was developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (PDE) over three .... A teacher career ladder program is a mu
Teacher Evaluations & Student Achievement: A Progress Report December 2012 Pennsylvania, like many states, has taken critical steps to improve teacher effectiveness, ensuring that every child benefits from an effective teacher — a teacher that ensures every child learns at least a year’s worth of knowledge for every year spent in a classroom. But more work remains.
was designed to ensure it addressed the real-world concerns and dynamics of educating our children. Perhaps not surprisingly, some educators who took part in developing the evaluation system came into the effort with skepticism. John F. Berry, a kindergarten teacher in Lancaster County’s Penn Manor School District, said he has seen too many well-intentioned efforts to help teachers “get so wrapped up in theory, politics and red tape that by the time they reach us in the field, they are no longer useful.” As the process unfolded, Berry said he felt “fortunate” to help develop the new teacher evaluation system.
How do we help our public school teachers become more effective? The same way we help our students achieve — by giving them the constructive feedback and supportive resources they need to reach their full potential.
“In my opinion, the key component throughout the entire experience has been communication,” Berry said. “Formal and informal discussions among the administration and staff, with the goal in mind that we want to be better teachers for our children, are critical to the success of the process.”
MOVING FORWARD WITH BETTER EVALUATIONS
Jim Moczydlowski, an elementary school principal in Bucks County’s Quakertown Community School District, said the process has helped shift evaluations away from “something that happens to a teacher” to “something that a teacher participates in and owns.”
Pennsylvania took a significant step this year by enacting major improvements to the way we evaluate educators in district-operated public schools. The new evaluation system takes effect in the 2013-14 school year for teachers and the 2014-15 school year for principals and other non-teaching professionals.
By having agreed upon goals for teacher performance, Moczydlowski said his school is able to “target areas for teacher development that will have a direct impact on student learning.”
The improved teacher evaluations will go beyond merely categorizing educators as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” and provide substantive feedback teachers can use to improve in the classroom — similar to the feedback we rely on our teachers to give their students so they can improve. The new evaluation system was developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) over three years in partnership with more than 300 local education agencies, 24,000 teachers and 2,000 supervisors, including principals and superintendents. This labor intensive process
papartnerships.org
717.236.5680 800.257.2030 116 Pine Street, Suite 430 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1244
1
MULTIPLE MEASURES MEAN BETTER TEACHER FEEDBACK
“Educating a child is really a team effort,” said Dr. Carolyn Dumaresq, PDE’s Deputy Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. “We need to recognize that many people in a school — classroom teachers, principals and support staff alike — can impact a student’s academic success. And everyone who plays a part in creating a solid learning environment for that child deserves to benefit from meaningful evaluations that can help them do their jobs better.”
Unlike previous evaluation methods, which often relied on a single classroom observation, the new evaluation system incorporates multiple measures of student achievement to account for half of a teacher’s overall evaluation. The student performance component in Pennsylvania’s new evaluation system does not rely on any single, high-stakes test. Rather, it couples more robust observation with multiple measures of student performance.
THE WORK AHEAD While Pennsylvania’s improved teacher evaluation system provides a powerful new tool for improving our schools, it is not — and should not be — the end of the discussion on how we can put an effective teacher in every classroom. Instead, it should be a catalyst for further dialogue on how effective teaching fuels student achievement.
Instead of simply labeling a teacher as “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory,” teachers will now be evaluated using four rating categories — failing, needs improvement, proficient and distinguished. Educators who receive a rating of “needs improvement” or “failing” will be required to participate in a performance improvement plan. It is important to note that no educator can be given a rating of needs improvement or failing based solely on student test scores — a reflection of the commitment to using multiple measures to gauge teacher performance.
There are several significant issues related to teacher effectiveness that still warrant discussion among policymakers, educators and taxpayers.
Teacher Induction and Mentoring
Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluations
“Induction and mentoring” generally refers to programs that provide new teachers with the professional support and guidance needed to succeed in their field and grow throughout their careers. Induction is not merely in-service training for beginning teachers, but rather “a bridge from student of teaching to teacher of students.”i
Building Level Data Building Level Data 15%
Teacher Specific Data 15%
PSSA Achievement PVAAS Growth Graduation Rate Promotion Rate Attendance Rate AP Course Participation
Teacher Specific Data
Induction and mentoring are not interchangeable terms. While induction should include high-quality mentoring, having mentoring alone doesn’t constitute an actual induction program. Research suggests “the most effective induction programs offer bundles or packages of supports and, in particular, provide beginning teachers a mentor from the same field and the opportunity to participate in group or collective planning and collaborative activities.”ii
PVAAS Growth
Elective Data 20%
Observation/Evidence 50%
Elective Data/Student Learning Objectives District Designed Measures Nationally Recognized Tests Industry Certification Exams Student Projects/Portfolios
Observation/Evidence Danielson Framework for Effective Teaching
Public school entities in our state are required to submit teacher induction plans as part of their strategic plans to PDE every six years.iii, iv Plans only include first-year teachers, long-term substitutes and educational specialists. There are two requirements for district induction programs: mentoring and activities focused on teaching diverse learners in inclusive settings.v There is clearly room for improvement.
