We’re moving into an era of school accountability and teacher evaluation. Earlier this year the Legislature passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 95. This law gives schools new authority to fire, discipline or nonrenew teachers based on student WKCE test scores as long as this was not the sole reason. We know that the WKCE was never intended to be a measurement of student learning or teacher effectiveness, but rather a snapshot in time tied to the punitive measures of the federal so-called “No Child Left Behind” law. We also know that arbitrary decision-making will ultimately hurt students as it becomes more difficult to attract and retain quality educators.
With passage of Senate Bill 95, as well as similar laws being passed across the country, it’s crucial that educators have a voice in any system that is going to gauge the effectiveness of staff and schools. We must advocate for fair and workable evaluation systems that rely less on standardized test scores and more on multiple measures of teaching practice and student growth. That’s why our union chose to participate in the State Superintendent’s Educator Effectiveness Design Team.
“Having a voice on the team means sharing our views for what we want in an evaluation system,” WEAC President Mary Bell said. “Our belief in the role of evaluations to improve practice – not penalize teachers – is why we’re a participant in this process.”
Recently the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction released a Framework for Educator Effectiveness. The collaborative design team, led by State Superintendent Tony Evers, included a representative from WEAC’s membership, leadership and staff.
The recommendations released by the team are packaged as a comprehensive plan that is based on multiple measures of practice and student outcomes and looks to improve instruction rather than assign blame or unfair labels to the complex work we do every day.
This is a big step in education reform. Teacher evaluation and school accountability are sometimes scary terms that educators often have seen as unfair assessment of performance and too simplistic. But with the state poised to take advantage of a waiver in the No Child Left Behind laws, and modern education moving to new methods of evaluation we have to – as a union of educators representing the professionals in the classroom – seek meaningful solutions on this important topic.
Here is a rundown of what’s in the Framework:
How does the system balance educator practice and student outcomes?
The Design Team agreed to a 50-50 balance between educator practice and student outcomes.
What standards will the educator practice measures be based upon?
For teachers, the 2011 InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) Model Core Teaching Standards will be used to evaluate effective teacher practice. The InTASC model was part of the basis of the teaching standards at the heart of PI-34. Additionally, the domains and components of Charlotte Danielson’s “A Framework for Teaching” will be used to provide definition and specificity to the InTASC standards (for more on the rubrics in this system visit danielsongroup.org).
How will student outcomes be measured in the new system?
Measures of student achievement will comprise 50 percent of the overall evaluation system (with educator practice measures making up the other half). Under the proposed system, standardized test scores would make up just 15 percent of the overall evaluation system and wouldn’t apply to teachers working in non-tested areas. The proposal includes multiple measures of student outcome, including:
-
Individual, value-added data on state standardized tests.
-
District-adopted standardized assessment results.
-
Student learning objectives established by teachers and administrators.
-
District choice of data based on improvement strategies.
-
School-wide reading scores for elementary and middle school levels; graduation rate for high school.
Will the Framework include performance ratings?
Three performance categories will apply to educators across the state:
-
Developing: This rating describes professional practice and impact on student achievement that does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action.
-
Effective: This rating describes solid, expected professional practice and impact on student achievement – educators rated as effective will have areas of strength as well as areas for improvement that will be addressed through professional development.
-
Exemplary: This rating describes outstanding professional practice and impact on student achievement – educators rated as exemplary will continue to expand their expertise through professional development opportunities and will be encouraged to utilize their expertise though leadership opportunities.
For more information and to read the full Framework report, click here.