Power Point on ESEA Flexibility Principle Three for June 13th Call

ESEA Flexibility Package – Principle Three:
Discussion of Guidelines Requirements and
Technical Assistance Opportunity
EducationCounsel LLC
Council of Chief State School Officers
June 13th and 15th, 2012
Background and Context
"ESEA Flexibility" package represents a significant, initial shift from a
compliance frame toward an innovation frame and a new state-federal
partnership in which states:
Present comprehensive plans re (1) implementation of CCR standards and
assessments, (2) design of CCR accountability and supports, and (3) movement on
teacher and leader evaluation (TLE) based on student achievement.
Receive greater flexibility in terms of waivers of current NCLB provisions, including
AYP, school improvement, and HQT.
For a significant number of states, this process provides an opportunity to
jump start or accelerate work in developing systems of educator evaluation
and effectiveness.
USED ESEA Flexibility TLE requirements are largely aligned with early adopter
states/ RTTT, but on an ambitious timeline. Approximately 20+ states are new
TLE entrants or accelerating efforts based on NCLB waivers
The purpose of this call is to continue discussions among states that are
accelerating or beginning new work on educator evaluation in response to
ESEA Flexibility with particular focus on the development and approval of state
This effort will provide your state with guidance and context on the U.S.
Department of Education guideline process, as well as an opportunity for
states to share information and communicate.
In addition, assistance will draw on the lessons of the fastest-moving states on
how to design, implement, and sequence use of evaluations in a manner that
is most likely to strengthen the profession and advance student outcomes.
USED ESEA Flexibility TLE Requirements
States must develop teacher and leader evaluation and support systems that
meet several baseline requirements:
Are used for continual improvement of instruction/student achievement
(including for SWDs and ELLs) [core NCLB 9401 waiver requirements]
Meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three performance levels
Use multiple valid measures, including a significant factor of student growth for all
students and 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 in tested grades
Inform personnel decisions
Additionally, states must explain their process for ensuring that each LEA will
develop and implement teacher and leader evaluation systems consistent with
state guidelines.
USED ESEA Flexibility Timeline for TLE Implementation
States have a 3-4-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: SEA must provide a high-quality plan for development of guidelines for
evaluation and support systems, process for ensuring LEA implementation, and
assurance that SEA has or will provide student growth data to teachers.
SY 2011-12: SEA must adopt "guidelines" for teacher and principal evaluation and
support systems; SEA must provide student growth data to teachers.
SY 2012-13: LEAs [or SEA] must develop evaluation and support systems consistent
with state guidelines.
SY 2013-14: LEAs must pilot implementation of evaluation and support systems.
SY 2014-15: LEAs must fully implement evaluation and support systems, with use for
personnel decisions beginning in SY 2015-16.
Substantive Guidance on TLE Guidelines
There have been a number of questions from states about what constitute
"guidelines." Based on conversations with USED, review of waiver guidance, review
of early adopter state plans, etc., it appears that guidelines must:
Demonstrate a clear, certain pathway to statewide design, implementation, and use over
the next 3-4 years through law, regulations, or possibly guidelines (depending on authority)
Set clear parameters that can guide district (and/or state) design decisions and ensure a
common level of quality, beginning in SY 2012-13
Incorporate student growth, consistent with USED definition, in a significant way across all
types of teachers and principals – this could mean setting a percentage, developing a
matrix, or tying growth outcomes to specific consequences
Address how the evaluation systems will reflect growth by students with disabilities and
English learners
Involve teachers and principals in design and implementation
Ensure educators receive feedback from the evaluation that can be used to improve
instruction and be linked to targeted professional development
Address in (at least) broad terms each of the USED ESEA Flexibility TLE requirements and
how the state will ensure district action consistent with those requirements and within the
required timeline, including through review, approval, and monitoring
Process for TLE Guidelines
Although conversations with and within USED continue, states will likely be
required to follow a process that includes submission of TLE guidelines in early
summer followed by USED review and approval. Specific steps may include:
States submit draft guidelines (by June 25th) along with an updated draft of
Principle Three for a separate review process by peers and USED, similar to
the process used for the broader application.