NOTE: For teachers in non-tested grades and subjects, measures will include observation/evidence (50%), building-level data (15%) and elective data (35%)
Taken together, these measures will help create individualized improvement plans for teachers who are struggling and help schools target professional development efforts more strategically. This is a marked improvement over previous approaches to teacher evaluations, which too often gave little or no feedback on a teacher’s classroom strengths or areas where improvement was needed.
Consider the findings of the state-by-state analysis by the New Teacher Center:
School building leaders also will be part of the new evaluation system. The effectiveness of principals will be measured using multiple criteria, such as their managerial skills (budgeting, scheduling and staffing, problem solving, etc.) and their abilities to cultivate a positive, supportive culture that promotes continuous student growth and staff development. The new evaluation system also has tools to provide useful feedback to non-teaching professionals, such as school counselors, nurses, psychologists, and occupational and physical therapists.
• 27 states require beginning teachers to have some form of induction or mentoring, and 11 of those require induction programs to be at least two years. • 22 states require completion of or participation in an induction program for higher level teacher certification. • 17 states provide some form of dedicated state funding to support induction programs.
An evaluation system that goes beyond classroom teachers acknowledges the impact other school professionals can have on student achievement.
• Only three states — Connecticut, Delaware and Iowa — share all three of the above characteristics.
2
papartnerships.org
Research underscores the benefits of high-quality teacher induction programs on student achievement. Students of beginning level teachers who benefitted from induction “had higher scores, or gains, on academic achievement tests” and their teachers had better classroom practices.vi A U.S. Department of Education study found that while there was no associated level of increased student achievement for school districts with one-year induction programs, there was a statistically significant increase in student achievement for school districts with two-year induction programs.vii
Career Ladders A teacher career ladder program is a multi-level, performancebased system of teaching positions and compensation levels designed to provide opportunities for effective teachers to advance professionally without leaving the classroom. Teachers in career ladder programs can take on additional leadership roles or teaching responsibilities — such as mentoring and training less experienced or less effective teachers. Career ladders also can help place the most effective teachers with the students of greatest need by serving as an incentive in high-need, hard-to-staff schools.
such as student achievement and observed teacher performance. In most other fields, professionals are compensated based on performance and results, but educator compensation is based largely on seniority and degree attainment. Some performance-based compensation models address the value of the jobs and may include incentives or higher salaries for teachers in hard-to-staff subjects and schools. Studies conducted in North Carolina, New York and Texas suggest appropriate incentives for teachers to work in high-poverty schools can help with recruitment and retention.xi
A lack of career advancement opportunities often results in highly effective and motivated teachers opting to leave the classroom — where they are needed most — to pursue leadership, professional growth and higher salaries elsewhere. Teachers are more likely to leave the profession when they cannot advance, work closely with colleagues or expand their influence within schools.viii Career ladder programs can increase student achievement by retaining effective teachers to mentor and train less experienced teachers and incentivize the most effective teachers to teach students with the greatest need.
The single most important precursor for a successful performance-based compensation system is a robust educator evaluation system that includes multiple measures of teacher performance, differentiates among performance levels, and provides specific, actionable feedback to improve.xii Pennsylvania’s new educator evaluation system will provide this critical piece. Although research around the relationship between performance-based compensation and student achievement has been mixed, many past attempts at rewarding teachers based on performance were based on less robust evaluation systems that did not include multiple measures or provided narrow, one-time bonuses unconnected to comprehensive reform efforts.
