May 2015 State Board of Education Review

NCAE SBE Review May 2015 M A Y

2 0 1 5

Proposed Revisions to Standard Six of the Teacher Evaluation Policy Standard Six continues to be an area of concern for teachers and administrators. Concerns range from teachers who don’t have their own data to populate Standard Six, to teachers concerned that test scores really will be the only area of the evaluation that counts. The NCEES was created to be a growth model. The NC DPI along with the State Board of Education, as well as NCAE, have informed teachers and principals numerous times that a teacher will not be dismissed based solely on Standard Six. There is a culture of fear in many LEAs and/or schools that if the student data is not in the green or blue area of the EVAAS dashboard that a teacher’s career is over.

The concerns have reached a critical mass and the NC DPI presented a draft policy proposal regarding Standard Six to address concerns over data, lack of data, and impact on one’s effective rating. The proposal tries to address the use of NC Final Exams, and Analyzing Student Work along with the state standardized EOG/C assessments.

Current policy defines what will be used to populate Standard Six; impacting student growth. Three years of rolling data on EOGs in grades 3-8, EOCs for high school math, English and Science, CTE post assessments, K-3 check points using mClass and Reading 3D, NC Final Exams and ASW in non-standardized tested subjects. Many LEAs have received waivers from the use of NC Final Exams and will have school-wide data to be used for teachers in non-tested areas. The practice of using other teacher data for Standard Six has created unintended consequences.

The proposed policy changes include: 

Eliminating waivers from NC Final Exams, however locals would still be able to use the NC Final Exams



No longer using school-wide data for teachers of non-tested subjects



Allowing districts to create their own assessments for non-tested subjects that would be used across the district in specific subject areas with the commitment of implementation for at least three years



Teachers without their own test data would be marked N/A for Standard Six, using only Standards 1-5 for their evaluation



Change in policy to clarify the evaluation process:

NCAE members what do you think? What components do you agree or disagree with in regards to proposed changes? Please share your comments by May 20 so we can provide feedback to the NC DPI and SBE.

NCAE SBE Review May 2015

PAGE

2

Discussion on State Testing Task Force Recommendations The SBE discussed the proposals for changing how NC assesses students based on the work of the State Task Force on Assessment.

The proposed 3-8 model calls for eliminating the current EOGs in math and reading and replacing with periodic/interim assessments throughout the school year that would be both formative and summative.

Formative is needed to assist with instruction throughout the year and support students with intervention or mastery as needed during a school year, not at the end of a school year. One rationale of the task force in implementing EOGs and having three or four periodic assessments would eliminate the district’s use of local benchmark assessments and provide more time to teach.

Discussion around this proposal included how will K-2 be included, as well as would these periodic assessments become as high stakes as the EOGs. The proposal would call for teachers having Pacing Guides to ensure curriculum standards are taught within a certain timeframe to ensure skills are mastered prior to a snapshot periodic assessment. Would the state move to three of four interim assessments? Would the assessments build upon each other, be stand alone and would two or three of the interim assessments be required or optional? What would be the feedback turnaround time, as that is a major flaw with the current system of assessment. Will these assessments be nationally normed, purchased by a vendor, and will the same assessment be used state-wide? What will be the cost for the state and the districts?

K-3 has a single assessment system that is formative in nature. There is mClass and Reading 3D along with EVAAS data in grade 3. The K-2 assessments have been consistent since 2014 and provide benchmarks for progress monitoring along the way. Using practices currently in place, mClass, and R3D, R2A, Response to Instruction that is becoming Multiple Tiered Support System and the KEA process, K-3 is on the “right� path being called for by the Task Force.

