Reform Alert
PEAC and Teacher Evaluation
The Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) met yesterday to complete its work on new model evaluation guidelines for teachers and will present its recommendations to the State Board of Education at the board’s June 27 meeting.
While there are some good things in the recommendations which we fought hard for and made improvements all along the way, we are still concerned about the overreliance on test scores in the evaluation process. Hundreds of research reports, articles and surveys show that using standardized tests to evaluate teachers is unreliable and unsuccessful and does not improve student performance. But despite these reports which were presented to PEAC, the guidelines to evaluate teacher performance still rely heavily on student test scores—a practice with which CEA does not agree.
Under the guidelines, 45% percent of a teacher’s evaluation would be based on multiple indicators of student academic growth and development (which includes tests). CEA and other groups shared an understanding reached by consensus at a January meeting that half of that 45% would be based on state standardized tests (CMT and CAPT) – or other standardized tests for non-tested subjects and grades. The “other 22.5%” would not include standardized test scores.
Against CEA’s strong objections and opposition, the “other 22.5%” allows one standardized test if the teacher and evaluator mutually agree on this. If a second standardized measure is used, there must be a minimum of one nonstandard indicator also used. Selection of indictors is subject to a dispute resolution process.
CEA is disputing the decision and urging the State Board of Education to reject allowing the “other 22.5%” to also include test scores, because it was not the direction agreed to by consensus at the January 25 PEAC meeting.
Another 40% of teacher evaluation would be based on observation of teacher practice and performance.
Other key issues
Much of yesterday’s meeting revolved around discussions of a dispute resolution process for ironing out differences that may occur between a teacher and administrator during the evaluation and goal-setting processes.
An acceptable compromise was reached to ensure fair processes in all aspects of the evaluation process. The guidelines presented on Thursday proposed a dispute resolution for only the goal setting and selection of indicators, but CEA pushed for it in all aspects of the evaluation process—continuing the dispute process that districts currently use or must develop.
When a dispute arises regarding teacher evaluations, all parties must work collaboratively. If there is no agreement reached on the resolution process, districts must utilize the state model, which includes agreeing to a third party arbitrator at the outset of the process, before a dispute occurs.
CEA also debated two other major sticking points at length at yesterday’s meeting including how teachers will be rated and assessed utilizing parent/student/school feedback, as well as procedures for dispute resolution.
According to PEAC, 5% of teacher evaluations will be based on whole-school student learning indicators or student feedback, while an additional 10% will be based on parent or peer feedback, which may include surveys—and the parental surveys would be anonymous.
We are very concerned about teachers being judged anonymously, because it’s unfair and impossible to validate. After much discussion, and upon CEA’s urging, it was decided that teachers will be encouraged to work collectively on items identified in the whole-school survey as needing improvement. Teachers would show how they contributed to the overall school goal.
Principal evaluations
PEAC also discussed principal evaluation guidelines, and the orientation and training for those conducting teacher evaluations. CEA urged training for teachers as well. The new reform law only requires teachers to have “orientation” regarding new evaluation models, while administrators will be better prepared with complete “training.” The State Department of Education confirmed it is committed to training for teachers in the pilot program and will move forward in that direction.
Next steps
We await a final draft of what was discussed at Thursday’s meeting. The PEAC model evaluation guidelines will be presented to the State Board of Education at a special meeting on June 27. CEA will continue to urge education stakeholders and Board of Education members to focus on providing quality education and improving student performance, while not relying heavily on the use of test scores in teacher evaluations.
We will of course keep you updated on new developments throughout the summer.
Two CEA district schools invited to participate in Commissioner’s Network
The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) today invited the Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and Norwich school districts to convene turnaround committees and develop turnaround plans for schools to be considered for selection into the Commissioner’s Network for the 2012-2013 school year. The schools include:
· Bridgeport Public Schools: James J. Curiale School (CEA)
· Norwich Public Schools: John B. Stanton School (CEA)
· Hartford Public Schools: Core Knowledge Academy at the Thirman L. Milner School (AFT-CT)
· New Haven Public Schools: High School in the Community (HSC) (AFT-CT)
Waterbury and Norwalk school districts were invited to apply for a planning grant to prepare for possible selection into the Network for the 2013-2014 school year.
The Commissioner’s Network was created as part of education reform law. It authorizes intensive interventions in 25 of Connecticut’s lowest performing schools over the next three years. Each school is in the bottom 10% in the state and has been deemed a high-priority, low-performing turnaround, focus, or review school under Connecticut’s new system of school classification and accountability. Each of the four schools has previously been designated as “in need of improvement” under No Child Left Behind for four or more years, and each has more than 75% of students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch.
Commissioner’s Network
• Schools participate for three schools years with option for an additional two years
• Commissioner/State BOE must pay all costs attributable to implementing turnaround plan in excess of ordinary operating school expenses
• Commissioner may provide financial support to teachers and administrators
• Collective bargaining agreements are preserved in network schools, except to the extent that any provisions are modified by any memorandum of understanding or turnaround plan negotiated under the expedited bargaining process
• Turnaround plans may include proposals changing the length of the school day and year, and the hiring and reassignment of teachers and administrators, among other items
• Modifications to collective bargaining agreements must be negotiated on an expedited basis that concludes, if necessary, in binding arbitration that places the “highest priority” on the educational interest of the state, as such interests relate to the children enrolled in such school.
• In some instances, only the financial impact of such modifications may be bargained
Turnaround Committee represents the school district:
· One administrator and one parent appointed by the local boards of ed
· Three appointed by the teacher unions (at least two must be teachers and one a parent of a student in the district)
· The education commissioner, or his designee
A final selection of districts and their eligible schools will be made by late July or early August on the basis of the strength and feasibility of the turnaround plan that is submitted.
We will continue working on education reform issues and keep you updated on the latest education reform news and issues.
Phil Apruzzese, CEA President
No comments:
Post a Comment