Schools have been implementing career ladder programs for more than 20 years. An example is the TAP System for Student and Teacher Advancement operated by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, a school reform model that incorporates career ladders for teachers with rigorous teacher evaluations, professional development and performance-based compensation. TAP is in place in nearly 350 mostly high poverty schools across the country and provides opportunities for teachers to advance up the career ladder from “career teacher” to “mentor teacher” to “master teacher.” Schools participating in TAP show consistently high rates of student achievement growth, growth over time in the quality of teacher instruction and increased recruitment and retention of effective teachers.ix
A promising model is Denver Public School’s Professional Compensation Program (ProComp), a performance-based compensation system that rewards teachers for accomplishments leading to enhanced student learning. Participation is optional for veteran teachers and mandatory for new ones. A 2010 evaluation of ProComp found overall student outcomes rose substantially across grades and subjects and teacher recruitment and retention increased, although the results could not be tied directly to the ProComp system.xiii
The Pittsburgh Public Schools implemented a career ladder program last year to provide promotional opportunities for effective teachers to take on leadership responsibilities without leaving the classroom. The career ladder roles include additional compensation ($9,300 or $11,300 a year depending on the role) for fulfilling additional responsibilities associated with the position and working additional days during the year.x
Philadelphia’s Mastery Charter Schools’ Performance Based Compensation System (PBCS) is another good example. All schoolbased staff in Mastery Charter Schools are paid using PBCS, which compensates teachers, principals and other school personnel solely on the basis of performance (student achievement, Mastery values, leadership, and classroom observation data).xiv
Performance-based Compensation Performance-based compensation links educators’ salaries and/or financial awards to some combination of measurable outputs,
papartnerships.org
3
Last In, First Out (LIFO) “Last In, First Out” (LIFO) furloughs based on seniority require school districts to terminate the most recent hires first, regardless of their effectiveness in raising student achievement. Pennsylvania is among only 11 states that ban school districts from considering any factor other than seniority when making furlough decisions. Research indicates that more than 80 percent of teachers who lose their jobs in seniority-based layoffs are higher performing than the teachers who remain in the classroom and, as a result, student achievement declines.xv LIFO disproportionately impact schools serving high-need students and students of color in our poorest communities, as these districts tend to have a greater percentage of newer and lower compensated teachers. When furloughs occur, the poorest schools are likely to see 25 percent more layoffs than their wealthier counterparts, and schools serving the largest minority populations are likely to lose 60 percent more teachers than schools with the fewest minority students.xvi
Tenure Reform Tenure is intended to provide academic freedom for teachers and protection from being dismissed for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. Tenured teachers cannot be terminated without lengthy due process and just cause. In Pennsylvania, teachers are granted tenure after three years on the job if they are found to be satisfactory. Tenured teachers in Pennsylvania may be terminated for two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings.
Pennsylvania’s policymakers and its public school leaders must commit to providing the tools and resources to make the evaluations useful for professional growth and development. Data from new evaluation tools should be used to assign high performing teacher to struggling students. As we move forward in our collective efforts to improve teacher effectiveness, we must maintain an open dialogue among all stakeholders and be prepared to have frank discussions about induction and mentoring, performancebased compensation, career ladders, LIFO, tenure reform and other issues that will emerge.
The process for granting tenure is virtually automatic and does little to ensure students have effective teachers in the classroom. The due process provisions in most tenure laws and collective bargaining agreements are so lengthy, cumbersome and expensive that administrators sometimes refuse to initiate the process of terminating tenured teachers, unless their actions are extremely egregious.xvii Data from the U.S. Department of Education’s 200708 Schools and Staffing Survey indicates that Pennsylvania school districts, on average, dismiss or decline to renew only 0.6 percent of teachers for poor performance each year.xviii
Our goal is simple: We must take aggressive steps to assure every Pennsylvania student achieves to our academic standards and give educators the tools they need to be effective.
Historic reluctance by states to tackle teacher tenure issues appears to be fading. New Jersey, which has the nation’s oldest tenure law, recently enacted extensive reforms that tie the acquisition of tenure to teacher effectiveness. The new law also extends the time it takes to attain tenure from three years to four, and it reduces the time and cost for removing teachers who are repeatedly ineffective at improving student outcomes. A number of other states — including Delaware, Illinois, Michigan and Tennessee — also are tackling tenure reform.
This report was made possible with funding support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William Penn Foundation, though the findings and conclusions in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of either foundation.
CONCLUSION Pennsylvania’s educators need and deserve meaningful information and guidance to improve in their work. Better educator evaluations are a critical piece of that effort, and the implementation of the new evaluation system will be a marked improvement in the commonwealth’s work to create a better system of public education. But evaluations by themselves are not enough.
Source materials for footnotes can be found at papartnerships.org/work/k12/k12-reports
116 Pine Street, Suite 430 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-236-5680 • 800-257-2030
4
papartnerships.org