The high school proposal calls for eliminating the EOCs and replacing with a pre/post-test model with grade level assessments at grades 9,10, and 11. The discussion centered on the ACT Suite of assessments as the pre/post with the ACT in grade 11 being the post assessment. The ACT may not be totally aligned to state curriculum and the cost is going up as ACT moves to the Inspire Model.. ACT does not provide proficiency data and would not support the A-F grading of schools. The proposed change would create a call for school-wide data to be used for all teachers. NC Final Exams could be used at the discretion of the LEA. The Task Force is asking LEAs to pilot new assessment processes. There would be a need for Standard assessments, a single or multiple vendor to assist in development. Twenty-three LEAs expressed an interest and 16 have responded to the survey. One question of the LEAs interested in piloting was would they have to participate in the current EOG/G process? A pilot LEA has to commit to this for a three-year period in order to collect valid data, standards review, and match the NC Content Standards. Costs would be covered by the locals and there will need to be professional development for teachers with new implementation.

The high school model will call for legislative changes, alignment with proficiency as well as growth data, and funding. A few LEAs have been involved in a similar format of assessing and have been asked to share best practices and what lessons were learned.

LEAs that have expressed an interest in piloting a new format of assessing students: Surry, Davie, Davidson, and Mt. Airy as a collaborative. Cumberland, Bladen, Columbus, Harnett and Richmond as a collaborative. New Hanover, Mooresville Graded City, Hickory and Johnston.

NCAE SBE REVIEW MAY 2015

PAGE

MORE INFORMATION ON TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS AND STANDARD SIX

As the SBE discussed issues around teacher quality, teacher effective ratings and how other states evaluate teachers using test data and other components, the following was shared: In Tennessee, teachers receive a rating based on the following components, which is very similar to other states. NC made a great effort to create an evaluation process that all standards were equal. NC standards are independent of each other and in other states the model is more cumulative with weighted measures.

Rating % TN Standards 33

Student Growth

15

Student Achievement

40

Observations (Charlotte Danielson Model)

5

Student Survey

5

Professionalism

As noted on page one of the discussion surrounding decision points for proposed changes for Standard Six; items centered on weighting the standards, eliminating Standard Six, adding student surveys that do connect to the constructs of our standards, and clarifying the sanction for not being an effective or highly effective teacher.

Not Using Standard Six

Rating

Using Standard Six

3%

Not Proficient

16%

51%

Proficient

64%

46%

Above Proficient

20%

NCAE members please share your ideas, suggestions or reflections on the proposed changes regarding student assessment, and teacher evaluation policy changes connected to Standard Six. Send your comments to Angela.Farthing@ncae.org by May 20.

Your feedback will be shared with the SBE and NC DPI staff as well as other policymakers.

Thank you in Advance!

3

NCAE SBE Review MAY 2015 PAGE

4

Comprehensive Plan for Supporting Under Performing Schools

In responding to Judge Manning’s recent Leandro hearing, NC DPI has created several areas of support, some of which have action items already in place.

1. Student Access: including Universal Pre-K, flexible calendars, digital resources and MTSS 2. Highly Qualified Teachers: Effectiveness Model, EVAAS data tools for improving instruction, Regional PD and in some LEAs Project Lift 3. School Leaders/Administration: Targeted Regional PD, Partnerships, Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tools 4. District Leadership/Administration: Authority of taking over a local school board, or central office based on ineffective leadership and support, and Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tools 5. The SBE suggesting adding Leveraging Community Engagement and Quality Partnerships

Other SBE Action 1.

Approved waiver requests for Wake in participating in ASW and NC Final Exams.

2.

Reviewed the proposed revisions of the NC Benefits and Employment Manual.

3.

Reviewed educational bills that have met crossover and/or have been sent to appropriations.

4.

Approved the rubric for NC Global-Ready District Implementation

5.

Reviewed comparison of select elements of ESEA proposals.

6.

Discussed the move to change how Students with Disabilities receive support and/or labeled with proper IDEA definitions. Public comments were shared and there are some educators and community members wo do not want the SBE to move forward with changes. The NC DPI staff want to move away from using IQ as the only identifier for a child being labeled as one with a Learning Disability, as this is not a best practice and sets a student up to fail before support can be provided. The change covers research-based approaches that will benefit the students and create more collaboration among educators.



Early Invention will include more than just an IQ discrepancy



Focus on instruction and intervention using the MTTS [Multiple Tiered Support System] which encompasses Response to Instruction Model



Increased accuracy in eligibility decisions and fewer students being labeled SLD

NCAE SBE Review May 2015