These are my notes from the presentation by Louis Barlow (of Barlow Education Management Services) titled “Recent Developments in Oklahoma Teacher Evaluation” at the “21st Century Learning: Transitioning to the Common Core” conference at Southern Nazarene University in Oklahoma City on February 23, 2012. (Technically we’re in Bethany.) MY THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.
I ARRIVED A FEW MINUTES LATE TO THIS SESSION, SO MY INITIAL NOTES ARE INCOMPLETE
Also seems to be emphasis on teachers as leaders within the TLE framework
Options are to pilot one of the 3 models: Tulsa Public Schools Model, Danielson Model, or Marzano Model
– those are all 3 possible because they fit into a box designed by state law
– model had to be TLE: had to have research, validation, other requirements
Our old Oklahoma state evaluation had 20 criteria:
– preparation
– routine
– discipline
– learning environment
– establishes objectives
– stresses sequence
– relates objectives
– involves all learners
– explains content
– models
– monitors
– adjusts to monitoring
– guides practice
– independent practice
– establishes closure
– lesson plans
– student files
– grading patters
– student mastery
There was debate initially if the state would adopt a single model or give districts options, decision was made districts could select 1 of these 3 models
– door is also open to alternate models to be introduced which the state board could approve
Marzano has 60 criteria in 4 domains, most in the 1st domain of classroom strategies and behaviors
– other domains are planning and preparation, reflecting on teaching, collegiality and professionalism
Danielson model has 76 criteria fairly evenly distributed between four domains
– planning and preparation
– classroom environment
– instruction
– professional responsibilities
Originally the Oklahoma State Board of Education recommended that the $1.5 million allocated would only follow the “presumptive default model: Tulsa Public Schools Model”
– state department has confirmed via recent videoconferences that all three systems are going to remain available and viable in the years to come, if a school adopts one of these systems they will be able to continue with it
The SDE pushed for a ‘default’ system initially
– SDE protested against having to be experts on 3 different models, pushed at least for a default model that the SDE would be expert in and support more
– pilot year artifact is this “presumptive default” status for the TPS model
Two different principal evaluation systems available, Oklahoma districts must select one of these:
– McREL’s Principal Evaluation System and Reeve’s Leadership Performance matrix
$1.5 million will be allocated on an ADA basis, so the ‘default’ designation is less important today
5 Tier Rating Scale is critical
– some school districts are using 3
Scale is:
– superior
– highly effective
– effective
– needs improvement
– ineffective
Rubric system explains each possible rating by the leader (principal)
I think the rubric is insignificant: We will have a rubric that explains each possible rating, that information was available previously
MY THOUGHT: I’M THINKING THE RUBRICS ARE CRITICAL. THEY NOT ONLY GIVE THE RATER/EVALUATOR SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR HOW TO GRADE TEACHERS, BUT ALSO GIVE THAT SPECIFIC FEEDBACK TO THE TEACHER. RUBRICS HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC AND NEED TO INCLUDE LIMITED NUMBERS OF VARIABLES, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE UNCLEAR WHY A GIVEN RATING IS PROVIDED
From now on, any rating lower than a 3 “effective” will require explanation from the rater / evaluator
I’M WONDERING WHAT ACADEMIC STUDIES THERE ARE / HAVE BEEN DONE WHICH EXAMINE THE PHSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AT PLAY WITH TEACHER EVALUATION WITH STUDENTS. WE HEARD EARLIER THIS WEEK ABOUT HOW “98 – 100% OF TEACHERS ARE TYPICALLY RATED AT THE TOP OF THEIR STATE TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS.” I’M THINKING THERE ARE BIG PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AT PLAY WHEN IT COMES TO PRINCIPALS RATING TEACHERS BELOW EFFECTIVE. IF WE TRULY WANT TO ADDRESS THE SKEWED DISTRIBUTION IN TEACHER EVALUATION RESULTS, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND, AND EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THESE PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS. BY PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS, I MEAN THE RETICENCE WHICH LEADERS AND MANAGERS GENERALLY HAVE TO CRITICIZING THE WORK OF OTHERS / PUTTING SUBORDINATES ON IMPROVEMENT PLANS. I’D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT RESEARCH BASE.
Big question on everyone’s mind, asked at TLE Commission meeting
– Florida is on the leading edge of implementing quantitative data systems as part of teacher evaluation
– they brought in the guru from Florida who is building the data system
– commission member said: I asked about teachers in non-tested grade levels and non-tested content areas, because those teachers account for 70% of the teacher cadre
– the Florida data guru said: We’re not dealing with that very well now
– he said: we don’t know how this is going to work because this is our pilot year
HERE IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING SHARED TODAY AT THIS CONFERENCE: WE ARE ADOPTING A MODEL FOR HIGH STAKES TEACHER EVALUATION IN OKLAHOMA, MODELING OFF OF FLORIDA, WHICH DOES NOT MAP TO 70% OF OUR TEACHERS IN THE CLASSROOM
Growth model and value added models were considered
– growth model looks at where the student was last year and where s/he is this year
– value add model doesn’t compare student’s growth to last year, it says where is the student expected to be this year relative to where they were last year
Most important part of either model is your formula for defining “the expectation” of student performance
There was strong disagreement in our Oklahoma TLA commission, because the edu data guy from Florida said in reference to poverty: “Our data shows poverty does not have an impact on student performance”
“Anyone with career status now will not be affected” by the new model
new model to get tenure, teachers have to:
– complete 3 school years
– be rated as a superior for 2 of the 3 years
If teacher has been in 4 years and averaged effective, and in 2 of 4 years been better than effective, teachers can qualify for career status
This is saying we are raising the bar on becoming a career teacher in Oklahoma
Petition: If you have a teacher who over the past 4 years has not been rated effective, if principal and superintendent want to stand in front of the school board and grant career status to a defined “ineffective” teacher, they can do that
– only scenario I can imagine for that would be for a coach
The definition of effective instruction and ineffective instruction is now provided in our Oklahoma education code: number of years “ineffective” by TLE
Not sure what happens for career status for teachers in first or second year of teaching NOW
– SDE says “it’s a hold harmless year” this year unless district adopts new TLE system as a permanent system, not a pilot adoption
Reduction in Force Policies will need to be changed (RIF)
– in the past it’s been seniority-based in almost all cases
– state law now says primary criteria for RIF is ratings on TLE, NOT seniority
I ASKED LOUIS ABOUT COSTS FOR WEB-BASED TULSA MODEL TLA SOLUTION, IT WILL BE READY IN SUMMER 2012 AND COST $27.50 PER TEACHER WITH A 10% DISCOUNT AVAILABLE FOR DISTRICTS WHICH ARE MEMBER OF SOME COLLABORATIVES. (I DIDN’T WRITE THEM DOWN) ALSO I ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE SPECIFIC STATE BOARD MEETINGS WHEN THAT FLORIDA DATA GURU MADE THOSE STATEMENTS. HE SAID IT WAS PROBABLY IN SEPT OR OCT OF 2011. I’M GOING TO TRY AND TRACK DOWN THOSE BOARD MINUTES, AND MAYBE EVEN VIDEOS OF THE MEETINGS TO GET THE MAN’S NAME AND MORE INFO ABOUT THIS.
ALSO, RUSLANA WESTERLUND SHARED “High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond” By Douglas B. Reeves AS A STUDY WHICH FOUND POVERTY NOT RELATED TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.
