation policy

• Include thoughtfully crafted professional development components so principals and teachers are supported in their work

STATE DEPARTMENTS OFEDUCATION LEAs POLICY





Documents

Teacher Evaluation Policy Implementation & Local Flexibility: Burden or Benefit?