Feedback is expected to be a mix of ensuring requirements and providing
"technical assistance" and will be provided through peer review later this
summer so that states can make any necessary changes to guidelines. This
suggests that initial guidelines submitted by the state could be in draft or
pending further state action/approval based on feedback.
USED certifies that guidelines meet waiver requirements, and states fully
adopt guidelines by/near the beginning of SY 2012-13.
USED continues to monitor state progress through 2015-2016.
State Example: Colorado
Colorado submitted its guidelines as part of its comprehensive proposal in November
and was approved in February. Still in the midst of design, its guidelines, which
largely rely on state regulations (recently affirmed by state legislature), provide
potentially helpful markers regarding one example of appropriate substance and
level of detail.
 Colorado's regulations ( 1 CCR 301-87) address, at a high-level, the state's educator
performance standards and the elements of evaluation instruments generally, including:
broad requirements regarding growth and professional practice measures, the
frequency of the evaluation, and different categories of performance levels.
 Regulations also outline in a fairly non-detailed manner a number of processes (often
without substantive specificity) to accomplish key activities, most of which had not yet
occurred, including: the development of evaluation requirements, the design of a model
instrument, the provision of materials and resources to support and build district
capacity, and district training on the evaluation.
Notably, in both its guidelines and in regulations, Colorado provides a detailed
articulation of the state role in monitoring districts throughout the design and
implementation phases, and demonstrates clear authority and mechanisms to ensure
districts implement according to state requirements.
Promising Practices
Based on experiences from some of the fast-moving states and districts, there are
emerging lessons for states to consider:
Design: Experience of early states/districts has clarified pathways and options in terms of
system design, including range of current and improving measures, metrics, etc.
Implementation: Design is important, but implementation is key, and is best viewed as part of
design and continuous improvement. Ensure the state has allocated resources that sufficiently
support district capacity, training, monitoring and refinement.
Balance: The acceleration to develop guidelines and put in place new systems of educator
evaluation should not come at the expense of quality or buy in. States must find the right
balance and phase in for each context, particularly regarding "high-stakes" use (and there
may/should be flexibility in USED requirements in that regard).
Professional Development: Evaluation is an important under-pinning to a broader set of policy
reforms, and a broader focus on educator effectiveness. Movement on educator evaluation
along with data systems, Common Core, etc., provides an opportunity to advance reform re
embedded, collective professional development and practice.
Continuous Improvement: This is the big shift! TLE design will and should evolve based on
pilot, implementation, new data sources, etc. Build that into your plans – in policy, practice,
and communications.
Cross-State Discussion on TLE Guidelines
Where is your state in this process re TLE guidelines?
How is your state addressing the substantive requirements for
guidelines? Where are your challenges? Where could other
states learn from you?
How is your state planning to address the guidelines submission
process? What if any concerns do you have re authority,
timelines, etc.?
How can this group be most helpful?
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/main/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 - www.educationcounsel.com/resources/publications.aspx
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/teacherevaluation-2.0/
Driving Alignment and Implementation: The Role of the Principalship in ESEA Flexibility http://www.newleaders.org/newsreports/publications/esea/?utm_source=ESEA%2Bpersonal%2
Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observations with Student Survey and
Achievement Gains - http://www.metproject.org/
Measuring Student Achievement in Non-‐Tested Grades and Subjects: Approaches, Issues, and
Options for DCPS, District of Columbia Public Schools, October 2011
Scott Palmer, Managing Partner, EducationCounsel, [email protected]
Robin Gelinas, Senior Policy Advisor, EducationCounsel, [email protected]
Mary-Dean Barringer, Educator in Residence, CCSSO, [email protected]

similar documents